Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

How did the Democrats lose, and where do they go from here? [post elec

democrats liberals prez45 clinton bernie sanders

  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#1 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 12 November 2016 - 10:02 AM

I have said multiple times in the President-elect [the post election thread] that we should have a separate thread about all the ways this election went wrong for/by the democrats. There is certainly enough to discuss about the President-elect over there without muddying it with another completely worthy discussion on how the Democrats failed. So, I thought I'd start one.

I think for a lot of people it is not that the Democrats lost, it can be hard for a party to keep the Presidency after 8 years, but to loose against the worst candidate every, Donald Trump? Criticism of him though, and how to oppose him, I feel belong in the other thread. How he was able to beat Democrats could go here, because he beat Democrats, and that is part of what this thread is about.

I personally think the election was so close, that if any one of the many myriad factors that lead to results they did were different, that HRC could have won. I was reading an article that said if 1 in 100 voters where changed from DT voters to HRC voters then HRC would have won.

But that doesn't mean that we should be complacent about what this election has shown about democratic weakness in the electoral college. This is the 2nd time in 16 years democrats have won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.

We can be not happy with that, and think the electoral college needs changing, but lets not discuss that it needs changing, and discuss why democrats are having such problems with appealing to people that they either voted for Donald Trump or just stayed home?
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#2 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 12 November 2016 - 10:13 AM

This article suggest that Clinton might end up winning the popular vote by about 2%, as there are about 7 million ballots left to count (absentee and provisional ballots mostly), but they are by and large for safe democratic states so are not going to change the electoral college results. They also caution against liberals seeing this as a win, or vindication though.

http://www.theatlant...nd-grow/507455/
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#3 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 12 November 2016 - 11:56 AM

Well if you're a superstitious person, Obama going on late night tv and pretty much implying the election is over, with his whole "Well, @realdonaldtrump, at least I will go down as A president." You could say that helped jinx it. As did the media assuming the election was already won, reporting it as already in the bad, which helped to depress voter turnout.

Personally though, I think Comey's letter to Congress, 11 days before the election, tipped the outcome in Trump's favor.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#4 Mary Rose

Mary Rose

    Charlie's Asthmatic Angel

  • Moderator
  • 22,346 posts

Posted 12 November 2016 - 12:35 PM

They were mistaken in thinking they had it in the bag.  When they lost Congress instead of asking themselves why, they just said, oh, well our voters just didn't show up to vote.  Maybe they should have at least entertained the thought that they did and voted against them.  I see them saying again low voter turnout and maybe that's true but they should at least consider that maybe all they stand for doesn't appeal to everyone.

They counted their chickens before they were hatched.  Maybe they'll learn something for the next election.
Mary Rose, Official Missionary for the Church of Beka angst.  Please join us for worship at the EI fanfic board.  Jill-- on what my name badge should say.
Proud Andromeda and Forever Knight fanfic writer
    Posted Image           Posted Image           Posted Image
Proud parent of thriving Beka and Tracy muses
Posted Image

#5 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 12 November 2016 - 12:51 PM

This is a difficult postmortem to do, but I've given it some thought.First, the result wasn't a landslide [as Trump voters like to claim[.  Even the polls were not wrong, but you have to understand statistics and polling to actually see that.  

People look at the electoral map and see a swath of Red and conclude that it was a landslide.  It wasn't.  The electoral college [with the exception of Nebraska and Maine] is a winner take all.  The states that were predicted to swing for Clinton that went for Trump were all WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR.  Unless you know statistics, that might not sound like anything to talk about, but it is most important.  It's why I was nervous about this election all along.  

The margin of error always gave a good chance for Trump to win.  Anyone who didn't get that, again, wasn't paying attention.  

I can't find the info right now [and it might have changed by now what with counting absentee votes, etc] but there was a state where Trump was only ahead by 40,000 votes.  He got all the electoral votes, as is our process, but the state had been predicted for Hillary. The loss of the state for Hillary wasn't an upset, and Trump didn't get a mandate.  It was all within the margin of error.

The reason for the demonstrations now goes far beyond the "sour grapes" being characterized by 'winners'.  It's the best way to demonstrate that there is not a comfortable win for Trump.  He didn't get the popular vote, and in many of the states he won, there is almost a 50/50 split of opinion.  Demonstrations illustrate graphically that there are a lot of people who don't want him.  That's something any President-elect needs to know.  And, it has happened in a lot of previous elections, so don't act like this has never happened before.  A majority of people...let me repeat that... A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE do not want him.  Do not agree with him, and are having a difficult time accepting the results.  Not because their candidate lost, [sour grapes], but because Trump is a disaster for this country and the world.

