5 ms·

> If they had had a compelling message for the working class they could easily have won this election. So increasing minimum wage, make it easier to unionize,

by faet 10y ago

> If they had had a compelling message for the working class they could easily have won this election. So increasing minimum wage, make it easier to unionize, universal health care, protecting/expanding social security, and a bunch of other policies that would help the working class don't count? The thing is policy doesn't matter. People want 140 characters that make them feel good even if it's bad policy.

moonshinefe 10y ago
Not as compelling when it's a candidate that has a history of being a war hawk and is in bed with Wallstreet vs. Sanders, perhaps.
- faet 10y ago
  There are more people working for "Wallstreet" in New York (461k) than there are people employed in VT (360k). So yes, a senator from NY will be more in bed with "wallstreet" than someone from VT.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    I'm calling BS on this. Representing the interests of New York is _not_ what she was criticized for. It was for booking $600,000 "public" (ironic, it was private and secret) speaking events at Goldman Sachs, and such.
maxxxxx 10y ago
I don't think that Clinton communicated any of these clearly.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Study: Hillary Clinton’s TV ads were almost entirely policy-free http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hillary-clinton-tv-ads http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hil...
- divbit 10y ago
  At risk of talking politics, for example, she spoke against Sanders plan on universal health care at an important point in the race [1]. If she later changed her stance to be for universal health care, I don't think people either realized it or believed it - basically she needed to commit to it strongly enough so that it would be politically hard to flop after winning and not do it (to gain the voters who cared about that). Fwiw, it sounds like she is now running for NY governor, hopefully she wins that. [1] https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/hillary-clinton-single-payer/ https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/hillary-clinton-single-p...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - divbit 10y ago
    I suppose one could make the argument that the voters should be able to forgive small gaffes like that, yet here we are.
- taliesinb 10y ago
  Completely. Bernie had plenty of clear, inspiring, resonant policy positions that anyone who heard them can recall. The only thing most people remember from Hillary's campaign was "I'm with her". Trump's response was "I'm with you" or "I'm your voice" or whatever. I mean, how incredibly incompetent is your campaign if you sound more narcissistic than a reality TV troll?
thehardsphere 10y ago
Was that the message their candidate put forward? The message many people heard from Hillary Clinton was: "I'm a woman and Donald Trump is bad." Policy definitely won't matter if the messenger chooses not to make it part of the message.
jressey 10y ago
I don't think people had faith that these issues were actually what the Dems wanted to go after if they'd have won. Many of these only became talking points for the establishment once it became apparent that Bernie was a threat to them. It's definitely fair to say a large share of Trump voters went with their emotions as you said, but I think a lot of folks didn't believe Hillary would enact a progressive policy. If you look back to when she established herself as a politician in the 90s-00s (I'm being generous here), most of those issues were not what she was championing. To someone that doesn't vote with their lizard brain, it's clear that establishment Dems have the wealthy as their #1, just like the GOP. That's the problem.
- thehardsphere 10y ago
  > but I think a lot of folks didn't believe Hillary would enact a progressive policy. Maybe a lot of liberal folks thought that. I think there were many Trump voters who assumed that she would and they didn't want to see the country go further in that direction, and some of those voters would have preferred staying home to voting for Trump if they thought it wasn't necessary to vote for Trump to stop the country going further left. This might fall under "lizard-brain" but you can see it in the kind of more-apocalyptic-than-usual rhetoric many people were using, e.g. "this is the Flight 93 election!!!" People saying that sort of crap aren't going to be feeling the Bern.
  - LordKano 10y ago
    I was a reluctant Trump voter. I didn't so much vote for Trump as against Hillary. I wouldn't have voted for Bernie either but I would have been more likely to follow my initial desire to case a protest vote for a third party candidate.
- faet 10y ago
  >If you look back to when she established herself as a politician in the 90s-00s (I'm being generous here), most of those issues were not what she was championing. She pushed Universal Healthcare in 93.
- akhilcacharya 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
Policy does matter. Clinton has no record of passing those policies. Sanders and the social movements backing him do have such a record.
cnnsucks 10y ago
"increasing minimum wage, make it easier to unionize, universal health care, protecting/expanding social security, and a bunch of other policies" Despite what every source of 'truth' that you have self selected has trained you to believe, we don't actually want more bennies. Subsisting on the bennies you decide you can afford for us is not our aspiration.
- akhilcacharya 10y ago
  ...what?
  - mcbruiser1 10y ago
    I think he's saying people don't aspire to depend on entitlements.
    - akhilcacharya 10y ago
      Very curious as to what OP thinks a working class message is.
    - cnnsucks 10y ago
      ...and it wasn't actually that difficult to pick up on either.
      - akhilcacharya 10y ago
        It is, because what was described is typically considered a "pro-worker" agenda. What would you consider a "pro-worker" agenda?
LordKano 10y ago
So increasing minimum wage, make it easier to unionize, universal health care, protecting/expanding social security, and a bunch of other policies that would help the working class don't count? To be honest, no. Those don't count because most of the people who consider themselves to be the "working class" would be hurt by several of them. A skilled tradesman who is making the equivalent of $25/hr doesn't want the minimum wage to go up. If it does, it dilutes his buying power. His wage isn't going to magically increase by $8.00/hr. Unions have done themselves a huge disservice, by alienating the people who are not members but still have to work with them. The ACA has turned off a lot of people from the idea of government managed health insurance. Many people, myself included, saw the quality of their coverage decrease because of the ACA.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  What changed about your coverage?
  - LordKano 10y ago
    The plan that I had for years increased in cost by roughly 50% in one year.
- candiodari 10y ago
  > The ACA has turned off a lot of people from the idea of government managed health insurance. Many people, myself included, saw the quality of their coverage decrease because of the ACA. It's weird how true this is. The ACA is the one thing that has accomplished the following : there was public talk on the streets about how democrats/Obama suck several times due to the ACA : the two weeks when employer contribution became effective then when the plans got changed in California and people had to choose and finally when the plans were adjusted In a lot of other places the employer mandate (which cause quite a few people to lose their jobs because their employer was forced to fire them, esp. in small businesses) mattered more. But Obamacare and the incredible cost increases it brought for everyone should be looked at as a failure.

