Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn't Owen Jones saying that Trump and the like are playing on a false dichotomy between the interests of the working class as a whole and the interests of those minorities who form part of it and have to fight for their rights both within and outside the working class?
The rightwing populism of our time is comfortable talking about class, but only to define a patriotic working class against a rootless, metropolitan, self-hating bunch of middle-class do-gooders with contempt for their values and lifestyles.
He's saying don't let them win this game.
 
From a twitter link to an article she wrote




Is this some sort of post-pomo pisstake? You could probably pitch "Hillary Clinton is like Tom Courtenay when he let his opponent win at the end of The Loneliness Of The Long Distance Runner - exactly like Tom Courtenay" at the G and they'd print it.
fuck me sideways, and people pay for these opinions?
 
fucking hell. She is serious, isn't she?

'The presidency is too small for her.' :D

I get the Sillittoe reference now. I'll have a go.

Winning this race to please her masters would have been a betrayal of the higher principles she stands for. Principles of justice and simple fairness for all, where the victories must be for the downtrodden, not the masters. The presidency is too small for her. Accepting victory in this small battle would have meant giving up on the idea of victory in the larger war. So she refused to do what was needed to win, even though, like the runner, she was more than capable of doing so. She made a conscious decision to lose this battle in order to defeat those powerful forces who had willed her victory to happen for all the wrong reasons. It is Hillary that is the real outsider here, not Trump. It is Hillary who stood up for the marginalised and the left-behind, by doing for them the thing they know most about - losing. She is now one of them. In defeat, she has been sanctified, will be beatified, and she has refused to compromise on her mission. Who is the real enemy of Wall Street and the Fat Cats? Is it Trump the billionaire shyster? Or is it their apparent champion, who lay down at the finishing line and refused to deliver their victory for them?
 
Last edited:
fucking hell. She is serious, isn't she?

'The presidency is too small for her.' :D

I get the Sillittoe reference now. I'll have a go.

Winning this race to please her masters would have been a betrayal of the higher principles she stands for. Principles of justice and simple fairness for all, where the victories must be for the downtrodden, not the masters. The presidency is too small for her. Accepting victory in this small battle would have meant giving up on the idea of victory in the larger war. So she refused to do what was needed to win, even though, like the runner, she was more than capable of doing so. She made a conscious decision to lose this battle in order to defeat those powerful forces who had willed her victory to happen for all the wrong reasons. It is Hillary that is the real outsider here, not Trump. It is Hillary who stood up for the marginalised and the left-behind, by doing for them the thing they know most about - losing. She is now one of them. In defeat, she has been sanctified, will be beatified, and she has refused to compromise on her mission. Who is the real enemy of Wall Street and the Fat Cats? Is it Trump the billionaire shyster? Or is it their apparent champion, who lay down at the finishing line and refused to deliver their victory for them?
8dens blog.
 
mind you I do believe Athena had war in her portfolio of godly duties so there is a tenuos war-link between her and Mrs. Clinton
Jealous too. Once turned someone into a spider for being good at sewing.

Curiously, there was also a spunk-on-a-dress type incident too.
 
Here's a study that manages to avoid the stupidness of 'its all economics' or 'its all racism' and finds the answer, not very surprisingly, in a combination of the two:

View attachment 95595

Economic and racial anxiety: Two separate forces driving support for Donald Trump
Which is to be expected i think. Not only will there be overlap between those who are are concerned about the economy and those with racist ideas. But the material fact of being financialy worse of and fearing that your children will have worse lives than you may influence people's thinking on issues like race and immigration.
 
A gurning Nigel Farage, standing proudly beside his hero, Donald Trump, both looking like they just won the family hatchback on a gameshow. (The blingtastic backdrop is courtesy of Trump Towers, whose gold-plated décor isn’t described as “dictator chic” for nothing; several thousand miles out of shot is the Cenotaph, which is where the rest of the British political establishment were spending their Remembrance Sunday). And right there, in one laddish selfie, is the new world order in which Theresa May is somehow supposed to make headway.