Democrats saw the polls and their own internal polling and looked on the bright side.  I'm sort of forgiving at this point because it's hard to believe that Americans would actually vote for  man like Trump.  It's that disbelief [I think] that led to mis-reading the polls, and subsequently miscalculating how to campaign in the last month or two. Polls don't just show who's winning.  They show the vote breakdown, what demographics need attention.  What states are in play.  Campaigns are always in flux, and the polls give information to make critical decisions.  

Democrats have also been living in a liberal paradise of advancements in civil liberties.  Again, I don't think they realized the extent of the misogyny [I know I didn't], the xenophobia, the racism [although 8 years of anti-Obama obstructionism should have given them a clue.], and the white-working class anger.  And, who would believe it?  That much hate?  How do you factor that into your campaign calculations?  It's hard to fathom that amount of hate and anger, and Democrats didn't calculate it.  They thought [and maybe still do] that it was business as usual against a really bad opponent.

Well, it's not business as usual.  None of these postmortems is going to hit on any truth to improve coming elections.  There might not be coming elections.  No one with a brain to think cannot see the danger of Trump and his associates.  If it were just him, maybe we could ride this out, but it isn't.  The people who will actually be running the country are a 'cabal' of bad players.  And, that might include the Kremlin. This is not business as usual.  This is not one ideology winning over another.  This isn't sour grapes.  This is a lot of us raising a red flag to warn people.. we're heading for a cliff!

Essentially, hate, fear and anger feed off each other.  I think that was the largest miscalculation by Democrats.  These three things act to create a mob intelligence.  Trump's rallies demonstrated this over and over again, and still Democrats went on thinking that grace, intelligence and liberal love would win.  They didn't.

I don't think the 3rd party candidates helped, but I don't think they were significant in her loss.  I don't think Comey's actions helped, but I don't think they account for her loss.  Both might be a contributing factor [and the numbers were close in several states], and Comey should at least be sanctioned for influencing an election, but really.. whatever.  Clinton had the email thing hanging over her head, and it was always going to drag her numbers down.  Clinton hate goes a long way, and she never got out in front of it. [and make no mistake, I was for her always.]

I find it interesting that his flaws were forgivable, but her's weren't.  I'd ask every man and woman reading this to think about that.  These two were the most flawed candidates in our history, but their detractions weren't equal.  I've never seen so many people rush to vote for such as despicable man, just to avoid electing a woman.  And, yes, I know many will say it had nothing to do with gender, and those that say that will all be men.  Had Clinton been a man with the same unfavorables running against Trump, we would have seen a different result.

It would be wise of everyone to not underestimate the misogyny at play here.  Just my opinion of course.

Democrats need to use this time to regroup and find their roots.  The biggest miscalculation Democrats made as a whole was where the blue collar worker was landing in this election.  Democrats have somehow lost the working class, and no Democratic Party can sustain itself without the working class. My advice, start there and work forward.

And this is all, IF there is a 2 party system left to salvage once Trump gets started.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#6 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,503 posts

Posted 12 November 2016 - 01:08 PM

View PostMary Rose, on 12 November 2016 - 12:35 PM, said:

They were mistaken in thinking they had it in the bag.  When they lost Congress instead of asking themselves why, they just said, oh, well our voters just didn't show up to vote.  Maybe they should have at least entertained the thought that they did and voted against them.  I see them saying again low voter turnout and maybe that's true but they should at least consider that maybe all they stand for doesn't appeal to everyone.

They counted their chickens before they were hatched.  Maybe they'll learn something for the next election.

~~"Maybe they'll learn something for the next election"

Yeah maybe, if there is one.

