Did the left lose election after election after election because of being overly PC?

[ivwshane]

Huh? That has nothing to do with conservatives as far as I know. They are the ones that actually do not like the separation of church and state (for the most part), so if anything, I imagine that conservatives would be wanting to wish everyone Merry Christmas no matter what their religion is.

I don't think you read what he said correctly.

 

[fskimospy]

Bill Clinton's actions as a womanizer extend well beyond "he said she said". I see very little difference in the character of Trump, Bill Clinton and Weinstein when it comes to the treatment of women. The only distinction is Trump getting caught on tape vocalizing an attitude that Clinton and Weinstein demonstrated almost equivalently in their behavior.

That would be more accurate if they were all running TODAY. When Democrats nominated and voted for Clinton it wasn’t even close.

And yes, that distinction is a huge one. It’s the difference between someone saying ‘fskimospy killed Mr. Body’ and me taping myself saying ‘yes, in the ballroom with the candlestick’. One is an accusation and the other is a confession.

You say I am white washing Trump. I would say you are amplifying Trump while giving a pass to Clinton and Weinstein.

This is the main problem here. I haven’t given anyone a pass as I think their behavior was abominable. I WILL note that I wouldn’t vote for one of them for president with that knowledge. Apparently republicans have no such compunction.

This ties to my earlier point on why political correctness is hurting Democrats. You can't be the thought police party of social justice when you have leaders and donors violating the very values you stand for.

The silly ‘thought police’ thing aside of course you can be the party of social justice and have people that violate that. Republicans do that all the time.

Is Trump the worst of the three? Absolutely. But that doesn't make Clinton or Weinstein saints on the topic of womanizing.

Facts mean everything. The fact is that Trump, Clinton and Weinstein abused positions of power in the mistreatment of women. Its a semantics game to say who is the worst.

The worst actor won because others were too busy making excuses for the bad actors.

Facts do matter. Nobody was making excuses for the other bad actors and yet now we have people pretending they were. This is the rot in our political system at work again. You’re enabling them, please stop.

 

[SlowSpyder]

This thread is a microcosm of exactly why the Dems lost the presidency, Congress, and most local elections. You guys think you own some kind of moral high ground, any criticism of your side of the partisan aisle is nearly outright rejected. You're too busy being smug and telling yourselves what you want to hear and how much better you are than the right that you've lost touch with moderate America, you can't see your own flaws and there are plenty of them.

 

[Thebobo]

This thread is a microcosm of exactly why the Dems lost the presidency, Congress, and most local elections. You guys think you own some kind of moral high ground, any criticism of your side of the partisan aisle is nearly outright rejected. You're too busy being smug and telling yourselves what you want to hear and how much better you are than the right that you've lost touch with moderate America, you can't see your own flaws and there are plenty of them.

Obligatory you're an idiot

 

[fskimospy]

This thread is a microcosm of exactly why the Dems lost the presidency, Congress, and most local elections. You guys think you own some kind of moral high ground, any criticism of your side of the partisan aisle is nearly outright rejected. You're too busy being smug and telling yourselves what you want to hear and how much better you are than the right that you've lost touch with moderate America, you can't see your own flaws and there are plenty of them.

Way back on the first page I noted that the party you claim has lost touch with moderate America consistently gets the most votes in elections, losing the popular vote only once since 1988. Before you can claim anyone else is only hearing what they want to hear you might want to come up with an explanation of why the party that has 'lost touch' seems to have more people vote for it so often, especially when turnout is most representative of America.

I think you came into this thread with an idea and aren't willing to accept it might be wrong.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Way back on the first page I noted that the party you claim has lost touch with moderate America consistently gets the most votes in elections, losing the popular vote only once since 1988. Before you can claim anyone else is only hearing what they want to hear you might want to come up with an explanation of why the party that has 'lost touch' seems to have more people vote for it so often, especially when turnout is most representative of America.

I think you came into this thread with an idea and aren't willing to accept it might be wrong.

As someone else said, running up the score in liberal strong holds doesn't help. You need electoral votes. Look at the map of how the states voted for this election. It is a sea of red.

 

[fskimospy]

As someone else said, running up the score in liberal strong holds doesn't help. You need electoral votes.

You said they didn't appeal to moderate voters. How do you almost always get a majority of voters without appealing to moderate voters?

