Just saying.

Yes Schneibster.

ouch! how did I deserve that?

http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=717113&highlight=sayin#post717113
http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=768920&highlight=sayin#post768920
http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=776235&highlight=sayin#post776235
http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=1812833&highlight=sayin#post1812833
http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=1812994&highlight=sayin#post1812994
http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=1813321&highlight=sayin#post1813321
http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=1813375&highlight=sayin#post1813375
http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?p=2270335&highlight=sayin#post2270335

  He got it from me.

He got it from me.

oh yeah baby

the lost jobs in the rust belt weren't about small businesses, they were about megacorps that folded or moved production overseas (or automated jobs away and still produce domestically with fewer employees)

I know. But that's the divide. America was built as a land of small business and it's surprising to a lot of people just how many people are engaged at companies with fewer than 20 employees. The last figure I saw was several years ago but it was around 85 million americans. You might be able to find the current number here:
http://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/

With markets being defined through regulations however the global corporations want them to be defined, and the dems coming down with all kinds of social programs that are being paid for not by the vast majority of the produced wealth but by small businesses disproportionately, it's easy for the gop to pretend they are pro small business while the dems are unabashedly pro giant organization, i.e. robotic bureaucrats, as if they cannot fathom that there is any other way of life.

That is why Bernie understood the problem but Hillary didn't. He is from the land of small business.

Just saying.

this is actually a fantastic example of exactly what I was talking about, shoehorning whatever your particular most important issues are into the narrative of "how to win elections"

When there are vast numbers of voters who feel like they are struggling economically, appealing to those voters' economic concerns is probably going to be a winning issue.

Yes, but as I already pointed out to testy, these people are looking at the generational loss of manufacturing jobs mainly from enormous corporations, not "small businesses." You guys just keep reinforcing my point.

Bernie's message wasn't "more small businesses!" and neither was Trump's. That was the Republican message in 2012, and it lost.

i'm thinking that a political /policy sweet spot for democrats to hit would be promoting a big expansion and improvement of the programs meant to help people adjust to job losses from trade, and maybe a new one for people adjusting to job losses from automation.  bigger and better retraining, college grants, jobless benefits, and relocation aid.  maybe an expansion of job corps?

despite trump's anti-trade message, it's not clear to me whether this is on his radar.  his ideas on helping american workers are public works projects (good), scrapping trade deals (ok, but mostly misdiagnosis the problem), and getting rid of brown people (obviously horrible).  and if he did take an interest in this kind of adjustment aid, republicans in congress would shoot it down as "big government blah blah blah". 

democrats could decide to pick this up and make it a top message and plan.  republicans would be internally conflicted on how to counter it.  and it would hopefully help those working class whites AND non-whites who by the way are dealing with the same problems.

Clinton won on the economy in nearly every swing state. It was terrorism and immigration that drove trump's victory.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix...m=.a50525430cf5

So, basically bullshit fearmongering.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/13/the-macabre-truth-of-gun-control-in-the-us-is-that-toddlers-kill-more-people-than-terrorists-do

Yes, but as I already pointed out to testy, these people are looking at the generational loss of manufacturing jobs mainly from enormous corporations, not "small businesses." You guys just keep reinforcing my point.

Bernie's message wasn't "more small businesses!" and neither was Trump's. That was the Republican message in 2012, and it lost.

Yeah, and I wasn't necessarily agreeing with Testy that "support small business" was a winning message. Just that addressing economic concerns in general probably would be, preferably in a clear way that actually does address them, rather than just platitudes from a candidate who's clearly not actually going to do much, which is what I think we mostly got from Hillary.

Clinton won on the economy in nearly every swing state. It was terrorism and immigration that drove trump's victory.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix...m=.a50525430cf5

Jesus. In that case, I don't know. I guess control the narrative is really the lesson here. Help voters understand that the Republican fearmongering about Muslims and Mexicans is bullshit and that economic issues are actually important, and then introduce coherent policies to address those issues. I have no data on this, but I have a feeling that economic concerns underlie concerns about terrorism and immigration anyway. I think a successful Democratic candidate would have hammered economic issues in such a way that more voters would have listed it as their top concern. It's not like all voters have a set "most important issue" that never changes over the course of the campaign.

Although it may be more likely that education is the underlying issue, as we saw that the education split was actually more of thing than the economic split in this election anyway. Of course how you go about winning low-education voters without first improving the education system, I have no idea. Republicans will continue to win elections as long as they can successfully scare idiots, and it's difficult to stop that when they repeat their bullshit so often and so loud. That, more than anything else, was Trump's real strength. This has been said before (by me and others), but I definitely think the Democrats needed to run a candidate with more charisma than Hillary. And less baggage. Not that her baggage was anything real, but it's been a thing that's been built up in the public consciousness so much and for so long that it was a burden for her from the beginning. A relatively fresh face would probably help.

Yeah. I wasn't saying that either although I do see that's what it looked like I was saying. I wasn't talking about how to win, I was talking about how to lose.

Wasn't there a Clinton that ran a couple of successful campaigns with the simple slogan, "It's the economy, stupid."?

And less baggage. Not that her baggage was anything real, but it's been a thing that's been built up in the public consciousness so much and for so long that it was a burden for her from the beginning. A relatively fresh face would probably help.

Are you fucking kidding??

