Obama got a record number of votes in 2008 because of his promise of change. Trump won under the promise of shaking up Washington. It's not hard to tell what brings the voters in.

Democrats have since lost the plot, and instead of choosing to implement progressive change, they now get to sit and watch for the next 4 years as the Republicans have free reign to implement alt-right change. Change was bound to happen sooner or later, it was just a matter of who was willing to implement it first. That being said, the Democrats now have to rid themselves of this impression among voters as being ones who are willing to bow to Wall Street and start to listen to the working class, and talk about change, but actually follow through with it....

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-arent-destiny-and-four-other-things-this-election-taught-me/

Really good article by 538 here even though they still weren't close to right about their prediction in the end ... 

It's like Colin Powell said, "Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris" so the same is true for liberals who keep taking demographics for granted ... 

Demographics is not DESTINY no matter how much leftists keep wishing for it since demographics change their preferences all of the time depending on the situation and state ... 

Democrats need to do a better job of reaching the independents and lay back on the blatant partisanship if charisma is not on their side. Democrats also need to keep the politically correct extremists in their party in check otherwise they risk alienating the people that could potentially be on their side so they need to quit calling people racists, sexists, or a 'basket of deplorables" if they wish to persuade people by having a realistic discussion. Democrats also need to get in better touch with the average american since it's problematic that a billionaire who's daily life doesn't come close to that of americans is more relatable than those from the washington establishment. The democratic party also needs a serious reform in leadership too and no more f*cking political dynasties too like the Bushes or the Clintons showed us ... 

The democratic party also needs to focus on more than just urban areas too since it was the suburbs and rural areas HEAVILY favoured Trump more than usual ... 

If the democratic party refuses any of these reforms and suffers another humiliating defeat come 2020 where they lose the whitehouse, senate, along with the house of representatives and where there's a mass exodus of registered democrats then the party's long term viability needs to be questioned altogether ... 

vivster said: Nymeria said:   I get that as a measure to win in 2020, but then the cycle could begin anew with losses in 2022 and 2024 leaving the door open for the Republican party to capitalize again and possibly reinvent taking away groups taken for granted. There is no reinventing. The parties are fine how they are since they appeal greatly to their voter base. The policies never change. The difference is made by a handful of idiots who vote something different every time because they aren't really interested in politics. Idiots are fickle, so trying to appeal to them is nothing more than a gamble. Take disgruntled Bernie supportes for example. They didn't vote because it wasn't Bernie running. As loyal Bernie fans they didn't vote for Hillary and as such went against everything Bernie tried to achieve. Those people do not respond to logic, they only act on buzzwords. The best you can do is hoping they won't get too many buzzwords to sway them to not vote.

Dems need to reinvent to win.  The Alt-Right won this presidential election.  The Hard-Right won congress, The GOP WON ALL OF IT.  I'm sure most uninformed voters don't care about congress.  Guess who has a majority in the House and Senate?  Establishment candidates from both sides look "weak" and "bought and paid for"  The democratic party is more divided than ever, they are obviously not appealing to their base.  Even Obama said it's not about appeal that's already there.  He said Hillary lost because "she didn't campaign enough"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOOVDJJ77F0

The middle class wasn't going to vote for 4 more years of Obamacare if they think it destroyed them and raised premiums.  It's more about policies than you're giving the parties credit for.  Obama ignoring the Dakota pipeline and deporting more people than any president doesn't appeal to democratic voters.  Establishment Democrats are weak and give into Republicans all the time with Obama's deportations, Bill Clinton signing NAFTA, Obama pushing TPP.  Even if a dem beats Trump, congress is still Republican and won't work with the Democrats and they'll just sit there and be submissive.  Anyone that votes for Dems because "they're less bad" on paper is an idiot.  Policies do change, remember Bill Clinton was for deportation and now he's for amnesty.  Obama and Clinton weren't for gay marriage before.  If the democratic party still appealed to people they wouldn't have lost the majority senate and failed to recapture it.  

 Bernie supporters and 3rd parties didn't factor into anything, she lost and there was no realistic path to victory for her since she did not campaign hard enough and depended on the waining popularity of the democratic party in key states on top of her objective unfavorablility and untrustworthyness.  It was all there and the left didn't listen.  Trump campaigned for change, so did Obama.  At the end of the day that's what people want in an unstable time.

fordy said: Obama got a record number of votes in 2008 because of his promise of change. Trump won under the promise of shaking up Washington. It's not hard to tell what brings the voters in. Democrats have since lost the plot, and instead of choosing to implement progressive change, they now get to sit and watch for the next 4 years as the Republicans have free reign to implement alt-right change. Change was bound to happen sooner or later, it was just a matter of who was willing to implement it first. That being said, the Democrats now have to rid themselves of this impression among voters as being ones who are willing to bow to Wall Street and start to listen to the working class, and talk about change, but actually follow through with it....