#7 Niko

Niko
  • Watchdog
  • 2,318 posts

Posted 12 November 2016 - 02:26 PM

View PostCait, on 12 November 2016 - 12:51 PM, said:

Clinton hate goes a long way, and she never got out in front of it.
Yeah, this is what I think sunk it.  Back in in the 2004 democratic primaries, I voted for Obama not for any huge love of him, but because in my very narrow window of experience, I didn't consider her very electable.  The first time I ever saw a hint of political feelings of ANY kind from my dad (who later went on to become a Fox News brain-wash-ee during Glenn Beck's heyday) was when I was reading one of those "things to tell your children" books where there's a question on each page, and the idea is for the older generation to fill it out as a journal for their kids and grandkids.  I forget the question he was answering, but my dad waxed at length about how disgusted he was during Monica-gate and how so much of the country wanted to give Bill a pass for such immoral behavior.  He'd never talked about feeling this way when it was happening (at least to me), but apparently he'd been harboring resentment over it well into Bush's second term.  I knew he would never vote for Hillary, and I knew several other "not-very-political" people who just didn't like her for vague reasons that I think also went back to that era.

When she came back this time around, she had the added negatives of having been the punching bag for all the Benghazi stuff, and her term as SoS, in general.  I ended up voting for her over Bernie, but I didn't find EITHER of them very strong choices.  Bernie would've made for an interesting "Socialism" vs. "Fascism" campaign season but it would have given the fiscal conservative side of the Republican base an even strong reason to stay Red, with the "socialism" bugaboo to scare them.

Anyway, I just think that a lot of the divides we have right now are still going back to the Clinton impeachment and the Gore v. Bush election, and Hillary's been one of the consistent political figures present since that time, with the baggage building up every step of the way.
- Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me.    (Matthew 25:40)

- Do not let kindness and truth leave you; Bind them around your neck, Write them on the tablet of your heart.  (Proverbs 3:3)

#8 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 12 November 2016 - 05:06 PM

In case there is a 2020 election (which I assume lead up to primaries will be in 2.5 years) I think it is best to evaluate what went wrong in the eventuality, and not assume that people will come screaming from Trump/Pence, that they won't be primaried, and that so an easy win for Democrats. Many democrats/liberals have been making too many assumptions apparently.


Like I said before, it was so close in the swing state that if any one of the many issues that lead to Clinton's loss had been different, she probably would have won.

However, regardless, the most qualified and experience candidate to ever run for the Presidency lost the electoral college against the least qualified and experienced candidate. Conventional wisdom would say it shouldn't have been close. Why was it close? There were many reason, but I would like to focus on the ones that liberals/democrats can control.

There was hubris and arrogance on both sides in these campaigns. But because on one side it came from an outsider, I think people lapped it up as if Trump was David and Clinton was goliath. I think Trump supports were living vicariously through Trump, flipping off the elites. Not that they had no good reason to want to flip off the elites, they had plenty of reasons, some valid, some not.

The DNC obviously thought two things, that it was HRC's turn, and that Sanders would have lost. They probably thought Sanders would have lost because he is too socialist, is only energizing young people who are not reliable voters.

But he has the appearance of an outsider, even though he has long been in politics he isn't at the centre of it.

DNC was presumptuous and totally isolated from, and deaf to, the economic situation much of the country is still going through.

The democrats lost the Rustbelt/midwest.

From my understanding they lost many more jobs to automation than outsourcing. However to say to them "oh, go get a new job" or "go get retraining"… that is tone deaf… The jobs available are not great in many measure. Going to school again, depending on age, health, family responsibilities, and finances, isn't easily accessible to all.

These people see the economic strength of the economy the 50s(?) to the early 80s(?) and the quality of jobs back then, for regular people. It may have been an aberration in history, but they see what their parents and/or grandparents generation had, and they believe nothing good is going to replace it, on the path our country is going.

They don't want to hear about sexism or racism or entitlement, whether it is real or not. They, or their neighbours, are living hand to mouth.

This was a change-election, change against elitism and the status-quo and everything that represented those.


I remember reading one somewhere that when people are unsure of, or resistant to, change, and they talk about how the status-quo is not so bad. It can't be, because we are all here, right? That is very myopic (i.e. based on one's own experience, and includes boring every day living stuff), and additionally assumes the status-quo is neutral. The status-quo is not neutral and has never been. The status-quo is, vastly overall, to the benefit of the elite. Always hasn't been, except in the rare instance the odd elite is throw to the pitch-fork-wielding masses as a sacrifice by the other elites.

