Mourning in America - Trump Year One: November '16 to

xp:

"Stronger Together" is memorable enough, but most voters simply care little about celebrating diversity. The civil rights struggle doesn't win new voters. Many of the Bernie slogans were just as bad: "Not Me. Us." The slogan should have focused on bread and butter issues that expand the coalition while still addressing the Occupy movement concerns. Something like "A Fair Deal".

Let’s say you want HBO. So you go to your local cable provider to get HBO and the only way they’ll let you get HBO is to sign up for a premium channel package, which includes HBO but also includes Cinemax. Now, maybe you don’t want Cinemax, and you don’t care about Cinemax, and maybe never personally plan to ever watch Cinemax, but the deal is: If you want HBO, you have to sign on to Cinemax too. You have to be a Cinemax subscriber to get HBO. And you go ahead and sign up for the premium channel package.

finally someone able to explain politics to the economically disadvantaged in a way that everyone can appreciate -- overpaying for subscriptions to premium cable so you can keep up with the latest Girls. "oh, that's what's going on? i hate that" said frank dirt of yatesboro, "paying for those extra cable channels just to get HBO was what kept me from keeping up with mortgage payments after I lost my job."

Or "A New Deal"

Sorry bad jk, point taken

Scalzi's not addressing the disadvantaged. He's addressing literary sci-fi fans.

Clinton underperformed with them as well?! Damn

It's an analogy. And the last time I checked most of Trump's voters are middle-class or higher.

Bigger issue with "Fair Deal" is that its the slogan Harry Truman ran under, TBH. But the point is, slogans based on identity poltics may make Democrats feel good about themselves, but mean nothing to those whose concerns aren't in the identity politics world.

Replace "HBO" with "premium sports package," then.

Whose identity ?

Isn't Trump all about identity politics? Just in a (cough cough) veiled fashion?

I would just say Dems have exhibited tone deafness or discomfort with the kind of identity politics that plays in broad swaths of the white electorate

To the bafflement of Democrats in Wisconsin, for instance, the late Clinton push there did not mirror the economic messaging of the local labor unions. One played back Trump's worst remarks about women; another, his mocking of a reporter with a physical disability; the last, a warning from a nuclear technician who worried that a reckless President Trump would start a war.

That decision was backed by data showing that voters reacted most strongly to his controversial comments. But it did little to motivate Clinton's base of supporters, especially when they were faced with questions about her judgment in using a private email server as secretary of state.

Again, in Wisconsin, the results proved the case - a state where Clinton did not make a single stop during the general election.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-hillary-clinton-mistakes-20161111-story.html

relying solely on identity politics is what did them in

Stronger Together was weak sauce imo. I still don't know what it means outside the specific context of the convention.

Isn't Trump all about identity politics?

Who read "Stronger Together" as a reminder that Democrats are a coalition of minorities, special interests (from labor unions to trial lawyers), progressives, and pragmatists.

If you're not a minority, don't identify with a special interest, and aren't politically engaged on the Left, "Stronger Together" doesn't have much to offer you.

I think it's simplistic to call that just identity politics. They were going after his character and suitability for office. The nuclear technician remark is not a pitch to "inclusiveness" or whatever . Now, yes, the prism through which they read character was invariably that of progressivist values (anti sexist, racist etc), but in an ideal freaking world, those are just fundamental traits of decency. The message in those ads need not only be read as "let's celebrate our diversify". They could equally be read as an appeal to old-fashioned decency. Trump insulted a pow, a gold star family, etc.

Xp right "stronger together" doesn't appeal to those drawn to a different identity politics (white, working class, rural), but an identity politics nonetheless

Or the campaign looked at Brexit and literally decided to use almost the exact same slogan as the Remain campaign because what could go wrong

ok yeah me saying "identity politics" when i meant mudslinging, or whatever the new term for that is

Oh ok

if we had still lost after putting all our energy into campaign slogans and a louder platform instead of highlighting the fact that donald trump is one of the worst human beings in america, the monday morning quarterbacking would be "hmm maybe we should have spent more time highlighting that donald trump is one of the worst human beings in america." it was never clear that those last undecided voters would just shrug that off and say yolo.