by faet 10y ago

moonshinefe 10y ago

Not as compelling when it's a candidate that has a history of being a war hawk and is in bed with Wallstreet vs. Sanders, perhaps.

faet 10y ago
There are more people working for "Wallstreet" in New York (461k) than there are people employed in VT (360k). So yes, a senator from NY will be more in bed with "wallstreet" than someone from VT.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  I'm calling BS on this. Representing the interests of New York is _not_ what she was criticized for. It was for booking $600,000 "public" (ironic, it was private and secret) speaking events at Goldman Sachs, and such.

maxxxxx 10y ago

I don't think that Clinton communicated any of these clearly.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Study: Hillary Clinton’s TV ads were almost entirely policy-free http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hillary-clinton-tv-ads http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hil...
divbit 10y ago
At risk of talking politics, for example, she spoke against Sanders plan on universal health care at an important point in the race [1]. If she later changed her stance to be for universal health care, I don't think people either realized it or believed it - basically she needed to commit to it strongly enough so that it would be politically hard to flop after winning and not do it (to gain the voters who cared about that). Fwiw, it sounds like she is now running for NY governor, hopefully she wins that. [1] https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/hillary-clinton-single-payer/ https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/hillary-clinton-single-p...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- divbit 10y ago
  I suppose one could make the argument that the voters should be able to forgive small gaffes like that, yet here we are.
taliesinb 10y ago
Completely. Bernie had plenty of clear, inspiring, resonant policy positions that anyone who heard them can recall. The only thing most people remember from Hillary's campaign was "I'm with her". Trump's response was "I'm with you" or "I'm your voice" or whatever. I mean, how incredibly incompetent is your campaign if you sound more narcissistic than a reality TV troll?