Edited by sierraleone, 12 November 2016 - 05:18 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#9 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 12 November 2016 - 05:50 PM

It wasn't just the white house the Democrats lost, they lost big time down ballot also. I'll see if I can find the article again, but I read that the Democrats only have like 15 Governors, nationwide. State by state they lost a lot of key races. Only in like 5 or 6 states did they retain or win.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#10 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 12 November 2016 - 09:40 PM

Also, we have to understand that in this social media age the old rules of conventional campaigning are less and less important. More money? Better ground game? Phhht, apparently. No longer indicators of success. I don't consider more money & ground game strength not being indicators of likely success a bad thing per say. Though there are probably negative effects of social media on campaigns. Strengthens eco-chambers for one.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#11 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 12 November 2016 - 10:33 PM

Again, HRC lost against the MOST unpopular candidate in American history…. Absolute failure on the part of the DNC and the democrats.

His unpopularity was probably somewhat concentrated in blue states, so between that, and the fact that probably some in the red/swing states probably just saw this as another way to say f.u. to blue states and their elitist coastal culture, as they see it.


Part of the reason the electorate doesn't want insiders/elites, is they see them as too cozy with special interests, which may be against the interests of the people. People don't believe candidates will go against their corporate donors. This is a huge problem for any establishment candidates trying for a new office going forward. And that is going to be really really hard to steer the DNC to the direction of non-, or even anti-establishment candidates. Because, of course, the DNC has its own priorities and goals. Yes, they include winning, but they, like everyone, only experience their own point of view, and think their own point of view is a winning point of view. And if it isn't, it is just a matter of framing the issue, that anything, any candidate flaw can be fixed and polished with the right angle.

People just want someone who will stand up and fight for people, not for special or corporate interests. At least, that is what I am hoping.

Edited by sierraleone, 12 November 2016 - 10:36 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#12 243Skunk

243Skunk

    A real stinker

  • Islander
  • 357 posts

Posted 13 November 2016 - 12:47 AM

1. Have fair primaries. I would have voted for any of the other three or four candidates you guys had a year ago, before Trump or Clinton. Yes, including Bernie (which is saying a lot coming from a conservative).

2. Calling us deplorable or misogynist doesn't help sway us to vote for your person. Just saying.

I was going to do a quasi #3 about a fair impartial media, but I think that's really besides the point. People hear what they want to hear. It really boils down to having a better candidate, and don't piss off the other side so much that they say "screw it" and don't vote.

#13 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 13 November 2016 - 02:56 AM

Another reason, IMO, the Democrats lost....they chose the wrong candidate. Given everything that happened during the campaign, regarding Trump...The access Hollywood tape, the dozen women coming out claiming sexual assault (the timing of which, IMO, was highly suspicious). Given all of that, there isn't a doubt in my mind that if the election had been Bernie vs Trump, then Bernie would be President elect right now. But the Democrats rigged the primary against Bernie. They chose Hillary, and that turned out to be a huge mistake.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#14 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 5,087 posts

Posted 13 November 2016 - 06:05 AM

The Democrats lost primarily because the voters are fed up with the grotesque establishment-candidate bait 'n' switch garbage. Sanders was the only legitimate candidate, the insider-establishment clique gerrymandered the primary process, and the voters responded with their most visceral projectile-vomit response in decades.

The Democrats also lost because Obama failed to rein in Wall Street, then got wind that Hillary was going to do the same when her Wall Street speech was leaked.

The election was far less a vote for Trump than it was a collective "up yours" to both the Democrat and Repellican establishments.

Unfortunately, on top of that, Hamster Head acknowledged the Deplorables, all those inbred, poorly educated right-wing religious-kook NRA-talking-point-spewing knuckle-dragging conservative types who are all emotion, no brains.

The lowest, vilest, most dangerous thing a politician can do is create what's known as a "climate of license". This is when a maggot like Trump, or Hitler, or Mussolini, lets it be known, through coded language, that he's with the kind of low-life racist, murderous maggots who are prepared to go all Helter Skelter, organising Anarchy, harassing visible minorities, creating fear in minority communities, generally stirring things up.

Trump has let the genie out of the bottle, he owns it, the onus is on him to stick a cork in the goddamned thing and get his kook followers under control. The question is, Will he?

People who know him have been warning for years that he has a compulsion for power, power in this case being "a malignant desire for control over the lives of others".

My prediction is that he'll hide it for as long as he can, until incident by incident he's finally unmasked as the Dark Lord, so to speak. When that happens, that will be the true test as to whether or not the US system is resilient enough to survive and deal with a fascist leader and his coven of enablers.