Look at the map of how the states voted for this election. It is a sea of red.

That's appealing to dirt, not appealing to people. Land doesn't matter, people do. If you look at a map that controls for the number of people that actually live in an area it's not remotely a sea of red.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You said they didn't appeal to moderate voters. How do you almost always get a majority of voters without appealing to moderate voters?



That's appealing to dirt, not appealing to people. Land doesn't matter, people do.

I disagree. The liberal strongholds, the west coast and north east coast voted Dem. Just about all the rest of the country voted red. The electoral college is great, it helps give states a vote, as it should be, as we are not one borderless nation, but a republic composed of states with unique cultures to some degree and differing laws.

 

[fskimospy]

I disagree.

What do you disagree with? Are you saying that you believe that the party that consistently gets the most votes is worse at appealing to moderates? I'm not sure how that's mathematically possible, can you explain?

The liberal strongholds, the west coast and north east coast voted Dem. Just about all the rest of the country voted red. The electoral college is great, it helps give states a vote, as it should be, as we are not one borderless nation, but a republic composed of states with unique cultures to some degree and differing laws.

We both agree that people is what is important, not land, correct? Dirt doesn't vote, after all. We aren't talking about the electoral college here, we're talking about your topic which was that you think Democrats are losing elections because they are too PC or whatever to appeal to moderates.

Now you seem to be changing your argument that Democrats are indeed the best at appealing to moderates but need to change to appeal to rural voters because they get disproportionate electoral power. That's a totally different thing.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Despite Trump's actions and messages, he performed better with women and with minorities than the previous republican candidate. So, not saying race was not a factor, but bear in mind that Trump got more of the Hispanic vote than his predecessor did. If it was all about race, that would not have happened.

All those illegal voters?

 

[pmv]

You said you wanted something quantifiable and when I provided it you went back to anecdotes.

The republicans have shifted, quantifiably, to the far right. The idea that intervention overseas is a conservative position is odd as well considering liberals have been more interventionist than conservatives since Woodrow Wilson at least.

That much at least is true. For good or ill, Liberals in general have always been very pro- foreign interventionism, and, in fact, outright imperialism. Goes right back to JS Mill being a huge supporter of the British Empire. Liberals got the US into WW1, WW2 and Vietnam (one of those I wouldn't really complain about). Conservatives have been much more inconsistent in that respect.

You said they didn't appeal to moderate voters. How do you almost always get a majority of voters without appealing to moderate voters?

That's appealing to dirt, not appealing to people. Land doesn't matter, people do. If you look at a map that controls for the number of people that actually live in an area it's not remotely a sea of red.

Is there a special name for that fallacy? Looking at geographic maps instead of those weighted by population.

SlowSpyder seems to be mainly concerned with gloating over having an electoral system rigged in his favour. Not to mention defining 'moderate' as 'people who think like me'. (That's a pretty common attitude, to be fair, and a reason why terms like 'moderate' 'centrist' probably should be thrown out altogether)

 

[SlowSpyder]

What do you disagree with? Are you saying that you believe that the party that consistently gets the most votes is worse at appealing to moderates? I'm not sure how that's mathematically possible, can you explain?



We both agree that people is what is important, not land, correct? Dirt doesn't vote, after all. We aren't talking about the electoral college here, we're talking about your topic which was that you think Democrats are losing elections because they are too PC or whatever to appeal to moderates.

Now you seem to be changing your argument that Democrats are indeed the best at appealing to moderates but need to change to appeal to rural voters because they get disproportionate electoral power. That's a totally different thing.

I disagree that the popular vote is what matters. It isn't, and it shouldn't be the lone decider of the POTUS in a country like ours.

The left (in particular, left of the moderate left) are not appealing to moderates, and the more liberal left seems to be the loudest. There are a lot of moderates in those red states if you don't think of things in stereotypes. Look at the map below, there are a handful of states that voted red that weren't far from going the other direction. But, just like liberal kids protesting and throwing a tantrum until they get their way on a college campus by blocking someone from daring to express counter opinions, I can see how this mentality seems to permeate the left as a whole, in this thread even.

