Even then, it is not a guarantee for reaching the top anymore .

If I lived in this type of middle American squalor, I don't think I'd get of my arse and vote for Dems either. 

  Where's this by the way?

Come on Steve...There is a "poll" somewhere that said otherwise 

It really is that simple. 

As OP mentions, the Dems have long been losing touch with their working class bloc. Trump's hammering trade, jobs is just what the rust belt wants to hear, and Clinton is weak in that area. 

She also is the example of "insider" politics which people are just fed up with. 

She is also, for reasons that are both legitimate and not, very unpopular. 

.....If only there was a guy who was popular, with support from the working class, youth and independents. 

Dang shame no one like that revealed themselves this campaign.

Lessons for the future, Democrats best take notes. 

Probably. And there's a poll "somewhere" that said whatever you want to believe, and that is hilarious. The point is when any candidate wins the popular vote but loses the election it means that voter turnout played a major role in the result. The USA is one of the countries with the lowest voter turnout in the world and this year it is the lowest it's been for 20 years (some of the people who couldn't be arsed to vote this time weren't even born then). Apathy means that the more motivated population dictates what everyone else gets to put up with.

So yeah, that's hilarious, Trumpton won because a quarter of the eligible voters managed to scrawl an "X" by his name. Brilliant.

Look at the base criticism: 

 

But it also seems that her strategy wasn't the best either. Her campaign seemed to focus more on, this other guy is unqualified/unfit to be president and promoting herself as a competent sane individual rather than attacking his policies (admittedly who knows what they are esp on the campaign trail) and promoting hers as better alternatives. Also, I heard that she had zero campaign visits to Wisconsin which seems quite ridiculous and would help explain  the absolute lashing she took there. So perhaps the campaign management was also partly to blame.

Her biggest problem as a politician is that she is not Bill. As despicable as he was, he at least had a personality, he was charismatic and he was likable. He had a way of looking into the camera and giving that little "aw shucks" grin and people went for that.

Hillary has none of that at all. She is cold an arrogant and has the personality of a spinster librarian (my apologies to spinsters and librarians everywhere).

She thought from the beginning that she would easily win the oval office because she deserved it, that it was her turn. That alone was her biggest mistake.

Another big mistake was her policy which she herself said would be to continue the Obama policy. She missed the fact that many Americans had no interest in a third Obama term.

She had the entire far left leaning media carrying her all the way. They attacked and demonized her opponents for her and they cleared the road when those pesky legal issues kept popping up and she still lost. 

I haven't even gotten to the email scandal and the Clinton Foundation which is still under investigation. Just because she lost the election doesn't mean these problems are going to go away.

The bottom line is that she is personally responsible for more than losing the election for herself. How much damage she has caused the Democratic party is still unknown. Obama will lose some of his legacy because of her and the left (and Obama) can forget about the Supreme Court.

 

I don't know what "Trumpton" means, I can only assume it is a UK reference to something or someone you over there do not like.

Voter turnout plays a role in every election good or bad. You can also say Obama won because so many turned out to vote because they really, really liked him and had nothing to do with his campaign. Comparing to the world I suspect it will always be a lower number.

In the US, where this election mattered, voter turnout was higher than 2012 based on figures from 2 days after the election, by about 1.3 million more. By % that 2012 figure is less than the 2008 figure, that 2008 turnout was the highest in more than 35 years, so even the 2nd Obama term was a lower turnout. So considering that, seems this 2016 election was nothing to discount, people voted...Just not for her and more than that what I also read was that the states she did lose that is where voter turnout fell.....Again, all that tells me is those that did not vote had no reason to cast a ballot for her, they stayed home or threw away their ballot package, she gave them no reason to scrawl an "X" by her name.

Like you I've always voted for the local outcome and not the national one. I've always voted 3rd party, I've never voted Labour or Tory in my life - the Liberals never stood a chance of being in power but up until 2015 in the rural area where I live they'd been the only viable second choice to the incumbent Tory so my 3rd party vote, while never producing a wining candidate, was only ever a wasted vote in 2015. Due to disproportional representation they don't win as many seats as the popular vote suggests they should but because they are the 2nd choice in many constituencies they at least win some. In the USA, where a 3rd party has never come second so can never win, it can be a wasted vote if that vote could have returned a candidate that you dislike the least.