Trump got less votes than Romney, McCain, and Clinton. He won because people stayed home.

Darc Requiem said: fordy said: Obama got a record number of votes in 2008 because of his promise of change. Trump won under the promise of shaking up Washington. It's not hard to tell what brings the voters in. Democrats have since lost the plot, and instead of choosing to implement progressive change, they now get to sit and watch for the next 4 years as the Republicans have free reign to implement alt-right change. Change was bound to happen sooner or later, it was just a matter of who was willing to implement it first. That being said, the Democrats now have to rid themselves of this impression among voters as being ones who are willing to bow to Wall Street and start to listen to the working class, and talk about change, but actually follow through with it.... Trump got less votes than Romney, McCain, and Clinton. He won because people stayed home.

Exactly, and they stayed home because there was nothing on the democratic side that energised the base at all.

vivster said: Step 1: Wait 4 years Step 2: Pick any nominee Step 3: Win election Optional Step: Propose fair voting laws that will never get passed in a republican congress

As you yourself noted later on, voters tend to respond to logic less than buzzwords, catchy slogans, and, most importantly, the relatability of the candidate. Trump won despite a myriad of what would have in any other year been campaign ending gaffes because people simply didn't care enough to vote for Hillary. Even the prospect of a Trump presidency wasn't motivation enough for many liberal independents and even Democrats to vote for a candidate they were so disenthused about. And this was with the Supreme Court, the future of the ACA, how the Syrian conflict is handled, all at stake.

Short of Trump bulldozing the Lincoln Memorial and setting up a new hotel in its place, I'm not sure it would be possible for him to be any less appealing to most Americans in four years. If this election has shown anything, it's that you need a candidate that can relate to some significant portion of Americans. Having a candidate that's merely less offensive than the other isn't going to cut it, because those people either stay home or vote for a third party or a dead gorilla. Democrats can't afford to simply choose any politician or party leader; it needs to be someone that has appeal for and is seen as relatable to a large group of Americans.

MTZehvor said: vivster said: Step 1: Wait 4 years Step 2: Pick any nominee Step 3: Win election Optional Step: Propose fair voting laws that will never get passed in a republican congress As you yourself noted later on, voters tend to respond to logic less than buzzwords, catchy slogans, and, most importantly, the relatability of the candidate. Trump won despite a myriad of what would have in any other year been campaign ending gaffes because people simply didn't care enough to vote for Hillary. Even the prospect of a Trump presidency wasn't motivation enough for many liberal independents and even Democrats to vote for a candidate they were so disenthused about. And this was with the Supreme Court, the future of the ACA, how the Syrian conflict is handled, all at stake. Short of Trump bulldozing the Lincoln Memorial and setting up a new hotel in its place, I'm not sure it would be possible for him to be any less appealing to most Americans in four years. If this election has shown anything, it's that you need a candidate that can relate to some significant portion of Americans. Having a candidate that's merely less offensive than the other isn't going to cut it, because those people either stay home or vote for a third party or a dead gorilla. Democrats can't afford to simply choose any politician or party leader; it needs to be someone that has appeal for and is seen as relatable to a large group of Americans.

This is contradictory. As you correctly pointed out the reason Trump won is not because so many people voted for him but because so many people who would have given their vote to Hillary didn't vote at all.

I'm sure that after 4 years of Trump even the most apathetic liberal will get their ass to the voting booth this time. Considering a lot of people didn't go because they thought trump wouldn't win anyway. Now that it has come to pass there should be a lot more voting enthusiasm in the next election. That means Trump doesn't even have to do anything, his presidency alone is a great motivator for apathetic people to go to the polls.