 

[SlowSpyder]

SlowSpyder seems to be mainly concerned with gloating over having an electoral system rigged in his favour. Not to mention defining 'moderate' as 'people who think like me'. (That's a pretty common attitude, to be fair, and a reason why terms like 'moderate' 'centrist' probably should be thrown out altogether)

Over the last four elections I've voted both red and blue for POTUS. I wonder how many here have done so? That to me is being a moderate, I'm not sold on a party or vote a partisan line. I lean left in many areas, I lean right in others. I don't take a hard line left / right mentality.

 

[Starbuck1975]

And yes, that distinction is a huge one. It’s the difference between someone saying ‘fskimospy killed Mr. Body’ and me taping myself saying ‘yes, in the ballroom with the candlestick’. One is an accusation and the other is a confession.

Do you prefer the Peacock, Scarlett or Mr Body ending?

A better analogy is one as the mindless jock bragging about sexual conquests that probably never occurred as some form of alpha male posturing and a teacher exploiting a position of power and influence to actually engage in "consensual sex" with students. Who is the true predator?

This is the main problem here. I haven’t given anyone a pass as I think their behavior was abominable. I WILL note that I wouldn’t vote for one of them for president with that knowledge. Apparently republicans have no such compunction.

If Bill Clinton could run for office again you would have Boomer liberals throwing their support behind faster than you can say AARP discount.

The silly ‘thought police’ thing aside of course you can be the party of social justice and have people that violate that. Republicans do that all the time.

So both sides?

 

[fskimospy]

I disagree that the popular vote is what matters. It isn't, and it shouldn't be the lone decider of the POTUS in a country like ours.

Well then there's no point in discussing appealing to moderates as that's not the point. You should be arguing for appealing based on geography.

The left (in particular, left of the moderate left) are not appealing to moderates, and the more liberal left seems to be the loudest. There are a lot of moderates in those red states if you don't think of things in stereotypes.

Clinton won self described moderates by 12 points. Can you explain how they are winning moderates in a landslide if they aren't appealing to them?

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

What you really mean is that Democrats need to appeal to conservatives in those red states, not moderates. They already win moderates by a wide margin.

So you not see how you're exactly thinking in stereotypes when you've convinced yourselves that Democrats are winning only due to appealing to this imaginary mass of super liberals instead of actually having a broad based coalition as the polling results show?

Look at the map below, there are a handful of states that voted red that weren't far from going the other direction. But, just like liberal kids protesting and throwing a tantrum until they get their way on a college campus by blocking someone from daring to express counter opinions, I can see how this mentality seems to permeate the left as a whole, in this thread even.

That's not a logical way of evaluating the election results. A state being won by only a few points for Republicans in an election they lost by a few points the other way isn't indicative of moderation, it's indicative of a conservative state. (remember, presidential elections only generally swing a few points each way per year)

Can you look at the exit poll results above and explain how your argument makes any sense, given the facts? By the way I think the way some of the people in this thread have attacked you unreasonably and irrationally. That's what people on here do when you disagree with them generally, I've found. That being said, I can't see any way your hypothesis matches up with what the data says.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you prefer the Peacock, Scarlett or Mr Body ending?

A better analogy is one as the mindless jock bragging about sexual conquests that probably never occurred as some form of alpha male posturing and a teacher exploiting a position of power and influence to actually engage in "consensual sex" with students. Who is the true predator?

Wait, you're saying Trump's assaults never occurred? You realize he's been accused of sexual assault on numerous occasions throughout his adult life, right? I mean when tons of people accuse someone of sexual assault and then the person says on tape 'yeah, I sexually assault people', sometimes you just have to admit they are most likely a sex offender.

If Bill Clinton could run for office again you would have Boomer liberals throwing their support behind faster than you can say AARP discount.

So both sides?

If Bill Clinton tried to run for president he would not make it out of the primary. So no, not both sides. That's the whole point.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Well then there's no point in discussing appealing to moderates as that's not the point. You should be arguing for appealing based on geography.



Clinton won self described moderates by 12 points. Can you explain how they are winning moderates in a landslide if they aren't appealing to them?

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

What you really mean is that Democrats need to appeal to conservatives in those red states, not moderates. They already win moderates by a wide margin.

So you not see how you're exactly thinking in stereotypes when you've convinced yourselves that Democrats are winning only due to appealing to this imaginary mass of super liberals instead of actually having a broad based coalition as the polling results show?