None of us should underestimate what the so-called Brex Pistols represent

hero-landscape-trump-and-farage.jpeg
 
So not the point. :mad:

On this thread, J Ed posted several times a stupid cartoon made by someone on Clinton's team, about the demise of white men. He was posting it to show how out of touch and up their own bums the campaign's 'extreme feminists' were. It was a stupid cartoon, but posting it repeatedly felt like he was saying, this is how Trump won, they had their eyes off the ball obsessing about feminism etc.

No, that is not what I meant at all.

I posted up that video multiple times because I thought that it was symptomatic of the utter disdain that Clinton's milieu, and the ideology that guides them, has for ordinary people. I do not believe that the video in and of itself influenced more than a handful of voters, but the attitudes that it demonstrated help us make sense of the sort of campaign missteps that the Clinton campaign made. They really did seem to think that the inevitability that rich, black people, Hispanic people, women and other minorities would come in force for Clinton was so high that they actually did not have to ask them for their votes. The Clinton campaign spent $300,000 on outreach to Hispanic voters, they didn't even have any senior staffers who could speak Spanish for a significant period of the campaign. By contrast they spent $1m on paying people to argue with Bernie Sanders supporters on twitter, reddit and facebook.

Likewise, the campaign felt that because of that they not only did not have to make much effort to win the votes of the white working-class but they didn't even bother to hide their contempt for them, indeed the Clinton campaign used the demonisation of a, mostly imagined, racist white working-class as a key part of their platform against Bernie Sanders during the primaries. Neoliberals went from saying that social democratic reforms were impossible in America because white workers are racist to saying that it is wrong to implement those reforms because they would benefit these, real and imagined, racists. This rhetoric of course sought to hide the existence of members of the working-class who are not white.

My problem isn't with 'extreme feminists', whatever those are, it is with the thin veneer of feminism which exists solely to legitimise neoliberalism. It's a strange sort of feminism which facilitates the coup which unleashed far-right paramilitaries who deliberately targeted feminist activists, the most famous of these of course being Berta Cáceres who named Hillary Clinton as responsible for the waves of violence that women like her faced and continue to face in Honduras.
 
Last edited:
The Clinton Campaign Was Undone By Its Own Neglect And A Touch Of Arrogance, Staffers Say | The Huffington Post

In Michigan alone, a senior battleground state operative told HuffPost that the state party and local officials were running at roughly one-tenth the paid canvasser capacity that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) had when he ran for president in 2004. Desperate for more human capital, the state party and local officials ended up raising $300,000 themselves to pay 500 people to help canvass in the election’s closing weeks. By that point, however, they were operating in the dark. One organizer said that in a precinct in Flint, they were sent to a burned down trailer park. No one had taken it off the list of places to visit because no one had been there until the final weekend. Clinton lost the state by 12,000 votes.

...

A similar situation unfolded in Wisconsin. According to several operatives there, the campaign’s state office and local officials scrambled to raise nearly $1 million for efforts to get out the vote in the closing weeks. Brooklyn headquarters had balked at funding it themselves, arguing that the state already had a decent-sized footprintbecause of the labor-backed super PAC For Our Future and pointing out that Clinton had never trailed in a single poll in Wisconsin.

The campaign’s state office argued additionally for prominent African-American surrogates to help in Milwaukee. “There are only so many times you can get folks excited about Chelsea Clinton,” explained one Wisconsin Democrat. But President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama didn’t come. Nor did Hillary Clinton after the July Democratic convention. She would go on to lose the state, hampered by lower turnout in precisely the place that had operatives worried. Clinton got 289,000 votes in Milwaukee County compared to the 328,000 that Obama won in 2012.

“They had staff on the ground and lots of volunteers, but they weren’t running a massive program because they thought they were up 6-7 points,” said the aforementioned senior battleground state operative.

