In my own ordering, here's how I see it:
#1 The Democratic Machine, which must go
#2 Hillary Clinton
#3 Older people
#4 Women
#5 Hispanics
#6 Blacks
#7 Rural folks
#8 Millennials
We need a new and more responsive Democratic party that (a) does away with a patronage/crony system that rewards people for their work for the party with backroom support and (b) fully vets its nominees, eliminating those with major exploitable flaws like those which dogged Secretary Clinton.
Then there's Clinton herself, a person who's never enjoyed a lot of love and has used her power and position to advantage in terms of enjoying privileges and consideration unavailable to ordinary folk.
Older people, especially working class religious folks who it's been said, uncharitably (but with much truth) want to live in 1952 not 2016. They feel men should lead and be breadwinners, women should follow and make sure dinner is on the table when the hubby gets home. Is there a little racism there as well, especially in that yearning for 1952? Sure. However, we are still the same nation who elected Barack Obama and view him as one of the most popular of Presidents as he leaves office.
Speaking of women, they failed to show up in the expected numbers to ensure the first woman President. Many women, especially Christians, as I just said, believe that men are more suited to leadership and women more suited to support roles.
Most disappointingly, perhaps, was the lower-than-expected support of Hispanics, nearly 1/3 (29%) of whom voted for Trump. This despite his depiction of Mexican undocumenteds as rapists, murderers, and drug dealers. It turns out that many Hispanics agree with Trump. Also, those Hispanics who went to great trouble and expense to become legal citizens don't always sympathize with those wanting to get in the back door for free.
Many blacks, clearly, feel the Dems hae been taking them for granted. I doubt if many voted for Trump. More likely, a lot of them just opted out of the election entirely.
Rural folk who farm or are dependent upon farmers for their livelihood live on the razor's edge. They think people in Washington D.C. don't think much about them. Also, the great rural midlands, The Bible Belt, is where conservative, traditional values reign supreme.
Finally, clearly a lot of millennials opted either to stay home or to support a third party candidate. Bernie probably would have lost, too, and losing elections is just the way it is. As they get older, they'll realize that they have to share the country with people who disagree with them. With people who are, to put it bluntly, wrong. So it goes.

Views: 439

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Three words for you: WE THE PEOPLE

So basically, #1 and #2 failed to inspire #3-#8 to vote Democratic. 

There was a time when the Democratic party was the party of the working class.  It seems that the Democratic elite left their core constituency behind.

They failed to inspire enough to vote Democratic voters. Statistics are showing that there was no hidden Trump constituency. Clinton lost because too many of those she was counting on stayed home or voted third party. In many of the states she lost to Trump, thereby giving him all of the state's electoral votes, she lost by a very very slim margin. In 48 of the 50 states, it's "winner take all" when it comes to representation in the Electoral College. You lose by 1 vote, all of the Electoral votes go to your opponent.

I blame the Democratic Party who clearly did not listen to the people's voice. Anti-Establishment opinion was very high among voters from both sides and both parties had Anti-Establishment candidate. Except the Democratic party establishment was hell on bent about having their candidate win the ticket, so they threw most of their support with HRC. The Democratic primaries had only 2 options, an old man with ideas that only resonate to the young mostly and an old lady who can barely make it to the finish line.

Where were all the other candidates? Yea they figured what's the point of running when HRC is the establishment's groomed candidate to take the nomination.

Ironically the Republicans had plethora of candidates to choose from and in the end the candidate that spoke out against the establishment, ended up winning (even though he himself is a billionaire who is part of the inner circles of the establishment).

I blame Joe Biden (not really though). I know his son passed away and he wanted to be done with politics, but he would have been a much better candidate for all of us. He was always a humble average Joe type of person. Whether you liked him or not, at least you know he was not corrupt and had a good heart filled with good intentions.

I remember watching the republican debate, with its many candidates, and then watching a democratic debate, with only 2 candidates, and thinking: why doesn't the democratic party have more candidates? Is it just that the party works differently?

It was pretty clear from the beginning that Clinton was the Dem favorite, even though Bernie surprised people. For Reps, it seemed like a massive free for all from the beginning.

The government has become a reality show and a source of entertainment just like the news. Vote for Trump, grab some snax, see what happens.....

The electorate went "fuck it" just like the Brits with Brexit. Trump is our Brexit moment, only with nuclear weapons and climate change denial.

We have no one to blame but ourselves.
The difference between Trump and Brexit, is that Brexit is 'forever' whereas Trump may be there for only four years.

This whole fucking campaign has thrived on blame, and the people bought the snake oil fix with uncommon enthusiasm.

If you simply subtract the independent votes, you get Hilly not Trump as POTUS.  

This, as mentioned, was the collateral damage to the Dem party in going with a highly qualified woman who was generally the most unliked by her own party in recorded history...with a stay the course message during a time when the people clamored for change.

The campaign proved that vapid statements, of what the people want to hear, seem more effective than well thought out arguments from reality that are less appealing.

IE:" If elected, I'll give you all so many jobs your head will spin, you will have so many new jobs you won't know which to take, and they'll be high paying jobs, so high paying you won't know what to spend all that new money on, your heads will spin you'll make so much money..."

(With no presented plan as to how to do that)


"If elected, I will work to continue to grow the economy, and I predict a 2% increase in GDP projected during my term in office"

(With a plan showing how to do that)

People weigh the two campaign promises, and decide making their heads spin sounds much better.


I thought the general public was smarter than that, but, I have been proved wrong.


On a positive note, rebuilding the country's infrastructure, repairing bridges and roads, etc....seems to be a priority.

That means money, typically from more taxes ironically...to pay for it all, but, it does need to be done, and, it will mean more jobs, at least in construction, etc.

This tactic has historically at least, been good for the economy...and, it has bilateral support at least.

Obama wanted to do this, but was stymied by the Repubs...but, with both houses now a deep Rosy Red, for a change, things CAN get done...but, I do worry about what those changes will consist of.


© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service