Anyone who didn't vote gets no sympathy from me either, in fact for the next four years they can stfu because they have no cause to complain about anything. Those who voted for Johnson knowing he could not win but because they believed in their heart of hearts that he was the right president for them then they get a nod of approval from me, but those who voted for him to teach the other parties a lesson, or because, you know, Shillery, - they're idiots and they have wasted their vote, they don't get to say "Well, I never voted for Trump so it's not my fault". (There, I said it.)

I'm not counting the 45% of the US population that didn't vote, I'm not even saying those "missing" 120 million voters would have resulted in a Clinton win but since she won the popular vote there it is a slim possibility their votes would have made a difference.

lazland wrote:  Trumpalot won the election according to the rules which are set. Thus, he won fairly. Ditto every single bloody Tory government over here in Blighty.

Yup fair and square according to the rules. 

lazland wrote:   The way to correct this is not by singling out the 25% of eligible voters who voted for the Orange Wonder.

Of course it isn't, and I'd never dream of doing that. However, pointing out the 25% win is a very graphic way to show just how broken the so-called "winner takes all" system is. I remember well that I got shouted down for saying this a few months ago.

lazland wrote:  It is to wonder just how we all manage to put up with a voting system which allows such anachronisms to decide elections. I look forward to the day when we and our cousins across the pond have truly proportionate voting systems. Then we might be able to look forward to a representative government, although, of course, there are those who will still moan like f**k that "their" bloke/woman did not get in.

No argument from me. I voted for proportional representation even though the crap version they offered us in the referendum was a totally bollocks one.

lazland wrote: Steve G's joke about the polls is, of course, well made. I would no more trust an opinion poll than a crooked car salesman these days. What a waste of time and money that lot are!

Steve has explained it sufficiently. I like Trumpton and Camblewick Green 

However, it's doubly amusing that you chose to pick me up on Trumpton and let Steve's Trumpalot  go without comment. (UK: Trump means Fart - like a trumpet) 

Voter apathy is a deliberate failure of the political parties to engage the public. I call this deliberate because low voter turnout works to their advantage, why do you think ruling elites resisted universal suffrage for so long and so vehemently? They don't want anyone who is not partisan to vote at all.

What amuses me is that the number of people who vote for the winning candidate in any US election is more or less equal to the population of the UK. Shame you wasted all that tea really. 

Being bottom of the league of world nations is really nothing to be proud of, it's abysmal.

Catcher10 wrote: In the US, where this election mattered,

Woah... Electing the "leader of the free world" matters everywhere. Notice that as many non-Americans are commenting on the US elections on the PA forum than Americans, possibly even more... and that speaks volumes.

Catcher10 wrote: voter turnout was higher than 2012 based on figures from 2 days after the election, by about 1.3 million more. By % that 2012 figure is less than the 2008 figure, that 2008 turnout was the highest in more than 35 years, so even the 2nd Obama term was a lower turnout. So considering that, seems this 2016 election was nothing to discount, people voted...Just not for her and more than that what I also read was that the states she did lose that is where voter turnout fell.....Again, all that tells me is those that did not vote had no reason to cast a ballot for her, they stayed home or threw away their ballot package, she gave them no reason to scrawl an "X" by her name.

-------------
What?

Bullsh\t. Anyone that supports a candidate who stands on a platform that contains racist rhetoric cannot pick and chose which particular bits of attention grabbing rhetoric they voted for. This does not mean that Trump voters are racists (though some of them are, this is inescapable), but it does mean they voted for that racist rhetoric because that was part of the deal. It's all or nothing - no conscience-easing excuses, no trite apologist polemics. 

