A(nother) dangerous opinion.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Perhaps they'll realise that real change doesn't happen overnight, that they can't just give up or let themselves be distracted when things turn into a slog (looking at you, Occupy Wall Street). Hell, maybe even environmentalists will stop doing such a bang up job of living up to the armchair intellectual, insufferable self-congratulatory cunt stereotype who thinks planting a tree or turning the lights off for an hour a year makes any actual difference whatsoever and start taking things a little more seriously.

Yeah because Occupy and the rest of the anti globalization movement weren't a fucking warning of things to come with Brexit, Trump and the rise of the anti-global European right also fuck the people trying to do something however small isn't a rational response when scientists tell us that we're facing a clear and present danger to our entire civilization. We can ignore the fact that people doing supposed trendy-wendy latte shit like installing solar panels didn't make the so much of an impact that the coal industry shat itself.

Every wanker and his dog wants to blame hipsters because supposedly the miners can feel their disdain in West Virginia. Horseshit! I know it's fun whacking a soft target but it has as much effect as beating up on Emos had, fuck all. It's not the left on the fringes of the left in Occupy pickets or organic coffee houses that did this, it's the ones who pass as progressive with actual party organisations and real political power.

You want to blame somebody? Blame mainstream "progressive" parties for embracing the soft bits of progressiveness that don't upset their Wall St banker pals. Blame the US Democrats, who along with supposedly "progressive" movements like the Australian "Labor" party and the British "Labour" party ditched the unions and by extension support for anybody on a modest income. Blame a left that shafted the working class and pratted around telling everybody how progressive they were because they made token nods to minorities that didn't cost them shit.

It wasn't being nice to minorities that undid the left, being nice is nice. It was ignoring the hip pocket concerns of their biggest former supporters. That will fuck you every time!

[Art Vandelay]

Yeah because Occupy and the rest of the anti globalization movement weren't a fucking warning of things to come with Brexit, Trump and the rise of the anti-global European right also fuck the people trying to do something however small isn't a rational response when scientists tell us that we're facing a clear and present danger to our entire civilization. We can ignore the fact that people doing supposed trendy-wendy latte shit like installing solar panels didn't make the so much of an impact that the coal industry shat itself.

Fucking with coal companies is all well and good, but that's really besides the point. My point is that focusing so heavily on individual "carbon footprints" and basically ignoring where the lion's share of the CO2 emissions are actually coming from (mining, energy, transport, and industry, essentially) will mean all of jack shit in terms of actually fixing the problem. I don't mean to belittle those well meaning people who in all honesty can't do anything beyond their own energy consumption, I'm just saying that at the end of the day, these sorts of efforts are simply not enough to make a real difference, and we really, desperately need to acknowledge that fact and focus far more heavily on the aforementioned industries. If we don't, well, as you said it is indeed a threat to our entire civilisation, so I'm sure you're aware that it won't end well.

Yeah, environmentalists nowadays are a pet peeve of mine, can't you tell? Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

Every wanker and his dog wants to blame hipsters because supposedly the miners can feel their disdain in West Virginia. Horseshit! I know it's fun whacking a soft target but it has as much effect as beating up on Emos had, fuck all. It's not the left on the fringes of the left in Occupy pickets or organic coffee houses that did this, it's the ones who pass as progressive with actual party organisations and real political power.

You want to blame somebody? Blame mainstream "progressive" parties for embracing the soft bits of progressiveness that don't upset their Wall St banker pals. Blame the US Democrats, who along with supposedly "progressive" movements like the Australian "Labor" party and the British "Labour" party ditched the unions and by extension support for anybody on a modest income. Blame a left that shafted the working class and pratted around telling everybody how progressive they were because they made token nods to minorities that didn't cost them shit.

It wasn't being nice to minorities that undid the left, being nice is nice. It was ignoring the hip pocket concerns of their biggest former supporters. That will fuck you every time!

I agree wholeheartedly. That said, when talking about the shortcomings of modern progressives, I don't see The Democratic Party or The Labor Party as part of it because, as you said, those parties are no longer progressive. Don't get me wrong, it's still a huge problem. Or rather, it's a symptom of the problem where political parties really can't go against corporate interests because lobbyists will simply buy their loyalty. It's just a somewhat separate topic.

My point was pretty much what Pie said. Actual progressives need to see this as a wake-up call and get their shit together. Make a proper argument against things like Trump or Brexit, instead of just writing off their supporters as a bunch of inbred yokels and calling it a day. Put in the effort to understand why there's so much right wing support going around and come up with a more substantial response than simply crying "racism" or "sexism", basically. Call me crazy, but I'm not sure how that's so unreasonable.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

I think it's copping out to say race didn't have a factor when 49% of white college graduates joined 67% of ones without in voting for Trump. That said, racism doesn't pop out of nowhere. Nazi Germany came out of the Great Depression didn't it? When people's backs are against the wall they're more likely to blame those people over there. You have to deal with the fact that there are backs to the wall in the first place.

