Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/11/17/the-non-voters-who-decided-the-election-trump-won-because-of-lower-democratic-turnout/

Plenty of Obama voters didn't bother turning out for Hillary in 2016. Really that simple.

Is that more or less than 16-18 million?

Anonymous wrote:Again, what exactly are we supposed to do, then? Just sit back and watch these assholes destroy our system of government because people who aren't paying attention think we are "too angry" or "too aggressive" or whatever bullshit you are trying to tell us?

I honestly don't understand wtf you are trying to tell us. If it's to sit down and shut up, too bad - not happening.

I took my anger and directed it toward campaigning for candidates here in VA. I've gotten involved in the local party. Guess what? The candidates I knocked doors for and gave money to won. And I will continue to do so. WHILE remaining angry about every horrible thing this administration and the complicit republicans in congress and in the states visit on us/this country.

Complacency is what got us into this gigantic clustf@#$. I will not sit back like a good little girl and watch evil people ruin our country. If people are too lazy and/or stupid to realize what is happening right there in plain sight, I don't care what they think of me personally.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/11/17/the-non-voters-who-decided-the-election-trump-won-because-of-lower-democratic-turnout/

Plenty of Obama voters didn't bother turning out for Hillary in 2016. Really that simple.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a very tricky balance. For every moderate you turn off and then votes the other party you need to get two new votes from your base.

Not sure the math works...

You're assuming that the "turned off" moderate votes for Trump, instead of not voting at all (or third-party). But I agree that it's a tricky balance. Unfortunately, one that Republican political strategists tend to navigate effectively more often it seems...their campaigns have a knack for turning out the base without offending too many moderates.

Anonymous wrote:It's a very tricky balance. For every moderate you turn off and then votes the other party you need to get two new votes from your base.

Not sure the math works...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, you're still just saying "Shut up, liberals. Your outrage over the outrageous is unacceptable."

this.

so, accept the unacceptable? NOPE. EVERYONE should be pissed. This shit isn't normal. It's on THEM if they just want to go along to get along.

Seriously, screw that.

NP here.

I'd recommend leaving your little bubble more often.

There was a close election. One party won, another lost. Pretty typical.

Yet, you were doing marches the very day after Inauguration. You are becoming an undemocratic fascist mob, and don't realize it.

Net net, grow up, drop the fake outrage, and think how to win 2020.

Hint: you need to engage and persuade voters, not insult then or intimidate them.

Those who still love Trump can't be persuaded. They are lost. And JFC no one is trying to intimidate them. They are pathetic little snowflakes if they think every march, every protest, every unkind word, is somehow a threat to them. And the midterms suggest that those who were reluctant Trump voters to start with ARE being engaged and persuaded.

And how about this: Why doesn't TRUMP need to persuade and engage, instead of insulting and intimidating? Why TF do you think this only f*cking applies to those who aren't Trump?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last three Democratic winner of the Presidency have been relative outsiders. Two southern Presidents and one first term Senator. It is likely that someone from the wilderness will emerge from the scrums of Iowa, NH and SC.

Steve Bullock

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really hope these are all bored housewives' postings. The more of this thread that came from professional Democrats, the more likely it is that Trump will repeat.

There's precious little learned from 2016 here.

So dazzle us with your prognostications, then.

I worked in an area in MD that helped put Trump in office. He's still popular. And while that area is not Middle America, it's still a good reflection.

I think the Ds (I'm former D, current Ind.) believe Ocasio-Cortez is the new wave in politics, but she's really a dingbat with a big mouth ($21T deal . . . ). If you want moderation at this point, you don't find the "Trump Extreme."

The more liberals wag their tongues in horror over the latest Trump incident, the stronger his base becomes. And many are quiet . . . just sitting back, listening in quiet anger.

But you all STILL don't get it.

With all due respect:

What Trump lovers don't seem to get is that the base isn't big enough to elect him. He needs folks outside of his rabid base to win.

Look, much as I hate him - and I HATE HIM - he might win again! Incumbents have a huge advantage, who knows if Democrats will get our sh*t together enough to win next time, yadda yadda yadda.

But the base isn't big enough to take it. And Trump has done jack sh*t to bring in supporters outside of his base. The next election will be partly about bringing out the base, and then largely about suburban voters. The midterms suggest that Trump hasn't really won over those voters. Again, we will have to see.

And as I said in the thread in which someone was asking why liberals are obsessed with Lena Dunham: you've got it wrong. Liberals aren't obsessed with AOC, just like we're not with Lena Dunham. Conservatives are obsessed with her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, you're still just saying "Shut up, liberals. Your outrage over the outrageous is unacceptable."

this.

so, accept the unacceptable? NOPE. EVERYONE should be pissed. This shit isn't normal. It's on THEM if they just want to go along to get along.

Seriously, screw that.

NP here.

I'd recommend leaving your little bubble more often.

There was a close election. One party won, another lost. Pretty typical.

Yet, you were doing marches the very day after Inauguration. You are becoming an undemocratic fascist mob, and don't realize it.

Net net, grow up, drop the fake outrage, and think how to win 2020.

Hint: you need to engage and persuade voters, not insult then or intimidate them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, you're still just saying "Shut up, liberals. Your outrage over the outrageous is unacceptable."

this.

so, accept the unacceptable? NOPE. EVERYONE should be pissed. This shit isn't normal. It's on THEM if they just want to go along to get along.

Seriously, screw that.

NP here.

I'd recommend leaving your little bubble more often.

There was a close election. One party won, another lost. Pretty typical.

Yet, you were doing marches the very day after Inauguration. You are becoming an undemocratic fascist mob, and don't realize it.

Net net, grow up, drop the fake outrage, and think how to win 2020.

Hint: you need to engage and persuade voters, not insult then or intimidate them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hint: you need to engage and persuade voters, not insult then or intimidate them.

This is a strategic mistake IMO, and one of the reasons why Democrats lose many winnable elections. Apart from her other flaws, HRC wasted time and resources persuading and/or appealing to the moderates when doing so ran the risk of alienating a greater number of voters from her base. The juice is often not worth the squeeze.

I'm not saying that you insult or intimidate moderates, but energizing the base is typically an easier and more efficient way to win votes.

Anonymous wrote:Hint: you need to engage and persuade voters, not insult then or intimidate them.