lovemydogs
lovemydogs's JournalReports Are Now Coming Out Why Hillary Lost the General Election And Where We Go From Here
This is about the reports that have come out, which all reach a similar conclusion, and not about causing anyone to get mad, fight or be upset.
I just thought that people would like to know what many Democratic political firms have been finding.
It is meant for people to take in, process and think about. Not attack each other or democratic politicians, ect.
To begin with, the argument that the base did not turn out is wrong. It was because she failed to get the support and votes from a group that voted for Obama twice. Hillary lost support with some key groups needed to win in a general election. The big problem is getting party leaders, hardcore Hillary supporters to accept the results and come to terms with why.
Hillary lost alot of Obama supporters, mainly Working Class Whites.
'Indeed, the voters who flipped from Obama to Trump in just four years have amassed 70 percent of the reason why Clinton lost the election, according to an analysis by the Democratic political firm Global Strategy Group. Matt Canter, the senior vice president of the firm, has delivered these reports to party operatives, congressman, senators and think-tank leaders in order to properly inform and educate the party on what exactly happened.'
Cantor also added that its important to learn lessons from the loss and not just tell ourselves things to make us feel better.
Not only did Cantor's group but, Hillary's Priorities USA and the New York Times have conducted similar studies. They all reached the same conclusion:
'Each group made its assessment by analyzing voter files, reports that show who voted in every state, and matching them to pre-existing data about the voters, including demographic information and prior vote history. Using this process, the groups have determined how people voted – in what amounts to the most comprehensive way to analyze the electorate short of a full-blown census.'
This is what happened with Working Class Whites:
'This comes at a time when one poll shows that 67 percent of the public believes that the Democratic Party is out of touch with the concerns of most people. “This idea that Democrats can somehow ignore this constituency and just turn out more of our voters, the math doesn’t work,” Canter told McClatchy. “We have to do both.”
Clinton lost was unable to persuade working class white voters mainly because she didn’t differ from the status-quo, and Trump was a candidate that ran on abolishing the establishment class, even though he was never actually going to anyways.'
Hillary's group, Priorities also add:
' “Officials with the group have preached in recent months that Democrats can both reach out to white working-class voters and their base with a strong message rooted in economic populism,” McClatchy reported.'
They all say the biggest problem for the Democratic Party now with rebuilding is that the party is leaderless. There is no one voice to lead the party and unite it. As well as address the problems that hurt Hillary in the general.
http://www.salon.com/2017/05/01/it-was-working-class-whites-hillary-clinton-lost-a-lot-of-obama-voters-to-donald-trump-democratic-firm-says/
Why the Establishment v Progressive (i.e Clinton v Sanders) Fight Keeps Going On.
I was looking for something, an article or op-ed, on a subject and ended up stumbling onto something written in Salon a couple years ago.
It was about the Clinton/Sanders divide. Also seen as a fight between the Baby Boomer Clinton faction v the Bernie Sanders Millennials faction.
The article was not critical of either side but, written to shed light on some of the bitter fighting, what could be danger for Clinton in the general election.
It opened my mind up to answer some of my questions as to why people may still be fighting with each other when we should be on the same side.
To begin with, not all of Sanders supporters are Millennials. I am a baby boomer who supported Sanders. Vice Versa. There were alot of Millennials who supported Clinton.
That being said here are some high points in the article and I would encourage people to link to it and read the whole thing.
First the article goes back to the late 70s when the boomers were young and felt very different from their Greatest Generation parents in the role of civic engagement, government and business.
'In 1978, Stanford Research Institute was charting the effect that the baby boomers were having on American society. Businesses were struggling to market to a generation that cared less about status and more about personal expression. This was the Me Decade, obsessed with human potential and self-actualization, and in California, Ronald Reagan was watching this change firsthand. Arnold Mitchell and his colleagues at SRI hit on a new market research method to get a handle on what was going on, which they called VALS, for Values and LifeStyle. Instead of using traditional demographics, they targeted people psychographically, based in significant part on Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which put self-actualization at the pinnacle of human experience. The research found something stunning: There was a large and growing group that hadn’t been understood before, which they called the Inner Directeds. These people cut across traditional demographic lines, and what they had in common was their desire to live life on their own terms.'