But by the same token, anybody who voted for Clinton was essentially voting for a corrupt neocon.  Why was this being whitewashed...and it was whitewashed...even on this forum.   People can't glorify that by saying, "Oh, we were voting for the first woman prez of USA".  Yes, she would have been that but also a war monger deeply distrustful of Russia. 

Exactly this. No one gets to cherry pick the good bits and ignore the bad bits.

Excellent points Dean. I agree fully. Those who don't vote have no right to complain, though they will. Often, they are the loudest. I've had people get upset with this, and I have said it directly to people, but seems simple to me: Not voting = you voted for whoever is in power. 

Also agreed, a vote that is sincere is never a waste. 

Yup. An archaic system, one that perhaps works toooo well in making sure rural areas don't get overrun by urban voters...given the party it has benefited in 2000 and 2016. It's a silly system really. Designed to force broader appeal, but it actually forces candidates to focus on a handful of states. 

Irony being all the talks from Trumpers about the election being "rigged" sure as hell fell off the Earth

And surely if anyone suggests abolishing/reforming the electoral college the very same people who yelled "RIGGED!" and "I wont accept the results" will now be saying "shut up and quit whining, accept the results"

Already seen tons of it. Floods of "Get over it! Quit moaning! He won OK accept it." all over the place. It's amazing...not one of those people would just quietly accept it if Trump lost. 

Hell, imagine if Trump won the popular vote but lost the electoral college? There'd be armed revolution! Seriously, imagine the response. All these memes would be instead Hillary with a swastika on her blazer in front a money pile going on about "Crooked Hillary rigged election. The system blah blah"

But that's the internet for ya, allows the worst to rise to the top. I keep telling myself to just ignore it, most memes are (if you see key words that are red flags) alt righters who likely didn't even vote. Just love to laugh as the ship goes down because maybe it's the only way to cope? 

When Trump, a Republican Congress and sellout Democrats agree to finally censor the internet the alt right will suddenly be 

Even normal Republicans...they've been pretty steadfast in saying we all have to accept this and cant change the EC.

I've asked a few to imagine this scenario. John Kasich vs Bernie Sanders. With down ballot voting the winner of this election is likely to cause the Senate to tip their party's direction. 

Let's say Kasich won the pop vote, but Sanders won the EC.

Would you sincerely claim that you would stay 100% committed to the EC and not question the results? 

Thus far, many have evaded or flat out stopped responding

All nuances disappear with that approach. Just try and discuss followers of islam and the contents of the koran that way. If its all or nothing for 1.7 billion muslims we've got 1.7 billion extremists and all of them would be responsible for isis. How can you not do some cherrypicking in life if you want to take part in a society? Especially when you're only given two sh*t options. 

Before the election http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/" rel="nofollow - Salena Zito wrote on Trump that "The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally". 

 I find that way of looking at it and Mike Rowe's text a lot more valuable than basically saying that the poor voters are as responsible as the actual corrupt warmonger or borderline fascist-option (a little too harsh maybe) they were stuck with. If I lived in the US the only reason I would have given Hillary Clinton my vote would have been because Donald Trump frightens me even more.

1) Many of those who have suffered under globalisation think that the system is against them and wanted to kick the "Establishment". Hillary represents that to them, whereas in reality, Trump is a globalist in his own way. But those who feel disenfranchised don't see or care about that. They see immigrants (mostly from Mexico) taking their jobs and they want an end to immigration. They see jobs moving overseas and they're angry. We saw that in the UK over Brexit. Trump promised them a wall, paid for by Mexico, and they fell for it. The fact that it's impossible to deliver is immaterial.

2) Trump pushed the myth that Clinton was a corrupt criminal. Careless, negligent, quite possibly. But there's no evidence of corruption/criminality. Unfortunately, if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth to some. The intervention of the FBI in the last week killed Hillary, even though they cleared her just before the election.

3) Working class Americans, particularly ex-service personnel, are obsessed by their country being "great". The fact that it is and always has been great is immaterial. Tell them it's not great and that you'll make it great again and you've got them.

Yep. World War III was a pretty good reason not voting for her. 