Edited by gsmonks, 13 November 2016 - 06:06 AM.

Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#15 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 13 November 2016 - 08:55 AM

Ways Clinton was a bad candidate….

People don't think she will deal in good faith on their behalf, that she is beholden to her donors or the DNC.

She is too calculated in what she says, so she doesn't seen authentic. It is okay to think before you speak, as long as what comes out seems genuine instead of having been polled before hand to death.

I saw some clips old videos/interviews of her recently. Both she and Trump, nearly the same age, are products of their circumstances. Clinton used to be authentic, but being attacked over and over again for stupid sh*t women wouldn't put up with today, for keeping her maiden name, to working and not being a stay-at-home-mom, to being ambitious with her dreams and goals separate from her husband…. People may go "wah wah wah", but Clinton didn't whine, she adapted to her circumstances, put on a mask to survive public life, because they attacked her on being an individual and not being a proper woman every step of her public life. That mask served her a long long time, but she forgot how to take it off.

If that woman was born 35 years ago instead of 70 she would have been a different politician.

Trump is the ultimate privileged man, from his upbringing in our culture. He doesn't have to worry about how he speaks, of how he speech affects others. He doesn't have to contend with meeting or not meeting the ideals of womanhood, the double-standards are endless. He, the least qualified candidate ever with the highest unfavourable ratings, won against the most qualified candidate ever.

I don't say this as sour grapes. We can't ignore how this affects our culture and politics going forward. And it is certainly not the only factor. I am just sad how much influence it still has on our culture. Both of these people are products of their time in ways that should be negatives for them, but it is more of a negative for Clinton in the electoral college.  

We want our politicians to be manly/masculine. We like people "with balls". Because all the traits our lizard brains wants in our leaders/protectors we associate with the masculine. Women show the same trait we call it something else. Men show a traditional feminine trait we call it someone else (men aren't emotional, they are passionate!).

I came across an old thread titled "political and cultural identity - manliness" by  Spectacles from nearly 3 years ago.

From there:

Quote

A lot of politics is advertising. We're sold candidates and parties. Like all advertisers, political operative target certain demographic groups. So to appeal to white working class voters, politicians are presented as straight-talking, firm-standing, gut-listeners. To progressives, they are presented as do-gooders who listen to experts. (Both of which are derided on the right but admired on the left.)

Some women in politics may be able to over-come this and come across as straight-talking, firm-standing, gut-listeners.

Elizabeth Warren is the oldest politician who could, as far as I know, at age 67. She was an academic, and hasn't been in politics long, so she hasn't dealt the with pressuring cooker moulding Clinton has dealt with for most of her adult life.

Sarah Palin too, who is age 52. She started as a sport-caster in the media first, is sportsy and outdoorsy, though has been involved in politics most of her adult life. Note: Not a fan of Palin! (next Sec of Interior? Energy? gawd).

Who else is a woman in politics that would be seen in a similar light?

Edited by sierraleone, 13 November 2016 - 08:56 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#16 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 5,087 posts

Posted 13 November 2016 - 10:19 AM

Sarah Palin is a bigot because she's a moron with an IQ of 80 or so. Less intelligent people gravitate to the right because thinking is less of a requirement. Talking points and lying are more suited to people who are too stupid for Logic and empathy.

Madeleine Albright would've made a great candidate, except for her age. She's brilliant, and long ago learned to make her way in a male-dominated milieu. She's one of the great politicians, and an excellent author.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#17 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 13 November 2016 - 10:41 AM

I am watching/listening to David Axelrod interviewing Jon Stewart in May, talking about this election. Around the 28:50 mark he has something interesting to say.
"There are politicians who are ... either rendering their inauthenticity in real-enough time to appear authentic and then there are politicians who render their inauthenticity [with an obvious delay]."

He goes on to say with that delay, you know they are fighting something, probably their real selves, there is probably a real person under there. Those that don't have any delay in the rendering of their inauthenticity… are sociopaths.

This of course, is talking about those who are inauthentic. Obviously authentic sometimes how to articulate themselves well right out of the gate, other times they don't, and they need some time to process it and figure out how to best articulate their authentic self.

The problem is, those that are inauthentic sociopaths are harder for many to expose. But it is really easy to expose those who are revealed to be inauthentic due to delay. And they could be (or not be) decent or good people with decent or good intent.