This was the start of the Government is bad and business is good in republican politics. The beginning of scapegoating government institutions, looking at privatizing and wiping out the New Deal. It was also the beginning of the anti tax movement where people became resentful of paying for 'undeserving others' and wanting to keep their money. All of this spoke to Boomers who were suspicious of Government since the 60s with Vietnam, Watergate and CIA abuses.
The article moves onto Bill Clinton and his moving the Democratic Party from its traditional stance of supporting unions, working people, civil rights, ect. and using government to promote and support good works to help the common good.
I personally feel Baby Boomers came into adulthood at a time when the arc of the New Deal was wanning, usually policies, moods and tug of war of left/right is around 35 years. The era of pro Democrat and New Deal ideas had hit a roadblock at the same time the boomers came of age and had major problems with government involvement. The anti big business mood changed overnight to pro business and the rise of the yuppies.
Boomers got the benefit of businesses being freed up and the big spending of the 80s. Business had not yet got to the point where they were getting the bulk of taxpayer money in their pockets, were allowed gross malpractice and watchdogs turning a blind eye. Businesses still felt responsible towards their workers and the public and benefits were still plenty. And Free Trade had not yet hit the job market.
Boomers rode the wave of pro Wall Street/Big Business mood and this is what Clinton came to in 1992. A Republican, capitalism is great, pro business mood.
'Clinton crafted his message to fit exactly what the focus groups said suburban swing voters wanted, and promised tax cuts. “Government is in the way,” he told the Democratic National Convention. “It’s taking more of your money and giving you less in return.” '
But, when Clinton tried to address the debt in the traditional manner this is what happeded:
'But once in office, Clinton found the deficit was much larger than expected and he’d have to make deep cuts to social programs, so he dropped the tax cut proposal. This angered the inner-directed, anti-government suburban boomers Clinton had used to build a coalition in the campaign. When he proposed what became Hillarycare in 1993—which was about shared interests—they revolted. Disunited Democrats threw up several competing proposals, effectively killing it, and in 1994 voters turned Congress red, throwing Clinton’s presidency into jeopardy.'
Millennials were either kids or not yet born. They need to know the atmosphere of the late 70s into Bush II era. The Clintons became neo-liberal and pro Wall Street by need. If they did not change the party and move it right, the party would be in danger of being dried up. Having no voice. It was a huge time for Conservative, even with democrats, policies.
Boomers who remained democrats favor the Clintons because Bill Clinton got the benefit of the renewed energy of business, combining traditional democratic interests of civil rights and women's right with being a business friendly democrat and moving the party to a center right, moderate position. The economy thrived in the 90s. And it fit Boomers ideals as well as their pocketbooks at the time. Boomer Democrats have carried a fondness for both Clintons since then and probably see an attack on them as both unfair and reminiscent of the extreme attacks by the republican party.
But, the fallout from the 90s and Bill Clinton having to straddle the new mood and address the mindset of his own generation was:
...'It was also based on an unexamined assumption: that self-interest is indeed the paramount political frame, instead of simply being one of many possible frames. The resulting focus on self-fulfillment at the expense of shared interests radically transformed government and American political and economic thought in the decades since.'
The studies since the 90s, especially lately now see the fallout from these years. From focusing solely on Boomers need for individualism and self fullfillment, rejection of the policies of the common good:
'We now know from science that self-fulfillment is not the only frame; in fact it is something of a mirage. Once basic needs are met, at a financial level of around $76,000, more money doesn’t make people happier. Like a carrot on a stick, one can chase self-fulfillment forever and still find it’s not quite within reach. Building a politics on this mirage drives the country ever rightward.
When combined with international trade agreements designed to give individuals cheaper goods (which polls well on a granular level) and the attendant rise of globalization ushered in by Clinton, the pursuit of this mirage led to unprecedented corporate power, destruction of the middle class, and environmental disasters that are providing the fuel for Bernie Sanders’ campaign and his call for a political revolution. This is a philosophical struggle for the hearts and minds of the Democratic Party.'