 

That's why I wrote

Saperlipopette! wrote: If I lived in the US the only reason I would have given Hillary Clinton my vote would have been because Donald Trump frightens me even more.

That analogy may have sounded right in your head but it's specious. Without going into the whys and therefores it is simply a poor analogy that bears no comparison with election rhetoric.

Saperlipopette! wrote: Before the election http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/" rel="nofollow - Salena Zito wrote on Trump that "The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally".

Not relevant. It doesn't matter whether these promises can be enacted or not. He said them, they wanted to hear them. Guilty as charged.

There are no nuances in any of the off-the-cuff statements that Trump issued during the campaign. No one can ever claim he was subtle or that his rhetoric contained any nuance or subtlety. In fact that was his "big sell" - plain speaking and saying it as it is. He announced yesterday that he still intends to build that wall, the very thing that practically everyone here has said he cannot, would not and/or will not do... his closing comment: "I'm very good at this, it's called construction." - so anyone who thinks he wasn't talking literally is deluding themselves. People may have thought they could pick and choose which of his "policies" they were voting on, but they don't get to decide which he acts upon so therefore they voted for them all, even the crazy ones, the distasteful ones and the scary ones. Yes that's harsh, and yes that's unfair but nothing in life or politics is fair. 

I'm not pretending anything - yes it was an election of two appalling choices and yes people were voting for what they considered to be the lesser of two evils but what people did (and this is what people always do so this comes as no great surprise) was compare the good of one with the bad of the other instead of comparing good with good and bad with bad.

I'm talking about the nuance between Trump and his voters (or Hillary and hers) but you've made it more than clear that as you don't find that relevant or interesting, so we might as well end this in disagreement.  

 

The actual reason for Hillary's failure was manifold: An unpopular candidate in a populist election with too much baggage. She did win the popular vote, but as we have seen in the past, this count's for sh*t in our electoral process. The bottom line is that nearly half of the voters truly wanted a change from the status quo and if the Democratic Party doesn't respond to that, then there's simply no future for them.

The nuance between candidate and supporters means diddly-squat, the supporters are not elected to office so all the subtle differences between what Trump said he will do and what the electorate thought he can/will/would do account for absolutely nothing. Sure it's interesting and sure it's relevant but that doesn't let the Trump supporters off the hook, they voted for someone with views they cannot lightly brush off as "I didn't vote for that" because they did. So stop discussing this by all means because this isn't a disagreement, it's two conflicting interpretations of the same pile of crap.

What this means is not having a no-fly-zone over Syria (and thus preventing WWIII ?!?!) is more important to you but it also means you condone a whole mess of really unpleasant stuff (that has a higher chance of actually happening) that is less important to you. That's just a less obvious way of describing privilege because what is important to you now determines which is the lesser of two evils. Anyone who voted on a single issue regarded all the other issues as irrelevant (to them) - therefore their objections to being seen as condoning all that other stuff is not relevant either. And if you did vote for Trump on that one issue then that's just dumb because he also supports the idea of a safe-zone for Syrian civilians but because he has no experience in any of this he hasn't got a clue on how that is done (which is by having a no-fly-zone - unless he's going to use his construction experience to build them f**king huge bomb-proof domes to cover every Syrian city, town and village).

Choice is always limited in any two horse race and the US & UK electoral systems are pretty much unique on the world's political systems in limiting the voters to just two option because despite there being 4 viable candidates on the ballot, only two of them ever stood a chance of winning.

Nah, it was that Sanders didn't want to blow it up. He knew blowing it up = Trump. Or at the very least was too risky/too much chaos. He's not a dumb guy, and he's not as unwavering as people want to believe. He understands the reality of politics, knows what you need to do, he was never gunna run third party or anything to blatantly nuke it all. Hell it's why he ran as Democrat in the first place. 

I actually believe he never intended to win, was simply a Ron Paul type "get your message out/push the party" campaign. It's why it really was a civil campaign, (2008 Clinton vs Obama was far more hostile and bitter) and why Sanders never went 100%. I remember being upset he never once mentioned the Clinton Foundation, especially Saudi links, or other stories that came up. He stuck to his message, never really wavered or did new attacks. It wasn't until the New York primary, which was very late and any shred of realistic hope was pretty much dashed, he spoke on some different issues. 