We are sometimes okay with people running roughshod over other people, as long as they are being authentic and speaking to our truth, to our power.
(notice I said our truth/power, not the truth/power, very important distinction. We are all guilty of this at some point or another.)
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#18 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 13 November 2016 - 11:13 AM

View Postgsmonks, on 13 November 2016 - 10:19 AM, said:

Sarah Palin is a bigot because she's a moron with an IQ of 80 or so. Less intelligent people gravitate to the right because thinking is less of a requirement. Talking points and lying are more suited to people who are too stupid for Logic and empathy.

Madeleine Albright would've made a great candidate, except for her age. She's brilliant, and long ago learned to make her way in a male-dominated milieu. She's one of the great politicians, and an excellent author.

I think that is probably why conservative women leader will probably do slightly do better at this (I just thought of Michele Bachmann too). All women have to navigate a world that sees "feminine" traits, or women as lesser. Often a world that, when they embodied "masculine" traits, they are suddenly demonized because the trait is embodied by a woman.

But conservative women even more so. The conservative culture, buttressed by a religious system of belief that can be hostile to women leaders, women with ambition. So conservative women who have navigated that world to leadership have a lot of experience dealing with b*llsh*t. And a lot of experience dealing with cognitive dissonance too I bet. So some BS they will ignore or fight. Other BS they don't even notice, it is part of their worldview and/or they used it to reach their goals.

And they get the added bonus "they are one of us" from their conservative supporters.

Which of course, liberals get too. The thing is though, and maybe I am wrong, but there is less overt or covert attacks on conservative women leaders from liberals on being a proper woman, but more overt and covert attacks on liberal women leaders from conservatives about being a proper woman. (of course, no one uses the terms "proper woman").

Sometimes there are attacks on conservative women leaders for being hypocritical (Michele Bachmann saying that women leaders should still be biblically submissive/subservient to their husband….), which often have overlaps, is the most common attack I can think of.

Many conservative women leaders have already near-seamlessly navigated and integrated the double-standard to their benefit. And the right laps it up.
It seems liberal women leaders aren't able to pull off the same thing, and certainly not to the heights that conservative women leaders are. First of all, it probably wouldn't be, or come off as, authentic for them to do so. That would be adhering to such BS that they are trying to fight.

Edited by sierraleone, 13 November 2016 - 11:20 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#19 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 5,087 posts

Posted 13 November 2016 - 01:27 PM

Michele Bachman is inured to her surroundings by way of being out of touch with reality. One might say she came by the moniker Batsh-t Bachman honestly. That said, unintended honesty is the purview of children and the insane.

Wending one's way through the Conservative world is a matter of accepting the Byzantine abomination that religious thinking entails. They're only able to maintain the illusion of legitimacy by pretending to respect the Rule of Logic, and by attacking anyone who dares question the Mask of Reason they show the Reasoning World. It's a lie and an act, of course, but showing their true self can only be done behind the scenes with people like themselves whom they know and trust, the way cult members shun outsiders.

Liberal-minded women who are attacked are all-too-often phonies who prostitute Liberalism to further a personal agenda. Clinton's ambition long ago outstripped any altruistic motives she may once have had. Trying to appear genuine to people one can't relate to invariably invokes hypocrisy. A member of the bourgeoisie who pretends to be otherwise will be sussed out as a phoney in three seconds flat. People can stomach the bourgeoisie only insofar as a member of the bourgeoisie doesn't try to misrepresent themselves. They know and realise that flakes have their uses, the way one will hire a well-spoken lawyer and avoid one whose education is obviously suspect. But pretenders who try to cross social boundaries and try slumming it only manage to make their efforts at ingratiating themselves appear grotesque and off-putting.

The Glass Ceiling takes on the persona of the One Ring if the final goal is something that can't be shared, and the Presidency is not something that can be shared. Clinton long ago lost sight of social roles that would have made the breaking of the Glass Ceiling a social matter for the benefit of all women.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#20 243Skunk

243Skunk

    A real stinker

  • Islander
  • 357 posts

Posted 13 November 2016 - 03:10 PM

I absolutely can't stand the woman, but Kamala Harris, Senator-Elect from California. She needs political seasoning on the national level, though. 2024 for sure.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: democrats, liberals, prez45, clinton, bernie, sanders

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users