That's not a logical way of evaluating the election results. A state being won by only a few points for Republicans in an election they lost by a few points the other way isn't indicative of moderation, it's indicative of a conservative state. (remember, presidential elections only generally swing a few points each way per year)

Can you look at the exit poll results above and explain how your argument makes any sense, given the facts? By the way I think the way some of the people in this thread have attacked you unreasonably and irrationally. That's what people on here do when you disagree with them generally, I've found. That being said, I can't see any way your hypothesis matches up with what the data says.

I don't think exit polls matter for this election, not CNN's especially. The exit polls also said "madam president". The exit polls need to be thrown out for the 2016 election.

Looking at AZ, TX, PA, WI, OH... The Dems almost pulled it out. But, I see them as getting more and more out of touch with America. I know you'll come up with some "I'm right.com" link that shows the average person agrees with the Dems or something along those lines, but reality of the election speaks for itself. Even dismissing the POTUS, look at the elections on the local and state levels.

 

[dank69]

Well then there's no point in discussing appealing to moderates as that's not the point. You should be arguing for appealing based on geography.



Clinton won self described moderates by 12 points. Can you explain how they are winning moderates in a landslide if they aren't appealing to them?

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

What you really mean is that Democrats need to appeal to conservatives in those red states, not moderates. They already win moderates by a wide margin.

So you not see how you're exactly thinking in stereotypes when you've convinced yourselves that Democrats are winning only due to appealing to this imaginary mass of super liberals instead of actually having a broad based coalition as the polling results show?



That's not a logical way of evaluating the election results. A state being won by only a few points for Republicans in an election they lost by a few points the other way isn't indicative of moderation, it's indicative of a conservative state. (remember, presidential elections only generally swing a few points each way per year)

Can you look at the exit poll results above and explain how your argument makes any sense, given the facts? By the way I think the way some of the people in this thread have attacked you unreasonably and irrationally. That's what people on here do when you disagree with them generally, I've found. That being said, I can't see any way your hypothesis matches up with what the data says.

What's more irrational? Attempting to convince a monkey that Trump sucks by showing him evidence or accepting the fact that a monkey is not capable of this type of discussion and is just going to wipe shit all over your evidence?

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think exit polls matter for this election, not CNN's especially. The exit polls also said "madam president". The exit polls need to be thrown out for the 2016 election.

Exit polls are conducted by a consortium of polling/news organizations, not by CNN. The exit polls also most certainly did not say that Clinton would win, they were used as part of the calculation to call states that showed Trump would win. They did the exact opposite of what you claim.

I just showed you data that directly contradicts your central claim. You said Democrats aren't appealing to moderates and I showed you how they decimate Republicans when it comes to moderates. Instead of re-evaluating your premise you declared the data faulty. This is not logical. You criticized people for living in bubbles and being intolerant of dissenting opinions earlier in this thread. If you want to practice what you preach don't you think it's time to consider, in the face of evidence, that what you thought was wrong and it's actually the Republicans that don't appeal to moderates?

Looking at AZ, TX, PA, WI, OH... The Dems almost pulled it out. But, I see them as getting more and more out of touch with America. I know you'll come up with some "I'm right.com" link that shows the average person agrees with the Dems or something along those lines, but reality of the election speaks for itself. Even dismissing the POTUS, look at the elections on the local and state levels.

Basically every single state you just listed has been trending steadily more blue over the last 30 years. Sure Trump won them in 2016 but that doesn't change the overall trend.

You're getting angry and defensive when there's no reason to. You had a premise and it looks like that was wrong. Why not rethink it and come up with a new and better one?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Exit polls are conducted by a consortium of polling/news organizations, not by CNN. The exit polls also most certainly did not say that Clinton would win, they were used as part of the calculation to call states that showed Trump would win. They did the exact opposite of what you claim.

I just showed you data that directly contradicts your central claim. You said Democrats aren't appealing to moderates and I showed you how they decimate Republicans when it comes to moderates. Instead of re-evaluating your premise you declared the data faulty. This is not logical. You criticized people for living in bubbles and being intolerant of dissenting opinions earlier in this thread. If you want to practice what you preach don't you think it's time to consider, in the face of evidence, that what you thought was wrong and it's actually the Republicans that don't appeal to moderates?