Basically: He wasn't a Democrat but what stopped him from blowing it up is he is realistic, (despite what many wanna think)and knows how things need to get done. He was never gunna blow up the vehicle that better achieves progress. 

Yeah, the Clinton campaign made some blunders. The two biggies being attacking Trump instead of stressing issues and neglecting the Rust Belt. I've read that she didn't campaign once in Wisconsin. Now, have to be fair, can't blame her. Not one poll indicated Trump would win any of them. 538, the god of stats (and was most favorable to Trump of all analyses) never expected it. 

I'm not American either so how I would have voted in the imaginary scenario where I could is not important because if we're going to all that effort of imagining that we could then I'd put the extra effort in and make the voting system one that didn't result in this daft state of affairs so people really could vote according to their conscience and beliefs and not be forced into picking the lesser of two evils. If someone and their candidate are standing on a platform along side racists and that candidate is relying on the support of those racists to carry him into office so he can act on those cherry-picked policies that the non-racists so love then both of them cannot act surprised when people tar them with the same brush as the racists. If they think that is unfair then tough-titty, they should try not holding hands with racists next time. 

Choosing between Stalin and Mao, or Clinton and Trump, isn't a choice, it's an ultimatum and there has never been anything fair about that. Life isn't fair and politics really isn't fair. This is not a silly moral dilemma philosophical thought experiment, this is real life, real lives are going to be affected by it and real people are going to get hurt by it. 

All very valid points. I was gunna say Hillary actually had the working class vote back in 2008...BUT that was during the primaries, were voters are Democrats. So guess no telling what would've happened in the general election. Regardless, her appeal to blue collar folk was stronger back then. It was Obama who won as income went up. Things have flipped, as show now holds that position, while losing the working class. 

I actually think Clinton realized the leftward drift. She sure tried her hardest to keep up with Sanders, and on the issue of guns she really beat him up with a focus and specificity that I didn't see elsewhere. I assume because this was an issue she could legitimately prove more liberal on. 

I think more so, this leftward swing was just not believable. 

No doubt Obama was complicit. I view him as a tragic hero, his very nature kind of doomed him. Insisted on compromising for the GOP even though they were clearly never gunna bend. Allowed many Clitonites influence and deferred to them. Many may now know...Obama was a large receiver of finance $ in the Senate. It has to be admitted, the liberal wing of the party is economically still moderate. Cater to the wealthy, big donors/finance, not really supportive of unions, very supportive of trade and market solutions.  

But yeah all has been pretty much said. I don't think the rust belt is an automatic loss. The "Reagan Democrats" who were today Trump Democrats had no problem voting for Obama. A black man, who's undeniably liberal on social issues, not very pro gun. It can't be denied race is part of the issue, and Trump's appeal to this is part of the formula, but many are focusing solely on this aspect...and I think it's a mistake. 

Well, Obama being from Chicago and a publicly admitted Bears fan didn't seem to hurt him in Wisconsin

Hey, just pointing out an observation, her campaign's focus missed the target. 

Would better aim have lead to a win? Perhaps not. 

Maybe she still would've lost. Maybe she would've won. 

Maybe if they hammered Trump on using overseas labor himself, his wanting a low min wage, his anti union actions and not always paying people as deserved...with  the states so tight it would've been enough. Maybe not...It's quite possible she had no hope there.

Me to, I have crossed swords with him a few times, he is a staunch believer in his opinions but he does, to his great credit, back it up with solid arguments. If debate was just 'YOU ARE RIGHT' , it would be a dictatorship. Dean is not a dictator but by his own admission, a bit of a curmudgeon. This trait comes naturally with the combination of age, wisdom and impatience with silliness. 

