Posted: Mar 21, 2017 12:01 am
Byron wrote:Clinton would've had a chance if she'd turned convincingly against neoliberalism and gotten the Rust Belt onside (always Trump's best route to victory). Unfortunately, doing so wasn't in her nature, which is why she proved unelectable.
Clinton would have had a chance if people were not gullible idiots. But that is the reality we live in. Anyone with a decent education and knowledge of how markets and job growth works would know that Trump's claims were false. Clinton failed to address Trump's claims, and failed to reassert that the economy was growing stronger.
It is the case of selective vision. Those in the manufacturing market became salty when Democrats and liberals would cite statistics that the job market was growing because in their bubble it was shrinking and quickly. The bastion of Detroit and the rust belt was no long a center for industrial markets because times and markets change. Sanders response to this issue was not much different than Clinton's. The only thing Sanders had was his maverick personality, but it is useless to point that as Trump also had a maverick personality. The people voted for Trump because they believed he could save their jobs and way of life. Clinton, nor Sanders, were in a position to make that promise because both of them were intelligent and honest enough to know they had no authority to do so. If you think the Rust Belt would have voted for Sanders over Trump you are making a lot of dot connecting which has very little ground in objective fact and a lot to do with speculation.
Trump would never have been able to outflank Sanders from the left. The tenor would've been very different: Trump may've won with some good ol' fashioned red baiting; and immigration controls were the Don's ace in the hole. But Sanders would've had several of his own, including Trump's hypocrisy on off-shoring, and real dedication to draining the swamp.
The media reported on all of Trump's disgusting hypocrisy. The media made fun of him. Trump turned that negative press against the media. You think Sanders would have been immune to that twist around? Sanders accuses Trump of hypocrisy and Trump accuses Sanders of spreading fake news. Ad nauseum. Trump was practically immune to criticism that applied to normal presidential candidates. People KNEW he was a disgusting human being, but not enough people cared. So what if he treats women vulgarly? He promises to make sure we keep our jobs! Who cares if he's racist? It means I won't have to compete against those illegal aliens for work.
Agree that this is, now, about the Dems dropping their current corporatist agenda. For the reason Lak gives, doubt we'll be feeling the Bern in '20, but Sanders points the way forward. Get serious on repatriating jobs and manufacturing, DNC, or make Trump a two-termer.
A pipe dream and goes to show that you too Byron have no clue how job markets work. Manufacturing is a dying job market.
Make education free or affordable and allow those who were trained and grew up in the manufacturing business to learn new skills for the competing job market. That is the way forward. Clinton supported that. It was one of her big platforms. Funnily enough the media kind of forgot to give her that kind of press when it was instead obsessed with emails.
Give me a fucking break.