The Clinton Foundation was a pay for play access to State. That's pretty much all it was. Hillary's "baggage" is demonstrably real, not even considering her total lack of charisma. Put simply, the Democrats fielded the wrong candidate. As I said before, a good looking turnip would have stood a better chance. Bernie would have won convincingly and the world would be in a far better position right now. The DNC fucked the pooch big time and deserves to be eviscerated.

And less baggage. Not that her baggage was anything real, but it's been a thing that's been built up in the public consciousness so much and for so long that it was a burden for her from the beginning. A relatively fresh face would probably help.

Are you fucking kidding??

The Clinton Foundation was a pay for play access to State. That's pretty much all it was. Hillary's "baggage" is demonstrably real, not even considering her total lack of charisma. Put simply, the Democrats fielded the wrong candidate. As I said before, a good looking turnip would have stood a better chance. Bernie would have won convincingly and the world would be in a far better position right now. The DNC fucked the pooch big time and deserves to be eviscerated.

LOL. When I read "are you fucking kidding" I thought that post was going in the exact opposite direction. (I.e., "Of course Hillary's 'baggage' was all conspiracy theory nonsense!") The fact that it really could have gone either way proves my point though I guess.

Yes, but as I already pointed out to testy, these people are looking at the generational loss of manufacturing jobs mainly from enormous corporations, not "small businesses." You guys just keep reinforcing my point.

Bernie's message wasn't "more small businesses!" and neither was Trump's. That was the Republican message in 2012, and it lost.

Yeah, and I wasn't necessarily agreeing with Testy that "support small business" was a winning message. Just that addressing economic concerns in general probably would be, preferably in a clear way that actually does address them, rather than just platitudes from a candidate who's clearly not actually going to do much, which is what I think we mostly got from Hillary.

Clinton won on the economy in nearly every swing state. It was terrorism and immigration that drove trump's victory.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix...m=.a50525430cf5

Jesus. In that case, I don't know. I guess control the narrative is really the lesson here. Help voters understand that the Republican fearmongering about Muslims and Mexicans is bullshit and that economic issues are actually important, and then introduce coherent policies to address those issues. I have no data on this, but I have a feeling that economic concerns underlie concerns about terrorism and immigration anyway. I think a successful Democratic candidate would have hammered economic issues in such a way that more voters would have listed it as their top concern. It's not like all voters have a set "most important issue" that never changes over the course of the campaign.

Although it may be more likely that education is the underlying issue, as we saw that the education split was actually more of thing than the economic split in this election anyway. Of course how you go about winning low-education voters without first improving the education system, I have no idea. Republicans will continue to win elections as long as they can successfully scare idiots, and it's difficult to stop that when they repeat their bullshit so often and so loud. That, more than anything else, was Trump's real strength. This has been said before (by me and others), but I definitely think the Democrats needed to run a candidate with more charisma than Hillary. And less baggage. Not that her baggage was anything real, but it's been a thing that's been built up in the public consciousness so much and for so long that it was a burden for her from the beginning. A relatively fresh face would probably help.

I don't even think fearmongering is a sufficient explanation. If it was just anti-Hispanic and anti-Muslim fearmongering, we would expect that the majority of the post-election violence/harassment would have been targeted at Hispanics and Muslims. But it seems that the majority of incidents have targeted black people, Jews, and women. This is traditional old-school hate, not something new.

And less baggage. Not that her baggage was anything real, but it's been a thing that's been built up in the public consciousness so much and for so long that it was a burden for her from the beginning. A relatively fresh face would probably help.

Are you fucking kidding??

The Clinton Foundation was a pay for play access to State. That's pretty much all it was. Hillary's "baggage" is demonstrably real, not even considering her total lack of charisma. Put simply, the Democrats fielded the wrong candidate. As I said before, a good looking turnip would have stood a better chance. Bernie would have won convincingly and the world would be in a far better position right now. The DNC fucked the pooch big time and deserves to be eviscerated.

source your quotes

And less baggage. Not that her baggage was anything real, but it's been a thing that's been built up in the public consciousness so much and for so long that it was a burden for her from the beginning. A relatively fresh face would probably help.

The Clinton Foundation was a pay for play access to State. That's pretty much all it was.

ugh shut up

Why? It really does look that way and there is no way to prove/disprove it that I know of. It's not like corporate philanthropy has a great record of being unbiased.

That's a serious question btw. I don't know of a source that makes the foundation thing look better. If there is such a source, I'd like to see it.

Eta: unless you are objecting to the 'it's all it was' part which I took as hyperbole.

lol way to fall for the shitty Republican slanders on it. "OMG CLINTON FOUNDATION TOOK DONATIONS FROM FOREIGNER LOOKING FOR ACCESS!!!!!!"


(five paragraphs in: access wasn't granted)

Say what?

that was pretty much how every "investigation" of the Clinton Foundation went. Hyperventilating headlines with the complete exoneration buried deep within the story.

basically, it only "looks that way" if you only bothered to follow the headlines and not read the actual articles.

I dunno man. I read a lot of articles.

I don't really get the accusation in the first place. Special treatment in return for donations to disaster relief, etc? So like a convoluted Robin Hood thing?

Are you fucking kidding??

The Clinton Foundation was a pay for play access to State. That's pretty much all it was.

As far as I'm aware, none of the investigations have been concluded, so what evidence are you basing this on? I know it was a big yapping point for Trump and his mouthpieces. That alone is enough for me to doubt its veracity.

Independent organizations that examine charities, like Charity Watch and Charity Navigator give the Clinton Foundation very high marks.