Fair point and one I don't actually disagree with, but the myopia of partisan politics will always see those who oppose one extreme as being supporters of the opposite extreme like you have done here. I'm a centrist at heart who sees much wrong with both extremes of the political spectrum and despite your assertion that my view is blocked because you presume that I cannot see beyond the racist rhetoric of the right, I can and do recognise the underlying disaffection in those who vote for the extremist views of left and right and I can also strip away all the ideological claptrap that surrounds them to see the positive advantages of each argument. However. No country needs racists. Period. And by the same virtue no country should ever need people to oppose racism. To me that isn't a left or right issue, and it should never be a political issue. The same is true of every form of equality/inequality - we should never have to cajole a majority into protecting a minority, we should never have to stand up and say, "No, what you are doing is wrong". 

I have never called Trump supporters racist (though some of them are) and I have never called those who voted for "Brexit" racists (though some of them are), nor would I; I never even tarred them with same brush as a racist. Similarly I am not Hillary Clinton and I have never described half the Trump supporters as "deplorable", nor would I. I simply say that if you support those who used racist rhetoric then you cannot ignore that element of their argument and you should not be surprised (or offended) if people do tar you with the same brush. That's it. No reading between the lines, no partisan rhetoric, no leftist polemic, no myopic ideology, no hidden agenda, no insult, no offence. Racism (and all the other inequality minority bashing blaming) is a deal breaker for me irregardless of who uses it. If that upsets you then hard luck, I will not apologise and I will not be an apologist for any politician, even an amateur one.

If voting for the right was the only way to protest against the problems that leave them angry and frustrated then that is only because the current regime is leftish; if the sitting government was right-wing then they would have voted left to protest against the problems that leave them angry and frustrated. Neither actually serve their best interests. The sad reality is they will very likely be just as miserable no matter what. They voted for change, and that is all. But the change is not going to be the change that makes them less miserable or disaffected. 

They can only do this if they believe they have the support (and ergo, it will be of benefit to them).

No,I read it just as you intended it, I merely made a personal statement here to distance myself from the lefties/liberals democrats you were referring to. Similarly unless I was responding to something you posted as "I" my use of "you" also means some vague "they" type group of people and not you personally, 

I ::snipped:: Rowe's text because it was a cut'n'paste from elsewhere and he isn't here to argue his case (and Colin never will because he isn't Mike Rowe). I called it BS because he was making assumptions on why people voted Trump when no one actually knows what each of the 61 million trump voters voted for. It was an apologist tract that tried to gloss over the racist and misogynist element of his campaign. 

Saperlipopette! wrote:   Dean wrote: Racism (and all the other inequality minority bashing blaming) is a deal breaker for me irregardless of who uses it. If that upsets you then hard luck, I will not apologise and I will not be an apologist for any politician, even an amateur one. I'm very upset because you see I'm a minority bashing racist myself. Sorry, you don't know anything about me either so: no that didn't upset me. However I don't really know what people I don't know mean when they use the racist-term anymore. So who knows maybe we're not filling racism with the same content. If someone's to blame I'll blame them exclusively I guess. I've never felt I had any reason to blame a specific minority (or majority) for anything that I can think of. To me that is related to not automatically blaming a whole group of voters collectively - even if they voted for a person that has said or meant some dubious or offensive things.

I don't think I understand anything of this. Sorry, that not a reflection on you or your use of English (which is excellent btw), that's just me. Racism is a pretty well defined term and it has more-or-less the same definition now that it did when I first took notice of it 45 years ago, except now it encompasses nationality and religion as well as just race, colour and ethnicity. If people are using a different definition then that's their problem not mine. I've never understood how or why a group of people can blame, for example, "immigrants for stealing their jobs" but they do, frequently, even when there aren't any immigrants doing the particular job that they do, and they'd never actually do the crap low-paid jobs many of the immigrants end up doing anyway. pah! Calling all Trump supporters racist is crass and wrong, but blaming them if he passes laws that suppress racial minorities? That's a whole different ball-game because they voted for that whether they like it or not. Whether that constitutes actual blame or whether it is rightly applied I care not, I simply state that they have no cause to complain if people do blame them when Trump makes good on any of his many pledges that they didn't deem to be important when they voted for him. 