One thing racism isn't is this prejudice plus power bollocks. People get more hateful when they think they are losing power, not when they know they have it. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that structural racism is absolutely a thing. I just think it's fuckwitted to call every white person a racist and every man a sexist when actual Nazis, Klansmen and Fascists are enjoying a resurgence.

[Skybison]

I'm just going to say that I don't believe the whole "if only the democrats hadn't cheated Bernie he would have won."  Or at least I think the progressives claiming this are overstating their case.

1) I see no proof that Bernie would have won the primary.  Yes the DNC did some stuff to tilt things for Hillary, but I think there is prefectly good reason to think she would have beaten him anyway even if they hadn't.  She always had more support in the polls then he did, and plenty of older women and PoC democrats don't agree with his policies.  In a social media age, the party elites no longer have the power to truely shut out cannidates if their voters really want them, so I do believe that Hillary's win over Bernie was the authentic will of  the voters.

Progressives are a major part of the democratic coalition, but they failed to get the other members of the coalition to join with them behind Bernie.  If you want someone like him in 2020, you need to figure out how to do that instead of cursing the party for cheating you.

2) I see no proof that Sanders was guaranteed to beat Trump either.  Remember back when the election started Hillary was hugely popular.  But then she got torn down and picked apart by a long parade of non-scandles like Benghazi and her E-mails that the right wing and the cowards of the mainstream refused to let die.   Yeah I think they could have done the same for Bernie.  And I'm not sure his economic populism was certain to beat Trumps, the consensus among political scientists as I understand it is that the whites voting for Trump, Brexit etc are motivated by racism and resentment, not by economic matters.  It's not clear if that was the case for the rustbelt Trump voters yet, but in a battle between two anti-Nafta populists I don't think it's certain that the Jew was sure to get the support of anyone willing to vote for the king of the Nazis.  And if he couldn't excite enough support to win the primary I don't see why it's certain he would have excited enough support to win the general.

Yes I think Sanders could have won the primary and beaten Trump, but that doesn't mean he would have.

I want to stress anyone blaming Trump on the disloyalty of the Sanders left are likely wrong too.  What the Left needs now is cooperation, pointing fingers will only make things worse.

[The_Queen]

I'm just going to say that I don't believe the whole "if only the democrats hadn't cheated Bernie he would have won."  Or at least I think the progressives claiming this are overstating their case.

1) I see no proof that Bernie would have won the primary.  Yes the DNC did some stuff to tilt things for Hillary, but I think there is prefectly good reason to think she would have beaten him anyway even if they hadn't.  She always had more support in the polls then he did, and plenty of older women and PoC democrats don't agree with his policies.  In a social media age, the party elites no longer have the power to truely shut out cannidates if their voters really want them, so I do believe that Hillary's win over Bernie was the authentic will of  the voters.

Progressives are a major part of the democratic coalition, but they failed to get the other members of the coalition to join with them behind Bernie.  If you want someone like him in 2020, you need to figure out how to do that instead of cursing the party for cheating you.

2) I see no proof that Sanders was guaranteed to beat Trump either.  Remember back when the election started Hillary was hugely popular.  But then she got torn down and picked apart by a long parade of non-scandles like Benghazi and her E-mails that the right wing and the cowards of the mainstream refused to let die.   Yeah I think they could have done the same for Bernie.  And I'm not sure his economic populism was certain to beat Trumps, the consensus among political scientists as I understand it is that the whites voting for Trump, Brexit etc are motivated by racism and resentment, not by economic matters.  It's not clear if that was the case for the rustbelt Trump voters yet, but in a battle between two anti-Nafta populists I don't think it's certain that the Jew was sure to get the support of anyone willing to vote for the king of the Nazis.  And if he couldn't excite enough support to win the primary I don't see why it's certain he would have excited enough support to win the general.

Yes I think Sanders could have won the primary and beaten Trump, but that doesn't mean he would have.

I want to stress anyone blaming Trump on the disloyalty of the Sanders left are likely wrong too.  What the Left needs now is cooperation, pointing fingers will only make things worse.

A good analysis. There are really a few main reasons I think Bernie would have fared the same.

1. Hillary secured the nomination in no small part thanks to her overwhelming wins among African-Americans. While whites went for Bernie, blacks went for Clinton by (IIRC) 75-25. However, come the general, African-Americans under showed. To use Ohio as a case study, it's entirely red but for the three big cities: Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus. Looking at Cleveland (a primarily African-American city), almost 650,000 people voted in 2012. In 2016, that number was below 600,000. Fivethirtyeight reports that Trump got most of his support during the primary from whites living in areas with high minority populations. Trump retained those primary voters in the general as evidence by the fact that in 2012, Obama carried Cleveland with 70% of its vote, but in 2016 Hillary managed to take only 65% of the vote.

Now, African-Americans are among the democrats most loyal voters, and in fact they largely kept the party alive after the Southern Democrats joined the party of Reagan. However, I do not see a reason why they would turn out in higher numbers with Bernie at the top of the ticket. They voted for Clinton, and I cannot see Clinton blocs being happy if she were to win the delegate and popular vote counts, only to have the party opt for the candidate that appealed to the white liberal masses.

