David Leonhardt, NY Times: If liberals voted at the same rate as conservatives, Hillary Clinton
would be president. Even with Donald Trump’s working-class appeal,
Clinton could have swept Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
If liberals voted at the same rate as conservatives, Democrats would
control the Senate. Clinton or Barack Obama could then have filled the
recent Supreme Court vacancy, and that justice would hold the
tiebreaking vote on campaign finance, labor unions and other issues.
If liberals voted at the same rate as conservatives, the country
would be doing more to address the two defining issues of our time —
climate change and stagnant middle-class living standards. Instead,
Trump is making both worse.
9 comments:
"...and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon..." -- Lt. Cmdr. Montgomery "Scotty" Scott
If Democrats offered more progressive choices than The Clintons and Obama then Liberals would likely vote at higher rates
Liberals voted by refusing to support the malfeasance of the Clinton campaign and the DNC.
I'm not really sure this is correct. As I understand it Clinton received more votes than anyone in history, save Barack Obama. I know it is popular to beat up "lazy" liberals but it seems to me most of the "liberal" turnout that was missed would still turn up in the same districts Clinton already carried. More votes in the same cities would just mean she had more millions of votes and still lost. Now if "liberals" moved to rural locations and voted, THERE would be a game changer or if we solved the district Gerry-mandering issue, that would change it too.
I have to say I am pretty tire of this narrative... when conservatives lose, they blame liberals and when liberals lose they blame LIBERALS, funny that!
The problem is, I fail to see how Hillary winning would have been a better outcome. The media would have fawned over her and her corporatist policies, whereas now they fight Trump on everything. They are both terrible. Trump is racist, so is Hillary. Her and Trump have the same outlook and beliefs about poor people. Sure Trump talks with a poor manner but that's great it ensures there is opposition to him. Hillary would have had a subservient media on her side as she would have quickly taken us to war against Russia.
I think I prefer that Trump won, I'd rather have incompetent evil in charge instead of competent evil.
Maybe some more choices would have made people willing to go to the polls. The electoral college system should go and be replaced by a more multi-party parliamentary one. I refer to vote for the lesser of two evils and so do many more people now. The empire is collapsing as the masses realize they really have no voice. You are sure to see more voter abstention in the future.
Maybe if the DNC hadn't thrown the primary to Hillary and instead waited to see who the Democrat voters preferred, Bernie could be in the Oval Office. If all the gerrymandering, reducing polling places in Democrat heavy districts and voter suppression the Republicans got away with had been stopped before the election, a Democrat probably would have won. If Russian medaling in the election had been caught and exposed before the vote, Democrats would have probably won too.
The article asks an important question, but in the most foolish self serving way, which is a clear indicator of what the other election problem Democrats face is, they are utterly out of touch.
The Democrats clearly chose losing predictably, retaining the status quo rather than permit Bernie to change the map in a potential landslide. Better to rob the bank you know and caught than trust honest business success.This remains the dynamic, as the party deplores Bernie as racist and sexist and now has found a way to label him a terrorist. There was no indication that Garland would ever overturn CU. Bernie's failure to discuss this and to propose an alternative, exposed him as a charlatan. The Dems approve of CU and do not want it overturned. Bernie also doesn't or just is not interested enough to come up with an articulable plan. Nixon did better with at least saying he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam war. This is why the party collapsed although masked by the fortune spent on Clinton propaganda that ultimately could not lure enough voters back who had bolted to the Sanders side. Sanders is equated with Trump because he appealed to the same deplorables, Sanders at least would have been held to account to get CU overturned. The same deplorables who couldn't tell Trump from Sanders had helped Clinton rally against Obama in 2008. Bottom line, if Clinton is elected, impeachment commences late January 2017. Trump gets elected and Dems are against impeachment, as much as they are against sexism and racism. The only card left for Dems is to keep the limousine liberals happy by turning Putingate into the new Downton Abbey. What this covers up is that Putin is the main spokesman in the UN for peace and international law and has a thorough understanding of the blackout on reasoned political economic discourse in the US.
This documentary lays it out nicely; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ylAX1IF-y0
Great comments, though a bit depressing. This is why I read Undernews!
However, if memory serves, it seemed to me that Trump didn't "win" the election as much as Clinton "lost" the election.
Trump had a low turn out of voters; but Clinton had an even lower turn out of Dems and Independents due to her history, defections of Bernie supporters, and maybe just due to her annoying voice.
Post a Comment