goliaththrewthefightandsplitthepursewithgod
GoliaththrewthefightandsplitthepursewithGod
goliaththrewthefightandsplitthepursewithgod

Yeah, it’s easy and comforting to tell yourself that, but it portal isn’t going to win many elections. I’d like to win, so we should probably engage in a real analysis, not just pretend that Trump voters are all heinous humans. Trump won more Latino voters than Romney and Clinton had less than Obama, so these things

Well, I also think it needs to be remembered that Trump is not a typical Republican, which is not to say he will not get lazy and just let Ryan and company do whatever they want, but one of his most resounding messages was anti-”free-trade.” He also made it clear he wasn’t a budget cutting conservative on social

I do understand she won the popular vote, but I hope you aren’t using that as an excuse as that would astonishingly naive. We have an electoral system and I bet the Clinton team understands that, so winning the popular vote is a losing argument in this context, as that is not how the system works. Everyone knows this

Yeah, but Republicans have always been anti-union. I think a lot of rejection of Dems by those voters is based on a sense of betrayal. Look, if you are a conservative member of a union, and the party that historically fought for and supported unions has decided they are not worth protecting, you might decide to vote

Hillary lost areas that Obama won. People can be persuaded, or I believe so. Also, I think a lot of Dems are underestimating how the complicity in the destructions of unions has hurt them, just look at Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio. A lot of Dems decided unions were impediments to free trade and progress and lost

But big Pharma does have a lot of friends on the dem side. As does big business. A lot of prominent dems have been extolling the virtues of “free trade” and claiming unions were enemies of economic progress. Turns out, those unions, having been left by the dems, stopped turning out votes for dems.

I think you need to reevaluate a couple of assumptions, especially on trade. Hillary lost where Obama won twice, so maybe we should look at ourselves instead of comforting ourselves that everyone else is just a monster. Dems, such as yourself, who espouse free trade have been anti-union for years. Guess which states

Talk to them? As Obama reminded us this morning, politics is persuasion, and when we lose, perhaps we should look within our party and not merely write off people voting otherwise as irredeemable. Clinton lost votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio, which are all states the Repubs have worked on crushing union power.

Hmm, maybe, maybe not, it is comforting to say that because it means we couldn’t have done much, but I’m not so sure it is accurate. Hillary lost votes that Obama twice won. Look, unions have been utterly wrecked in this country, and the Dems have largely been complicit, and it turns out those unions were important

See, this is my problem with ourselves on the left. Instead of wondering what could have been done, what should have been done differently, we are going to bray at the stupidity of the voters and pretend we are wearing clothes.

It’s a little more complex than this, and if our party is going to regain its footing, we need to be critical of what we did wrong. Yes, racism and sexism are problems, but they do not explain that many people who voted twice for Obama voted against Hillary. Remember, a lot of Dems, from Jon Chait to, well, Hillary

Wait until Trump enlists teachers to help round up illegal immigrants

And those are the people with a lot of guns as well. I try not to think what they may feel emboldened to do.

Huh? I don’t think you understand, but bravo for no reading skills.

I didn’t want to just post this, but I generally think he is right vis-a-vis racism, but what he said about women and consent is indefensible.

How does the unicorn bring you food? No hands. Are we talking some sort of contraption being pulled by the unicorn?

Well, forgetting Amy, it pretty difficult to comprehend what Dave said about consent. What the title of the article, the actual article focuses on what he said. It really is unconcerned that he made “fun” of Clinton, but rather that in ripping her, he said some fairly gross things.

That debate is going to be studied for years, or it should be. I’m mean, at least I don’t doubt that Trump believes his own nonsense, but to have Pence just deny things his running mate said and was documented saying was, well, honestly, I thought I was on acid and I haven’t done that for years.

This is good Kinja.

Things do matter and you’re right about the Dems apparently dismissal of concerns. I hope to the God I don’t believe in that Hillary wins, but the Dems in general have become far to comfortable with “acceptable” amounts of corruption and conflicts of interest. Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion, or so you would