2. The second big reason Clinton lost is uneducated whites. Now, Bernie did do better with whites, in particular white men than Clinton. And, since whites make up a large portion of this country, if Bernie could fare better with whites (even if only by a few percentage points), then that could add up to a lot of votes. However, part of his success with whites is hollow, as many conservatives in rural areas (in particular West Virginia and Oklahoma) register as Democrats to influence primaries, so Bernie can't count on these people in the general because their votes were in bad-faith. While WV and OK are red states, similar people exist in each state, including the swing states. What is more, white men (in particular those without education) historically tend to go Republican, indicating that Bernie would've had an uphill climb. Then, there is also the fact that Bernie's most enthusiastic supporters were not these uneducated older whites, but young college students and young working adults, meaning that his appeal to this bloc might not have carried over. Finally, many of these uneducated voters went to Trump not because of his policy or knowledge, but because of his bluster. They were low-information voters who Bernie would have trouble attracting with a policy driven message.

3. Bernie was never scrutinized  in a meaningful way. Throughout the primaries, the Republicans prepared for Clinton by going after her, but at most mentioned Bernie in passing as a "socialist." What's more, Republican operatives fell over themselves to submit emails to the press notifying the press that Bernie was right that single-payer healthcare is cheaper overall. That was not a typo, Republicans did what they could to help Bernie on the assumption that a dragged-out primary benefited the GOP. Bernie was never under any scrutiny. The media didn't scrutinize him as it took almost a year before a tabloid asked him hardball policy questions about his banking plans. Then, there is also the fact that Hillary has been in the public spotlight for years, and people knew in advance what they thought of her. Fivethirtyeight wrote an article a while back about Bernie-Trump-Clinton head-to-head polls, and noted that because Bernie was a fresh face and Clinton a known commodity, her numbers in the hypothetical head-to-heads were a floor that she could improve. In contrast, Bernie was new and it's easy to pick the new guy when you have a racist demagogue and a known-candidate with baggage. The downside of being new is that his numbers represented a ceiling that he would not hit on November 8th as the GOP and outside groups ramped up their attacks on him. This is one of the big reasons why those head-to-head polls have little to no predictive value.

4. Finally, as the election came to a close, fundamentals prevailed. The fundamentals stated that in a so-so economy without a war (or other national crisis), the incumbent party is a slight favorite. While Clinton lead by as many as 10% at certain points, after the third debate, her lead closed and fall more in line with the fundamentals that it would be a tight race. And this election provided a good case study of the degree to which people vote for parties based on fundamentals or candidates as individuals. With Trump having so many controversies and a general inability to go 2 days without saying something racist, if people voted for candidates as individuals, you would expect to see Clinton win by a wider margin. Yet, if it stayed close, then that mean fundamentals prevailed over candidates. Ultimately, the polls tightened, and Trump managed to prevail based on a favorable electoral college map. Since fundamentals prevailed over candidates in this race, it casts doubt on the notion that Bernie, as a candidate, would have defeated Trump.

The more I rack my brain, the only way I could see Bernie winning is if Clinton experienced a Bradley effect in which people said they supported her because they did not want to appear sexist or racist (like Trump), but couldn't bring themselves to vote for a woman. This would explain uneducated whites to an extent, as the big states with uneducated white populations are New Hampshire, Michigan, and Wisconsin. And of course, uneducated people are more likely to hold bigoted views that would give rise to a Bradley effect. If Bernie were the nominee, he may have won under this reason (having a penis) as he could've done better in Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Hampshire (all states he won in the primaries). However, without knowing the full extent of this effect, we can't know. We've only had one female candidate ever run for president on one of the two major parties, and statistics don't really work very well with an N of 1.

Sorry, I've been sleep deprived lately, work and insomnia. So this isn't polished.

[Canadian Mojo]

Just a few random thoughts on the whole shit show.

Hillary was just the wrong person to run because for too many people perception is reality and the Republicans have been painting a very ugly picture of her, and her husband, for 30 years. Somebody with less baggage would have fared much better simply because they were more likable. Recent scandals can be written off as political shit flinging, but a long history of being branded a conniving power hungry bitch that (literally) buries her opponents and will throw anyone under the bus is hard to overcome. Deserved or not, it is the reality of the situation.

Trump certainly played up the racism angle but it goes deeper than that. A few generations ago America was given a promise after the war -- increasing prosperity and a better life if you just work hard and follow the rules. Every generation was supposed to have it better than the last. It was your birthright and that promise disappeared somewhere along the line. To the racists it started in the 60's with civil rights letting those people have an equal kick at the can. For the misogynists, it was equal rights of the 70's. For the factory workers and skilled trades it was foreign competition and then NAFTA. For people today it is globalization and lack of opportunity.

All of those groups are ripe targets for a populist and they are really easy to pick up if your opponent doesn't offer them anything. It's even easier if your opponent's party (or her husband) are the cause of much of that.

To some, Trump's history of cheating isn't a liability, it's an asset because when he renegotiates trade deals he is going to screw over those people who took American jobs away.

The rejection of a 'Clinton political dynasty' is in some ways an indictment of Bush the lessor and acknowledgement that it was a mistake and should never be repeated.