I think clinton would have had to go 'big league' with her campaign platform to even make the slightest impression. promise things that could obviously never happen. 30 million new high paying jobs in the midwest and you get to work from home too and be your own boss.

she wasn't making any big promises because she expected to be held accountable for them.

Asked whether the tone of his campaign had gone too far, he said: “No. I won.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/12/donald-trump-appears-to-soften-stance-on-range-of-pledges

this answer is so vague and terrifying. do you think he meant that the tone of his campaign had not gone too far because it was necessary for him to win (in which case he's admitting that being a voice of hatred is part of his appeal)? or is he trying to say that the fact that he won means that whatever he said is now mainstreamed/normalized? something else? it's such a bizarre answer.

corporate logic; success justifies new definition of reality by the people at the top of the hierarchy.

It worked. I won. So obv it was the right gameplan.

if we had still lost after putting all our energy into campaign slogans and a louder platform instead of highlighting the fact that donald trump is one of the worst human beings in america, the monday morning quarterbacking would be "hmm maybe we should have spent more time highlighting that donald trump is one of the worst human beings in america."

yeah, but it didn't have to be either/or. and i wouldn't reduce clinton's failures to not having a good "slogan". it's more than that. as i said earlier, literally the entire rest of the world was already playing the role of pointing out the ways that donald trump is a terrible human being. clinton was right to acknowledge his terribleness. but only one person in the entire world could offer something to vote FOR as an alternative, and she didn't do that. she recited lists of what she planned to do, but 90% of her own rhetoric was about donald trump. it's not her fault that the election went trump's way - white people, either eagerly voting for racism or looking the other way , made this happen - but she didn't succeed in convincing people to vote for her as opposed to voting against trump. someone upthread said they were happy voting for her knowing she would be an extension of the obama administration. that kind of argument is fine and it works for a lot of people who were going to vote for her anyway, but it doesn't convince anyone else. everyone else wants to be able to say "if i vote for hillary clinton, X will be different. that's why i'm voting for her and why you should too."

A couple of pieces from The Guardian today.
1) women writers on Hillary Clinton's election defeat
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/nov/12/we-are-witnessing-the-politics-of-humiliation-siri-hustvedt-joyce-carol-oates-and-more-on-the-us-election

2) fictional representation of the female president or women in power including some history of who's run over time.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/nov/12/hillary-clinton-we-failed-her-sarah-churchwell

in trump's past business deals, once the contract is signed, all that matters is what's in writing and what can be enforced in court. in a political campaign, there's no enforceable contract. people just hand you massive amounts of money and power and they have no rights until the next election. trump obviously felt this was very liberating. he's never governed and if even he's given it much thought (unlikely), his ideas about it have never been tested by experience.

Trump only likes being a politician and bitch slapping his enemies. He has zero interest in governing.

https://www.greatagain.gov/

so awful

someone upthread said they were happy voting for her knowing she would be an extension of the obama administration. that kind of argument is fine and it works for a lot of people who were going to vote for her anyway, but it doesn't convince anyone else. everyone else wants to be able to say "if i vote for hillary clinton, X will be different. that's why i'm voting for her and why you should too."

yet obama is leaving the office w/ fairly high approval ratings. after 2000 the argument was 'why was gore not running as a 3rd clinton term?'

honestly think the damage she took to her character was ultimately more relevant than any not-absurdist promise she could make to america. and I don't know if the clinton campaign itself had much it could have done to turn that around.

OK so can "weird twitter" start flooding this please? https://apply.ptt.gov/

xps. a bit more likely is that he sees governing as cutting a series of deals, by negotiating with a small number of people in a conference room. he sees himself as an extremely smart negotiator, and therefore quite capable of 'winning' in that situation every time.

