Comment by throwanem | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwanem | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is much easier to accomplish - perhaps only even possible to accomplish - when the hoi polloi don't see any meaningful prospect of worthwhile change from the only other party that can get a candidate elected.

As I find myself reiterating every time the subject arises here - it's not possible accurately to understand Trump's electoral victory without reference to the DNC's own internal politics and their gravely suboptimal effect on the party's 2016 nomination. Sanders vs. Trump would've been a much more interesting election, and its outcome much more in doubt, than what we actually got; as things were, the choice came down to more of the neoliberal, globalist, job-exporting same on the one hand, and a wild card who at least gave lip service to working-class folks' problems on the other. Granted, it's becoming increasingly clear that lip service is about all that candidate was prepared to give - but that still puts him ahead of his erstwhile opponent, who couldn't be bothered even with that much, not even when it became obvious that to do so would be tactically wise.

You can blame people, if you like, for going with the sole candidate who at least pretended to give a shit about their problems. But what do you imagine it helps, to do so? Regardless of whether or not any individual finds it personally satisfying to despise people who voted in a way that individual does not like, those people did so vote, and here we all are as a result. Does recrimination really offer the most realistic prospect of a way forward that doesn't continue to steer our country along a course toward disaster?

This is the argument that Trump voters knew he was likely a con, but at least he was paying lip service. This is belied by the continued support since when he has done the exact opposite of what he said. He's revealed himself to be that con and yet his voters still enthusiastically support him.

No, Occam's razor: this is just tribalism. He's convinced them that he is on their side reality be damned. It is too painful and hopeless to countenance the other.

> This is the argument that Trump voters knew he was likely a con, but at least he was paying lip service. This is belied by the continued support since when he has done the exact opposite of what he said.

“Continued support”? No, Trump's seen a significant decline in support since taking office.

> He's revealed himself to be that con and yet his voters still enthusiastically support him.

No, again, in fact, the decline in his strong support in polling has been more rapid than the decline in his overall support.

A lot of it, too, is that regardless of one's private doubts, it's considered preferable to present a united front to a potentially hostile interlocutor. I tend to think that the Republican base is better at this, at least in the last decade or two, than the Democratic; for all the infighting one observes among the GOP establishment, GOP voters tend to back their man pretty firmly, at least in public.

> He's convinced them that he is on their side reality be damned. It is too painful and hopeless to countenance the other.

That sounds less like tribalism than like desperation to me. And in any case, what difference does it make? Either way, it boils down to a stark choice: on the one hand, the Democratic Party may work out how to offer a credible alternative to Trump - more accurately, to whoever comes after Trump, and will no doubt be to Trump as Trump to Bush - and on the other hand, the Democratic Party may watch impotently as events continue more or less as they have done.

Sanders vs. Trump would've been a much more interesting election

I agree, and it continues to perplex me that the Sanders campaign didn't put int he effort to develop a detailed policy agenda in parallel with the noble principles it was articulating.

You can blame people, if you like, for going with the sole candidate who at least pretended to give a shit about their problems

Oh please. I did not find Hillary Clinton a charismatic or especially empathic candidate, and her cautious incrementalism was a timid and unimaginative alternative to Trump's bold and dramatic (albeit shallow and stupid) vision. Clinton would have done far better to announce that her plan was to end poverty in America and establish a colony on Mars by 2030. People would have challenged that as ridiculous and impossible, of course, but it's no more absurd than the idea that we'd build a 20000 mile long wall along one border and get Mexico to pay for it.

What I'm disagreeing with is your suggestion that Clinton did not give a shit. She had a really detailed and well-rounded policy agenda whose primary fault was that it was too pragmatic and boring and cautious. It was not the right agenda for the times, but it's unjust to equate lack of vision with callous indifference. To say that is to accuse Mom of wanting you to starve because she insists you eat your vegetables. Sorry for the crude metaphor but the last election was in many ways a choice between Mom and Dad, and I think it's foolish to ignore the psychological dynamics that were in play.

I think we should also recall that she did manage to get 3 million more votes, but the GOP proved themselves to be superior electoral tacticians, possibly with help from some friends.

Perceived as at least pretending to give a shit, then. Her policy agenda might have offered some real solutions for working-class problems - and it might not have; I no longer recall in enough detail to speak confidently without a refresher, but neoliberals have not traditionally been effective in this regard - but what played was "deplorables".

I wholeheartedly agree on this - it was very much a matter of perception. What I was saying in a very long-winded way was that if you ignored all the personality factors and just scored candidates on the policy agenda, the Clinton one was both good (in terms of being thought out in detail) and popular with voters.

Like, the exact same set of policies would have won handily if they had just been offered by somebody else. Martha Stewart for example XD

Or Bernie Sanders. But it was "Hillary's turn", and here we are.

Not to let Hillary Clinton off the hook, much of her appeal was about defending & protecting minorities (and women) from continued discrimination. And from what we've been shown during the campaign and since then, discrimination is alive and well - even if it doesn't affect you personally.

But yeah, I doubt Hillary would have helped labor to generate the kind of pricing power they need to keep the society from caving in.

"much of her appeal was about defending & protecting minorities (and women) from continued discrimination."

Making this your main platform is just a losing strategy.

Rabbiting this line is pointless. Its too easy to fact check. 2 mins on google, can show you this was not her main platform at all. She had an entire economic plan, health plan, etc.

And I was brought up to think that there is nothing wrong with showing ALL people respect. Women (and minorities included)

Im assuming you may think, or have been brought up different.

No one can. The difference is Clinton Dems know this. Trump told his voters differently, and they believed him. The reality is not going to change, and he cannot change it. Even if his supporters believe he can.

Discrimination is alive and well, and thats exactly why people feel strongly about thwarting it. Im not sure if I was looking at a different campaign, but there were many more primary points to her Campaign than "protecting and defending Minorities" as you casually put it. Its easily seen on Google.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com