Saperlipopette! wrote:   Should-have-been-nominated Bernie gets it:  ::snip::

Well, yes he does but a brief tv interview sound-bite doesn't tell the whole story. Trump didn't tap into that working class electorate with just that one statement (and I'd be surprised if Saunders thought that he did because Bernie's an astute guy and a career politician), it was the whole package that swung it and that includes all the "dubious or offensive" stuff too. He used scatter-gun politics to hook as many of the white working class (which includes a percentage of the Latino vote despite the Mexican wall thing) as he could (apologies for the mixed metaphor).

Somehow. Then again, Cleveland has been terrible for what? 50 years and those fans come out, always crazy and dedicated. 

Good people out there in the Rust Belt. Shame they've lost confidence in the Democratic Party (can't blame em) and Trump is gunna let them all down. 

Well WV has been long slipping from the Democrats. Especially under Obama. It's the general decline of coal. 

Though also the decline of unions, and the Dems increasing liberalism. Oh, and we have to be real, a black man and a woman also didn't fly too well I am sure. 

It's sad, part of it is natural process and part is we need to embrace a greener economy. 

The Democrats failed to have a safety net there. This is why I liked Sanders. He said in an interview what he'd say to WV coal miners about this want to end all coal and how it'd hurt them. "All I can do is talk to them honestly" how "through no fault of their own they are in an industry that is harmful to the environment" we gotta move forward but "I want to make you whole" and basically have policies in place to counter this and rebuild. 

Funny you mention Howard Dean, Micky. Remember 2004? HE was the wild outsider from Vermont (that state eh?) that represented the progressive wing. Got quite abused by the media and sunk. He is now the establishment! 

I still say you  can't get bogged down in terms. The S word still carries a heavy weight I know for many, especially as age goes up, but remember, all he talked about was old school Democratic policies: Pro labor policies, higher wages, creating jobs, have gov do some things for the average family. The socialism thing really might not have been the boogeyman so many think in Ohio or Iowa. We never can know, could Sanders have stressed his actual working record and policies vs Trump's empty rhetoric? Who knows.

Glad to see you have embraced what I said those months ago. the Dems blew a chance to expand their base going with Clinton (and no, picking the moderate white guy as VP isn't enough). Maybe they will learn. Imagine the liberal/urban/minority base + a solid bloc of working class voters? Would be one darn tough thing to stop! 

It seems very likely Ellison gets the DNC chair. Darn Schumer is gunna be Senate Minority Leader though. Would love a change there...maybe Sanders (gotta save Warren for her 2020 run)

I guess it was kind of cryptic. "if that upsets you" felt like a somewhat silly challenge, but it may be a "you" as in "me" or "you" as in "anyone"-issue. Its not your problem but its a problem that I can't really be sure what you mean by racist. When you write about Trumps racism, and the racists among the republican voters I will just have to guess what you mean by it and where you draw the line. Passing laws that that suppress racial minorities is obviously racist. That's crystal clear. And I won't apologize for any politician passing such laws. But it seems I'm potentially more forgiving than you in regards to those who voted for such a politician - and interested in knowing if they gave their vote because they are racist themselves - or if they had other reasons. 

My point in all of this is not that I am disinterested in why anyone votes as they do but that we should avoid making any kind of assumption as to why they did. Someone who dismisses the racial aspect and says it's about class is just as wrong as the person who says it's all about race and overlooks the class aspect etc., etc., etc..

Saperlipopette! wrote: Leave voters in the UK whether wrong or not - afraid of losing their job, or having lost their job to imported cheap labor is not my idea of being a racist (I know from what you've written that it doesn't fit your definition either) - neither is Swedes frightened over immigration in volumes their economy or system can't handle - literally fearing a collapse. Yet I see both of these (imo) natural fears being labelled as rasicm all the time. Its a powerful and hurtful term and many feel undeservedly labelled by well... lefties, liberals, centrists and the establishment, so I try to be careful in my use of it.

-------------
What?