Basically every single state you just listed has been trending steadily more blue over the last 30 years. Sure Trump won them in 2016 but that doesn't change the overall trend.

You're getting angry and defensive when there's no reason to. You had a premise and it looks like that was wrong. Why not rethink it and come up with a new and better one?

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/2016-...lection-voter-fraud-donald-trump-lose-rigged/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/06/outraged-wisconsin-exit-polls-so-wrong

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/10/media/election-day-polls/index.html


If Dems are indeed appealing to moderates, then what happened in those states you said have been trending blue for the last 30 years? Why do you think those states went red? I'm not mad at all. I'm speaking in reality of what actually happened, you seem to be ignoring how the elections went. I think the Dem message has stopped resonating with many moderates.

 

[fskimospy]

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/2016-...lection-voter-fraud-donald-trump-lose-rigged/

Those are fluctuations right around the margin of error. Absolutely nothing in this would indicate that a 12 point win among moderates for Clinton was not real.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/06/outraged-wisconsin-exit-polls-so-wrong

This is from 2012 when you are complaining about 2016 exit polls.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/10/media/election-day-polls/index.html

This is about pre-election polls, not exit polls. Additionally, the pre-election polls didn't get it particularly wrong. As Nate Silver put it right before election day Trump was only a standard polling error away from victory.

You are blindly linking things at this point in order to find a way to ignore uncomfortable data. I think you need to accept that Democrats appeal to moderates better than Republicans do as that's what all the data shows. If you have actual data that indicates Republicans are the ones winning moderate voters I would love to see it.

If Dems are indeed appealing to moderates, then what happened in those states you said have been trending blue for the last 30 years? Why do you think those states went red? I'm not mad at all. I'm speaking in reality of what actually happened, you seem to be ignoring how the elections went. I think the Dem message has stopped resonating with many moderates.

You're speaking in direct contradiction to reality, saying that Democrats lost because they don't appeal to moderates when they won moderates by a large margin. This is illogical.

 

[SlowSpyder]

My bad on the second link, meant this:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...on-cooper-what-did-everyone-get-wrong-sot.cnn


You keep telling me how wrong I am, but ignore the reality of how the election actually went. I don't know what else to say. Fine, the Dems are appealing to moderates, that's why they lost states that have been voting blue for decades straight. That's why they lost nearly every battleground state. That's why they lost the vast majority of elections on the local level. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree at this point on this subject.

 

[fskimospy]

My bad on the second link, meant this:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...on-cooper-what-did-everyone-get-wrong-sot.cnn

You keep telling me how wrong I am, but ignore the reality of how the election actually went. I don't know what else to say. Fine, the Dems are appealing to moderates, that's why they lost states that have been voting blue for decades straight. That's why they lost nearly every battleground state. That's why they lost the vast majority of elections on the local level. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree at this point on this subject.

It is frankly baffling to me that you're saying I'm ignoring how the election actually went when I am quoting your sources on how the election actually went.

Did Democrats win moderates or not? All available evidence says they did. There's no agreeing to disagree, one of our opinions is based on facts and the other is not.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It is frankly baffling to me that you're saying I'm ignoring how the election actually went when I am quoting your sources on how the election actually went.

Did Democrats win moderates or not? All available evidence says they did. There's no agreeing to disagree, one of our opinions is based on facts and the other is not.

I've said my piece. Your source for "facts" is dubious. There is reality and it doesn't care your opinion. Reality is how the election went. I guess the Dems should just keep doing what they're doing, it is obviously a winning strategy, they're really resonating with the average American. : /

 

[fskimospy]

I've said my piece. Your source for "facts" is dubious. There is reality and it doesn't care your opinion. Reality is how the election went. I guess the Dems should just keep doing what they're doing, it is obviously a winning strategy, they're really resonating with the average American. : /

If you wanted to argue that the Democrats should change their strategy to appeal to suburban and rural voters better that would be one thing. Saying that they lost because they don't appeal to a constituency they won is absurd.

It's unfortunate that you refused to change your opinion even in the direct face of facts to the contrary and instead decided that the facts that told you things you didn't want to here were somehow not real. Doubly unfortunate that you did this after complaining about other people who were trapped in their bubbles. Do you not recognize you're doing the exact same thing?