vivster said: MTZehvor said: As you yourself noted later on, voters tend to respond to logic less than buzzwords, catchy slogans, and, most importantly, the relatability of the candidate. Trump won despite a myriad of what would have in any other year been campaign ending gaffes because people simply didn't care enough to vote for Hillary. Even the prospect of a Trump presidency wasn't motivation enough for many liberal independents and even Democrats to vote for a candidate they were so disenthused about. And this was with the Supreme Court, the future of the ACA, how the Syrian conflict is handled, all at stake. Short of Trump bulldozing the Lincoln Memorial and setting up a new hotel in its place, I'm not sure it would be possible for him to be any less appealing to most Americans in four years. If this election has shown anything, it's that you need a candidate that can relate to some significant portion of Americans. Having a candidate that's merely less offensive than the other isn't going to cut it, because those people either stay home or vote for a third party or a dead gorilla. Democrats can't afford to simply choose any politician or party leader; it needs to be someone that has appeal for and is seen as relatable to a large group of Americans. This is contradictory. As you correctly pointed out the reason Trump won is not because so many people voted for him but because so many people who would have given their vote to Hillary didn't vote at all. I'm sure that after 4 years of Trump even the most apathetic liberal will get their ass to the voting booth this time. Considering a lot of people didn't go because they thought trump wouldn't win anyway. Now that it has come to pass there should be a lot more voting enthusiasm in the next election. That means Trump doesn't even have to do anything, his presidency alone is a great motivator for apathetic people to go to the polls.

It's not contradictory at all. Boiling it down to its simplest level, my argument is that if people see both candidates as great enough "evils," they will reject both and vote for neither. Many people (largely the liberal independent crowd) that considered Trump worse than Hillary didn't bother voting, because they were so disenthused with the alternative to Trump. In other words, if you do not have a candidate that is relatable and is merely "less appaling than Trump," it will be insufficient, especially given how many people found Trump's message relatable. Regardless of how awful the other guy is, you need someone who is at least appealing in some way. Otherwise people spend their time simply complaining about how awful both candidates are on social media.

The whole "after four years of this candidate, we'll be sure to get enough people out to win" was fairly similar to arguments made about George W. Bush after he won the White House in 2000. While Bush was by no means the circus that Trump is, the logic is similar; Democrats felt that they could simply let Bush beat himself. That didn't turn out so well, even with the extremely controversial invasion of Iraq well underway by the time the election took place. 

Republicans won't "obstruct renovating the infrastructure" bills now, will they?

That's one major positive Trump has in his pocket already. People will see a difference being made with their eyes. "Bring back jobs" promise we'll be fulfilled, not in the way he was describing it, because those manufacturing/mining jobs are not coming back. But renovating the infrastructure will create tons of jobs.

Deporting undocumented illegal low-wage workers will increase the minimum wage naturally, the 2nd palpable positive.

Obamacare was going to get a lot better with time, it doesn't matter if Hillary won or not, because Trump seems to have adopted her "keep the good parts, remove the bad ones" policy. So that's one possible major PLUS in Trump's pocket.

He will win the 2020 elections because he'll run with a lot of positivity in the atmosphere. He couldn't have been elected at a better time (or worse, depending on how you look at it).

I also hear foreign aid will see major cuts. Less immigrants will be welcomed. There is just no path for democrats in 2020, no matter how much you will disagree with Trump on everything he does. 

The DNC fuck'ed so bad it's making Obama viscerally sick. 

LurkerJ said: Republicans won't "obstruct renovating the infrastructure" bills now, will they? That's one major positive Trump has in his pocket already. People will see a difference being made with their eyes. "Bring back jobs" promise we'll be fulfilled, not in the way he was describing it, because those manufacturing/mining jobs are not coming back. But renovating the infrastructure will create tons of jobs. Deporting undocumented illegal low-wage workers will increase the minimum wage naturally, the 2nd palpable positive. He will win the 2020 elections because he'll run with a lot of positivity in the atmosphere. I also hear foreign aid will see major cuts. There is no path for democrats in 2020, no matter how much you will disagree with Trump on everything he does. The DNC fuck'ed so bad it's making Obama viscerally sick.

 

Every politician runs that "we need to invest in our infrastructure" line .... does it ever happen? Bush and Obama said that too. Who the hell is going to pay for that? Government run jobs is not steady career work ether, like ok a highway may need to be fixed ... and then what? The next project might be something completely different and require maybe 1/3 the workers, meaning 2/3rds of those guys are now unemployed again. Democrats can win with a more charismatic candidate that doesn't have the baggage of NAFTA tied to him/her. Clinton still beat Trump by a rather large margin in the popular vote, every 4 years the demographics shift more in their favor too (more old people die, more young people, 50% of whom are now a minority, grow older). Just run the Bernie Sanders playbook and you'll win in 4 years IMO, Sanders would have beaten Trump this time most likely because he would've held Pennslyvania/Michigan/Wisconsin and potentially also taken Ohio and Iowa where his populist message resonated. Time to embrace populist messaging ala Sanders, "middle of the road 1990s" liberalism doesn't work anymore, it doesn't excite the Democratic base (especially millenials).