2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhere are the constructive threads on the 2016 campaign?
The ones I have read seem to be filled with denial, name calling and accusations at various groups responsible for Clinton's loss. I was hoping for more constructive analysis based on, I don't know, facts like previous election returns verses current ones an qualitative exit polling to help define voter rationale. Additional inputs from pundits who got it right would be helpful, but they appear to be few. Even Trumps people seemed surprised.
Has anyone marked some good threads or have recommendations for folks I should be reading?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
elleng
(130,862 posts)which is why I've only read a few of the threads on the 2016 campaign.
I HOPE we can move beyond, because if we don't, we'll surely fail to progress.
msongs
(67,394 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)I think a lot of it is embarrassment at the outcome, especially amongst those who now feel pretty foolish after spending all of 2016 beating down those who had real concerns about this election.
I do hope for real, comprehensive analysis, but so far it seems to just be a list of people to blame. And unfortunately, that blaming precedent was set with the first post-election call by the Clinton campaign.
So no, if we continue to take our cues from Podesta and Clinton, there will probably never be real analysis.
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)Couldn't resist the potshot at HRC and Podesta, huh? Even in the very same post you were trying to claim the moral high ground?
Your post would be hilarious if it weren't already so sad.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)It's not a potshot to state a fact: the very first campaign address of the election loss after the concession speech was in a Friday, 11/11/16 call with campaign staff and volunteers, and all sources reported that it was simply a list of people to blame.
No analysis, no rallying cry, no anything besides "here's a list of people you can be mad at besides us."
Those facts aren't under dispute.
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)You seem to be arguing from the "Clinton can do no right, ever" angle, and are basically just attacking her for not doing what you demand, which is stand in front of you and insult herself until you're satisfied.
sfwriter
(3,032 posts)It would be better if you could respond in a positive manner. What analysis have you seen that was good rather than fussing over what someone else posted. put up or shut up please. What is the best analysis you have seen?
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)I haven't seen any "good" analysis because most of it is nothing but more "Bernie's Secret Sauce would have won it" bullshit.
"Put up or shut up" The fucking nerve of you, my goodness.
mdbl
(4,973 posts)because the outcome
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)A few people have posted ideas for moving ahead, even though they get ridiculed and accused of disloyalty. I have seen a couple thoughtful posts about why we used to be the majority party, and how that changed.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)by our corrupt fourth estate.
People who say our platform was good and progressive as it came together for 2016, aren't exactly off-base, although that doesn't invalidate the argument that we need a better economic message. It does, from a strategic angle, make that point moot though. The problem isn't with the democratic party's ability to see and to channel the pain of suffering constituencies into their message.
The problem is their unwillingness to go after the entrenched mechanisms of that illness. The problem is trying to play nice with the virus as if that will ever get us progress. It has only ever been an icy bath to keep the fever down, which I agree, is a whole lot better than the pox ridden blankets the GOP wants to give out, but the virus has only been getting stronger.
Either we call out the fourth estate as corporately owned peddlers of pro-billionaire propaganda, or we can continue to smile at the fuckers and play nice and hope they don’t stab us in the back when we turn around.
Basically our leaders are continuing with a strategy of selling just a little social justice to the people, and just a little economic justice, and with that dangling there, going to our corporate masters and saying, “They really want and need this and we think you should give it to them, for the sake of your own political expedience.” And their answer to that is “oh why not…assuming our first draft pick doesn’t beat you in tryouts.”
Its time for us to stop playing this game on their terms. It is rigged. We are kissing their corporate asses and they are responding with “but the GOP tosses our salad.” People here calling for us to approach corporate regulation and taxation with the balanced hand of actual statesmen need to start appreciating that the way you get to that balance is by scaring the fuck out of the people who are putting their thumb on the scales, not by asking them politely behind closed doors to give their thumb a rest, but by suggesting that they might lose it. (yeah, a little overdramatic).
The power of the upper echelon of the 1% is largely exerted through our media and through our seats of government. Trying to reason with our media is making the mistake that it can be reasoned with. Asking it to do a better job without simultaneously shouting from every megaphone we can still get our hands on that they are bought and paid for, is not going to be sufficient, and never has been.
The funny part is that the media itself, not to mention the GOP, has already done a lot of that work for us. It has told people that it can’t be trusted. It has told people that it has an agenda. A liberal agenda yes, but that isn’t so hard to turn. how many people can simultaneously hold onto the reality that these mouthpieces are owned by rich megacorporations, and aslo, that these megacorporations want to hurt American Business interests like their very own, through liberal policy? Admittedly some, but I’ve gotten a lot of confused looks from republican voters by pulling at this thread with them. We should be telling them “yes already, you’re right! the media IS absolutely bought and paid for. It is selling you 100% garbage, just like you already thought. And look at who owns it. I wonder what they want.”
We call out the media, and it will circle its wagons, try to make the Democratic Party a laughing stock of sore losers and conspiracy theorists, etc. And maybe we lose this fight. It isn’t exactly a fair one. Thing is, we’re losing it anyway. Thankfully social media has emerged, so maybe there’s a chance of winning. If we could just get to a tipping point, the media will have to react in order to regain some air of respectability, so as to not wholly dismantle its levers on public perception.
But hell, as I said that might all be fantasy. Even if Democrats prosecuted that kind of anti-media campaign in solidarity, which they won’t, we could get clobbered for it…entirely blown out of the next mid-term. But there is no overcoming the media’s impact without actually fighting the media. Obama is an exception, and we might have more presidents who break through, but he had to reach far across the aisle to make concessions that were gleefully slapped away. Down-ticket, he had but 2 years of a mostly friendly majority. The rest of the time he had to stave off a republican house and Senate. This is an attrition that is not going to get better for us the more we lose.
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)FWIW, Kos seems to be doing somewhat better in that area. Maybe because are supposed to be well thought out essays that provoke discussion, rather than tossing out a couple of slogans, and getting a hundred posts saying they agree with you, and stomping on anyone posting a dissenting opinion.
I just hope that the party aparatus itself does some serious self examination, and makes some major changes before we become a permanent one party state.
Here on DU, the editorial forum is probably your best bet.
sfwriter
(3,032 posts)
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)To reality.
My very first post back was filled with links and analysis, but it got a grand total of 10 responses.
It's so much easier to blame the boogyman than it is to admit our own faults.
Sadly, 2020 looks like a repeat performance of 2016 with the way things are going.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)I guess it's too soon for calm analysis that might help us figure out what to do differently in 2018
mdbl
(4,973 posts)we're F'd until that is changed, and it doesn't look like any time soon.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)mdbl
(4,973 posts)unfortunately, joe farmer keeps watching Fux news and listening to Mush Limpballs. Where do you think they are getting their opinions? I stood up in an entire room once during the 2000 election and stated "anyone here that knows anything other than what you heard on Rush Limbaugh raise your hand". Not one hand went up. Does that tell you what we are up against?
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)sfwriter
(3,032 posts)Trump used micro-targeting to cleve off Clinton voters based on individual perceptions by group. Maybe there is a way to do this with these voters preconceptions. I think a message that trump sold them out will be a strong one.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)sfwriter
(3,032 posts)They sent individual ads to specific groups based on consumer behavior and voter behavior.
These ads, like televised attack ads, greatly suppressed the vote in exactly the areas they needed. I think his son in law handled it. It was cheaper and more effective than tv.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)You're looking for the neonatal wing upstairs. Maybe GD?
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)The few constructive threads are ignored and rapidly sink, the rest are basically repeat themselves by blaming everybody but the candidate and staff.
Hopefully things will change, otherwise this site will become an echo chamber with fewer and fewer members and posts.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)Because I can't take the same old "all trump voters are racist" threads that do nothing to help the Party figure out how to win next time
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)
pnwmom
(108,974 posts)There were about 12% undecideds in the last polls -- and in the furor of the James Comey letter bombs, they ended up breaking for DT. In the last couple weeks of the campaign, HRC got much more negative coverage than Trump, and her support went from a lead of about 9 points to 2.
And she won by 2% -- it's just that we have a rigged system where rural white voters count for more than diverse urban voters, so that DT managed to win the Electoral College.
Hekate
(90,641 posts)....does not apply to you, keep digging, because there is a lot of material here.
It's just that the scope of the problem is so massive, the scope of the disaster so profound, that it's hard to wrap your head around. I mean, Russia?! And that big rock Trump lifted up and all the maggots that came out and felt empowered to take the US back for white people?!
Where to even begin? You start.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)Has a link to a good PPP article on what worked in NC.