Now, with Boomers in their last hurrah, beginning to exit the stage and the millennial generation coming of age and dipping their toes into politics. Millennials see the world and policies in a totally different light:
'Mounting evidence shows that because of millennials’ ties through social media, younger voters do not think of themselves in the same radically self-obsessed, anti-government and entitled consumer ways their boomer parents did. Instead, they tend to see themselves as empowered but also a part of a collective, a social fabric, individual but cooperative, and because of this they value tolerance and equality. Most boomers were anxious to establish their independence; the data show millennials are not. Already the 20-44 population demographic is 8 percent larger than the 45-69 demo, it is significantly less self-focused, it sees the problems differently, indeed the problems are different, and reactive, self-focused politics are no longer necessarily the best way forward...'
It seems to me that Millennials are wanting in policy the same thing I have wanted for years. A renewal of the New Deal and its spirit.
Yes, not all millennials think like this, just like not all boomers think like the majority. But, this sheds light on the bitter divide. Its like the same divide of the Greatest Generation and their kids in the 60s, today's Boomers. Only now the Boomers are the parents.
The parting thought of this article is the most important one and one both sides need to ponder and take seriously if the democrats are to have a fighting chance of coming back and stronger then we've been in a while:
'Americans are undergoing a seismic shift in the political landscape, one that would seem to favor Democrats, but they may hand it away by refusing to unify and boldly grasp it. The numbers show that the time for the sort of bold, visionary appeal to the shared interests of society is finally arriving. If Democrats can capture it, they could elect an epochal president, one that has the power to redefine the argument as Reagan did, for the next 35 years.'
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/07/the_democrats_are_about_to_blow_it_this_election_is_about_new_millennials_not_aging_baby_boomers/
Two Minds About Obama Speaking at Wall Street Firm
I understand the anger. The feeling of betrayal over Obama speaking for a large fee to Wall Street.
I do not like this cozy crap with Wall Street by the Democratic Party Members.
Democrats need to back away from the Wall Street/big Corporate elbow rubbing.
But, thinking about it, I also understand why President Obama is doing it.
After 8 years in the White House he needs to restart a private life and what that entails.
He has his house in Chicago he would like to eventually return to.
He has his new house in Washington DC for a few years and the assorted expenses that come with caring for and furnishing it.
Sasha in Private School, where she has gone for 8 years.
Malia in Harvard.
Kick starting his new ventures in outreach to young people and the expenses of starting a new venture.
Obama and Michelle have quite a few expenses, have been out of public life for a long time and probably need some big cash, especially right away.
If I was someone important and needed money, big money fairly quick, I probably would think about doing a couple speeches for some fat cats while also having a chance to maybe talk to them about their role in rebuilding the country and the need for them to give back.
And I am no fan of the Fat Cats.
But, thinking on both sides, I can see it. I am coming down on neither side.
Why Trump Voters Still Support Trump
With the 100 day mark this week, which is silly in this day and age, there has been alot of media attention of whether those who voted for Trump still support him.
They seem surprised that they still do.
Anyone with an once of common sense can tell you why.
Trump came to office 4 months ago. Those who voted for him were strong in their support and had high hopes he would drain the swamp, make things better for working class people, Put American people first and attack immigrants.
I don't know about you but, anyone I vote for that after just 4 months I am probably still going to be supporting that person and having high hopes.
People pretty much know that no one can turn a country around or do anything that will show results, good or bad, in 4 months. I used to laugh at people who were angry at Obama a month or two after taking office because he did not magically change the country by then. The best politician, even with a full house, is not going make change happen or for things to be taking effect right away. It take some time, sometimes years, for policy to have an effect.
That being said, even the worst politician is going to have his supporters behind him in the first months of taking office.
There really won't be much change in regards to Trump for some time. It just isn't going to happen.
So, the media keeping this Trump support watch is a waste of time. And anyone wondering why his supporters are not jumping ship like rats, well.....
Women Will Loose All Rights Because the Economy...
I find this hysteria about women's rights, civil rights, voting rights, ect., to be rather over the top.
If you focus on the economy, on economic fairness and income inequality, it does not mean that suddenly women will not be able to vote, will have to stay home barefoot and pregnant, have to get men's permission to do things. That women will lose their rights and independence. It does not mean that suddenly abortion is illegal.
It does not mean that african americans will suddenly have to go to the back of the bus. Take literacy tests to vote.
It does not mean that the rights of various groups will suddenly disappear.
Afterall, all of these have been under assault for 20 years while the democratic party has put these groups at the forefront while ignoring the working class and middle class.
This is on par with the right believing Obama was a secret Muslim.