In politics, much like anything else, victory has a thousand fathers and defeat is an orphan. A senior official from Clinton’s campaign noted that they did have a large staff presence in Michigan and Wisconsin (200 and 180 people respectively) while also stressing that one of the reasons they didn’t do more was, in part, because of psychological games they were playing with the Trump campaign. They recognized that Michigan, for example, was a vulnerable state and felt that if they could keep Trump away ― by acting overly confident about their chances ― they would win it by a small margin and with a marginal resource allocation
 
Hillary Clinton now leads the national popular vote for president by roughly one million votes, and her victory margin is expanding rapidly. That margin could easily double before the end of an arduous process of counting ballots, reviewing results, and reconciling numbers for an official total.


But one thing is certain: Clinton’s win is unprecedented in the modern history of American presidential politics. And the numbers should focus attention on the democratic dysfunction that has been exposed.

The previous three US presidential elections saw the winning candidates win actual majorities of the popular vote. But that won’t happen this time. As in 18 previous presidential elections, the winner of the popular vote in this year’s election will achieve only a plurality of the votes.

IS CLINTON’S POPULAR-VOTE VICTORY UNPRECEDENTED?
Yes. Clinton has already won the popular vote by a dramatically larger number of ballots than anyone in history who did not go on to be inaugurated as president.

Clinton’s popular-vote margin over that of Trump is now greater than that of Richard Nixon over Hubert Humphrey in 1968, and that of John Kennedy over Nixon in 1960.

As Clinton’s popular-vote margin increases, so, too, will her percentage. It is possible that she will win the popular vote with the highest percentage of anyone who has not taken office.

Hillary Clinton’s Popular-Vote Victory Is Unprecedented—and Still Growing
 
  • Like
Reactions: CRI
Supporters of Clinton and critics of Clinton can kvetch about the virtues of her candidacy, and about what remains of the Democratic Party, for as long as their voices hold out. And Trump supporters can certainly announce that “the rules are the rules.” But this is about a higher principle than partisanship, and about something that matters more than personalities. This is about democracy itself. When the winner of an election does not take office, and when the loser does, we have evidence of a system that is structurally rigged. Those who favor a rigged system can defend it—and make empty arguments about small states versus big states that neglect the fact that many of the country’s smallest states (Delaware, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) backed the popular-vote winner. But those who favor democracy ought to join their voices in support of reform.
 
IF SOMEONE TELLS ME I SHOULD “GET OVER IT,” HOW SHOULD I RESPOND?
Just tell them that you agree with Donald Trump, who in 2012 described the Electoral College a “disaster for democracy.” On Sunday, he told CBS’s 60 Minutes that he still agrees with himself—even if he is not prepared to defer to the will of the people in this instance. “I would rather see it where you went with simple votes,” Trump explained. “You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win.”
 
As Trump has pointed out (rightly) if it was about the popular vote then the campaign would have been different, states would have been targeted as required for this, so you can't really say it's unfair - both parties worked for the system they had.
 
It was set up to fail the people & it has, but Hillary's campaign made huge mistakes.

No question about it; but whatever efforts they did make were sufficient to win the popular vote.

By the time California is totally counted, her lead in the popular vote will likely be even greater.

Clinton didn't win; it therefore follows that she didn't do whatever it might have taken to win.

But when the person who wins the most votes in an election doesn't gain the contested position, it's certainly valid to question the mechanics of the selection method.
 
During the campaign, and the primaries, there were a slew of articles from establishment liberals lauding the electoral college as a safeguard against the idiocy of the masses and a good way of stopping Bernie from winning the nomination and then Trump the presidency.
 
During the campaign, and the primaries, there were a slew of articles from establishment liberals lauding the electoral college as a safeguard against the idiocy of the masses and a good way of stopping Bernie from winning the nomination and then Trump the presidency.
And of course Trump himself is on record back in 2012 as saying that the electoral college system is 'a disaster for democracy'.
Donald Trump has described the Electoral College 'a disaster for democracy'. It's the only reason he won

Well he got that right at least.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom