Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by gandalfe, Dec 31, 2018.
from a distance it seemed that Hilary was the one that was pretty ****ing stupid. She lost the unlosable election to a buffoon. Alienating half of the voters by insulting them in retrospect wasn't the most clever thing to do.
A candidate who was previously first lady hardly seems to be stock standard normal.
I heard that story before. I don't buy it. Trump is part of a larger worldwide pattern of anti-immigration sentiment and nationalism. It isn't because she alienated anyone. It's not like someone went "did she just call me deplorable?? I'm definitely voting for that ***** grabbing guy!". Things are more complicated than that.
This is faulty. You are lumping in the gender studies graduates with useful degrees and saddling the plumbers and electricians with high school dropouts. Does the average gender studies graduate, working in their field, make more than the average trade worker?
It's pretty simplistic to just think anti-immigration sentiment gave Trump his win. I think if the Democrats just want to dismiss things as being "oh the other side is racist, blah blah blah they didn't vote for me because i'm a woman " etc and don't learn their lesson they'll be playing into his hands and he'll win again. Every indication is that a lot of the democrats are stupid af and are going to repeat the same mistakes and let the orange clown win again.
Hillary got 3 million more votes than trump. How did her deplorable thing actually hurt her again?
Anthony Bourdain explained very well why Hillary lost.
Hillary lost 3 states by a combined 80,000 votes. Those were states she took for granted. Instead of campaigning in Arizona, she should’ve hit the Great Lakes region hard.
Oh, and the Russian disinformation campaign targeted those states.
One of the essential components of a winning campaign recently is to energize the base. This was Karl Rove’s strategy in the re-election of W in 2004. He took a hard right. The democratic base is clearly younger and more urban than the republican. Hillary needed to have a more progressive agenda. Unfortunately, I’m not sure if even having a more proefesssive agenda would’ve energized the base in part because of the destructive effects of the Russian hacking which angered Bernie voters (who are increasingly becoming the democratic base).
So while Hillary’s campaign can be criticized, I don’t think you’re bringing up the relevant reasons as to why she lost.
The challenge for democrats is two-fold:
1. Finding a candidate who can excite women, young people, and minorities but not making their campaign on identity. Progressive policies as popular across class and political spectrum. Trump campaigned at times as a progressive.
2. Perhaps the greatest challenge for the democrats, is to not get sucked into reacting to trump. We all know trump is going to campaign and tweet nonstop. He’s going to lie all the time. Democrats can’t get sucked into his craziness. The MSM will be all too willing to let Trump control the narrative. Democrats need to be able to promote their message of hope so it’s not all about reacting to trump.
no idea who that is
When I googled Bourdain’s take on Hillary, he believed that her response to Harvey Weinstein doomed her campaign. Really? What’s the evidence for that?
We understand Hillary won the popular vote by more than 3 million votes, right?
And Russian disinformation campaigns are wrecking havoc on free societies. Brexit is the result of Russian disinformation. France, Poland, Italy, and Ukraine are all feeling the effects of Russian meddling.
We’re seeing huge shifts in our societies driven by the loss of manufacturing in Western Europe and America and immigration. Every time this happens we see a backlash of right wing nativists. But this discord is being exploited by Russia.
Where is harambe to Google that for you?
His tie is obscenely long.
Whats going on here? Context? Am i missing a joke or something?
Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
A poster you have blocked wanted to know exactly how Hillary’s actions/words hurt her.
My observation is just as true when you compare college degrees to those with high school diplomas.
Before I can answer further, what does "working in their field" mean? Is an HR representative working in the field of gender studies? A salesperson? Are you limiting this to college professors?
One point I have been making is the value of general education in employment. Gender studies is a broadly-based degree that looks at many different fields.
If people want good paying jobs with lots of availability, agriculture says hello! For anybody somewhat science minded, it's a great field with a lot of options.
You'll never find anybody campaign for trade schools like me. They're guaranteed jobs, if you're good. And they're always looking! You can work anywhere. Go be an electrician, a welder, a plumber, a machinist. You can do really cool things! Shop classes and home ec classes are so, so, so important for HS and I feel like they're going away. It's a shame.
Excuse me sir, but McDonalds is always hiring.