People keep believing and talking themselves into a kind of hysterical kind of thinking.
Believing that those who want the party to reconnect with its New Deal roots and reign in Wall Street and the rich, address income inequality is somehow anti democratic and anti american.
Believing that addressing the issues of the working class is somehow going to take away abortion rights and voting rights.
Believing that to point out where the party needs to fix itself and change, to move from the status quo of the party being too cozy with Wall Street while throwing unions under the bus is anti woman.
Or that Bernie Sanders is a secret republican out to destroy the democratic party.
When are people going to stop with the hysteria and take a deep breath. Get in touch with common sense. Realize that both sides want what is best for the party.
Just because we see things differently does not make the other side evil.
Let's just sit down, gather out thoughts and talk to one another in a mature manner. Discuss what it is that scares you, what it is that you hope for and like. Discuss why you are either a centrist or a progressive.
It is not being anti democratic party to say the party needs to do some introspection and to address the things that are hurting it.
Things will not resolve themselves and the party will not grow and move forward as long as we talk past each other and imagine all kinds of 'ghost stories' to scare ourselves with.
It does not help to rage about something yet, not be willing to listen to the other side.
It is so important for people stop demonizing.
Women and the Progressive Movement
I am a Woman and a Proud Progressive.
I think alot of the rage towards Progressives by centrists is driven by unresolved anger over the Primaries last year. For some reason, many still carry a huge resentment towards those who are progressive because of their anger towards Bernie Sanders. I do not know why there is an ongoing anger over his running against Hillary. But, the anger carries.
Because of the anger towards Progressives, there is a meme going around that Progressives are anti women. That it is a relatively new movement made up largely of anti woman 20 something white men.
This is very very much not true of the history of the Progressive movement
Actually the Progressive movement is well over 100 years old and women played a huge role in the movement.
Jane Adams was a progressive, as was Eleanor Roosevelt. Ida B. Wells and even the great Francis Perkins.
The Progressive movement embraced women and they were a large part of the movement's drive to reform the country of social ills.
Child Labor, Healthcare for women, Women's Suffrage and the right to vote.
They were part of the labor and union movement - fighting with the men against the security forces hired by Corporate owners.
The Progressive movement welcomed women and their voices were very important.
These are the women that drove the reforms we take for granted. That were in the forefront of women being freed from their oppressive roles at the turn of the century and the steady gains for equality in the 20th century.
Because of the Progressive movement and the ideas and policies they advocated for, it laid the groundwork for FDR's New Deal.
The New Deal that gave this country its best decades for the average working person and families. It attacked Income Inequality and reigned in the abuses of the banks and big business. It brought economic security and the middle class.
Because of the economic gains made by the New Deal for everyday Americans, social gains were made possible.
Because of the Progressive movement the democratic party, which absorbed many of their ideas, was a strong and dominate party that had the loyalty of the American people.
It was when the party began dabbling in neo-liberalism in the late 70s into the 80s, giving us the DLC and the New Democrats that the party began to lose ground and its support.
They turned their backs on their biggest supporters in unions. The working class suddenly was thrown under the bus. Instead, the party decided it wanted to make policies and gearing towards the elite professionals, Wall Street and corporations. The party advocated privatizing over the traditional government role and its programs designed to help families.
The party became the opposite of what it was in its heyday.
Women make up a large amount of the lower end paying workers. Women are raising chldren alone and paying childcare largely by themselves. They are finding that programs that used help subsided the high cost being cut more and more, even eliminated.
Between the high cost of living, of child care, cuts or eliminating of needed programs like after school or day care help, summer programs, along with restrictions on food stamps and welfare, women are finding themselves trapped in a cycle of poverty and despair. Same with working families.
How anyone can say that the New Democrats, the corporate friendly, privatizing centrist wing is more pro woman is beyond me.
Not when Progressives, along with their history, has long fought for the rights and economic security of women and working people of all groups.
People have to move on from the primaries. If you have anger that you cannot release, then sit down and have a calm discussion with a progressive. Let the name calling and assumptions at the door. Just talk about where you are coming from and why you are still angry. And listen, just listen to what a progressive has to say and why they support that wing of the party.
But, to just assume or fling silly accusations like Progressives hate women is not helpful and does not foster understanding.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:32 PMNumber of posts: 575