What happens if he gets bored and quits? Pence takes over?

"He has zero interest in governing."

i'm pretty sure as far as skills go getting other people to do shit for him is way up there. he's been the dictator of his own kingdom for decades.

xposts KM i see your point, and think it's mostly true, but something that i don't see being written about in the ex-post-facto dissection of the election, here or elsewhere is the fact that a shit-ton of people were not just voting FOR hrc, but were totally stoked about her, and yes, the historic nature of her candidacy. Last night when I brought up this point at a dinner party, a friend of mine, a woman in her late 20s, broke down sobbing. Meanwhile, a 50ish Bernie dude at that point barked (yes) across the table "So what?! So what if she's a woman?! Maggie Thatcher was a woman!." But it's not just that, I told him, she's a feminist. It's not just that she happens to be a woman. Her candidacy means a lot to a whole bunch of people, especially lots of women. So much of the writing now from the left simply ignores that. It's all "low enthusiasm" this, or "Bernie coulda" that, or "the forgotten white working class". What about all the women I met while canvassing in New Hampshire that were super-pumped to vote for, volunteer for, convince-their-friends-about, HRC? "I'm with her", "Nasty women": these slogans stuck, and they mobilized, and represented real passion. They just didn't grab everybody, fine. Speaking of, Samantha Bee was cracking jokes about pussy-grabbing and HRC was defending, with no holds barred, Roe v Wade at the debate podium. Why doesn't this matter? Why are we so worried about what Youngstown thinks and feels (a worthy endeavor, btw, not saying it isn't) but we're not even recognizing that a lot of people saw in Hillary a fierce woman who stood up to bullies throughout her fucking life. Fuck even I can celebrate that and despise her coziness with Henry Kissinger at the same time.

I don't know, I just am hearing too many fellow male progressives who haven't registered this at all, and it feels to me a bit like throwing our sisters under the bus.

Rant over. Feel free to offer counter-examples/arguments. This is very much coming from my experience, so if yours is different, by all means.

^btw last sentence is not specifically addressed at you Karl!

Xp but there's a difference between governing and tapping a bunch of lunatics to run the asylum while you spend half the time in your gilded tower

I can't see him just quitting, but is it likely Trump decides not to run for a second term? Given that he obviously wants to be president for the prestige rather than because he's actually interested in achieving anything in particular, might he prefer to go out as the undefeated champion instead of standing for re-election and risk losing? (sorry if this has already been discussed)

I could see bim declaring victory and going home. Especially if his approval rating is in the shitter

yeah when crafting the bernie-is-the-candidate theoretical universe people ignore that millions of democratic women would be maybe just a little bit bitter about the most qualified female candidate ever getting passed over (again). warren getting the nomination wouldn't created that same issue, and she likely would have both won the nomination and the presidency.

xp

wouldn't *have* created

The difference in the Warren scenario vs. Bernie scenario you've created is that only one of them ran for President.

how much validity is there in this?

https://medium.com/@jackson_cantrell/the-2016-election-isnt-over-yet-f1ea6fc395fe#.1r2gney18

we're talking about theoretical universes and 'bernie wins the nomination' also belongs to one xp

and you're stretching a bit to think Democratic women would have been so mad they wouldn't turn out to vote against Trump

the whole 'pence would be worse' thing is debatable, not sure pence would be so cavalier about firing nukes or w/e

Pence would be more likely to start a land war in Asia and I feel confident that the whole oath to protect the Constitution thing would step in if Trump ordered a nuke launch without incredibly good reason.

well it's less 'mad' and more the enthusiasm gap would still be an issue. only so many bernie bros out there.

iatee otm, Clinton lost because of her surname, her campaign was tight. she also did talk about the issues, it's just.. no one really gaf

Sometimes I think Dems, especially Dem candidates, maybe have too many ingrained habits from standing up to bullies their whole lives. I haven't thought hard enough about this to explain much further. But K&P's "anger translator" sketches touch upon it a little bit.