thehardsphere 10y ago

Was that the message their candidate put forward? The message many people heard from Hillary Clinton was: "I'm a woman and Donald Trump is bad." Policy definitely won't matter if the messenger chooses not to make it part of the message.

jressey 10y ago

I don't think people had faith that these issues were actually what the Dems wanted to go after if they'd have won. Many of these only became talking points for the establishment once it became apparent that Bernie was a threat to them. It's definitely fair to say a large share of Trump voters went with their emotions as you said, but I think a lot of folks didn't believe Hillary would enact a progressive policy. If you look back to when she established herself as a politician in the 90s-00s (I'm being generous here), most of those issues were not what she was championing. To someone that doesn't vote with their lizard brain, it's clear that establishment Dems have the wealthy as their #1, just like the GOP. That's the problem.

thehardsphere 10y ago
> but I think a lot of folks didn't believe Hillary would enact a progressive policy. Maybe a lot of liberal folks thought that. I think there were many Trump voters who assumed that she would and they didn't want to see the country go further in that direction, and some of those voters would have preferred staying home to voting for Trump if they thought it wasn't necessary to vote for Trump to stop the country going further left. This might fall under "lizard-brain" but you can see it in the kind of more-apocalyptic-than-usual rhetoric many people were using, e.g. "this is the Flight 93 election!!!" People saying that sort of crap aren't going to be feeling the Bern.
- LordKano 10y ago
  I was a reluctant Trump voter. I didn't so much vote for Trump as against Hillary. I wouldn't have voted for Bernie either but I would have been more likely to follow my initial desire to case a protest vote for a third party candidate.
faet 10y ago
>If you look back to when she established herself as a politician in the 90s-00s (I'm being generous here), most of those issues were not what she was championing. She pushed Universal Healthcare in 93.
akhilcacharya 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

Policy does matter. Clinton has no record of passing those policies. Sanders and the social movements backing him do have such a record.

cnnsucks 10y ago

"increasing minimum wage, make it easier to unionize, universal health care, protecting/expanding social security, and a bunch of other policies" Despite what every source of 'truth' that you have self selected has trained you to believe, we don't actually want more bennies. Subsisting on the bennies you decide you can afford for us is not our aspiration.

akhilcacharya 10y ago
...what?
- mcbruiser1 10y ago
  I think he's saying people don't aspire to depend on entitlements.
  - akhilcacharya 10y ago
    Very curious as to what OP thinks a working class message is.
  - cnnsucks 10y ago
    ...and it wasn't actually that difficult to pick up on either.
    - akhilcacharya 10y ago
      It is, because what was described is typically considered a "pro-worker" agenda. What would you consider a "pro-worker" agenda?

LordKano 10y ago

So increasing minimum wage, make it easier to unionize, universal health care, protecting/expanding social security, and a bunch of other policies that would help the working class don't count? To be honest, no. Those don't count because most of the people who consider themselves to be the "working class" would be hurt by several of them. A skilled tradesman who is making the equivalent of $25/hr doesn't want the minimum wage to go up. If it does, it dilutes his buying power. His wage isn't going to magically increase by $8.00/hr. Unions have done themselves a huge disservice, by alienating the people who are not members but still have to work with them. The ACA has turned off a lot of people from the idea of government managed health insurance. Many people, myself included, saw the quality of their coverage decrease because of the ACA.

maxerickson 10y ago
What changed about your coverage?
- LordKano 10y ago
  The plan that I had for years increased in cost by roughly 50% in one year.
candiodari 10y ago
> The ACA has turned off a lot of people from the idea of government managed health insurance. Many people, myself included, saw the quality of their coverage decrease because of the ACA. It's weird how true this is. The ACA is the one thing that has accomplished the following : there was public talk on the streets about how democrats/Obama suck several times due to the ACA : the two weeks when employer contribution became effective then when the plans got changed in California and people had to choose and finally when the plans were adjusted In a lot of other places the employer mandate (which cause quite a few people to lose their jobs because their employer was forced to fire them, esp. in small businesses) mattered more. But Obamacare and the incredible cost increases it brought for everyone should be looked at as a failure.