Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

If you think your voting record is something I put on my mental list of things I care about then you obviously consider yourself more worthy in my world than reality would suggest.

 

I think a more appropriate way of recognizing what is going on with you is that you have no problem ridiculing someone without actually knowing anything about them.

 

Even when you've been told repeatedly specific things about them.

 

You are the thing you claim to be fighting. Which is humorous.

 

[Dan T.]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I think a more appropriate way of recognizing what is going on with you is that you have no problem ridiculing someone without actually knowing anything about them.

 

Even when you've been told repeatedly specific things about them.

 

You are the thing you claim to be fighting. Which is humorous.

 

 

He's angry.  And i understand why.  Sometimes it's misplaced though.

 

Lots of people feel that way.  It will be reflected in the midterms, and it will carry over to 2020.

[Renegade7]

Some of ya'll are starting to sound like straight butthurt ***holes right now.  Voting for Trump is nearly impossible to defend right now with a straight face, but not voting for Hillary does NOT equal voting for Trump.  Get a hold of yourselves.

 

Poker is right in this regard, ya'll should be better then this.

[tshile]

Just now, Dan T. said:

 

He's angry.  And i understand why.  Sometimes it's misplaced though.

 

Lots of people feel that way.  It will be reflected in the midterms, and it will carry over to 2020.

 

Being hyper critical of something you know nothing about is about more than being angry. It's the type of mentality that allowed Trump to be president. It's an intelligence issue, as well as a character/emotional one.

 

I'm all for getting the government out of the control of whatever this current GOP iteration is. 

 

Need them to show up and vote... I don't know why we're supposed to take people seriously when they can't show up and vote. It's really frustrating.

 

[Riggo-toni]

[DogofWar1]

24 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Some of ya'll are starting to sound like straight butthurt ***holes right now.  Voting for Trump is nearly impossible to defend right now with a straight face, but not voting for Hillary does NOT equal voting for Trump.  Get a hold of yourselves.

 

Poker is right in this regard, ya'll should be better then this.

In a first past the post system, with only two realistic electoral options, anything but support for one is tacit support for the other.

[Renegade7]

32 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

I think a lot of the criticism of third party voting in the 2016 election is prejudiced by the benefit of hindsight.

Agreed, Hillary wins, and nobody cares if someone voted for the National Strawberry Shortcake party, business as usual.

[tshile]

thought i was in a different thread... moving post now.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

I disagree with your vote and your stance on it, but Dems going after Independents that didn't vote for Hillary is a mistake, we should not be doing this if we want them to caucus with us or consider voting Dem in the future. 

 

Even if every independent in Texas votes Dem, Trump still wins the state.  Asking every Independent in the country to vote for Hillary would've won the election because of how close some states were, but asking every Independent to do that feels dead wrong to me. 

 

Hillary should've done a better job campaigning in swing states, especially in the Midwest, instead of thinking she had it in the bag.  I hate seeing what's going on in here, ya'll put people on blast in person about this as well?  We didn't show up to vote for our own candidate, why are we mad they didn't either? 

 

Talking about how horrible Trump is is something we knew before the election, but the Dem turnout was still down in several states.  She lost Michigan by 10,000 votes, but she got 300K less votes then Obama did in 2012.  That's more then all the people that voted Independent in that state for that election combined.

 

Well, the idea of "we" is a bit vague.  I strongly suspect if somebody came in here and said that they were a Democrat, but didn't bother to vote for Hillary, they'd get blasted too.

 

Second, you are assuming it was Democrat turnout and not people that cross over party lines plus redistribution of the population.  Turnout in every county that voted for Hillary in MI was up compared to 2012, except for Wayne County and guess what is happening to the population of Wayne County.

 

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=population&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=county&idim=county:26163&ifdim=county:state:26000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

 

(Yes, Hillary failed to garner as much support in traditional Democratic strong holds as Obama did that are also having a falling population.  Shockingly fewer voters = fewer votes)

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, DogofWar1 said:

In a first past the post system, with only two realistic electoral options, anything but support for one is tacit support for the other.

That's unequivocal BS.  We might as well not have 3rd parties if that's the case. 

 

A number of swing states Hillary lost in the number of people that voted D in 2012 and not 2016 is larger then the total number of independents that voted in that state in 2016, like Ohio and Wisconsin. In other cases, there are actually more registered democrats then republicans and she still lost (I didn't believe it, but that's actually the case in Florida).

 

http://dos.myflorida.com/elections/data-statistics/voter-registration-statistics/voter-registration-monthly-reports/voter-registration-by-party-affiliation/

 

This was our own fault.  If we don't accept that, this will happen again at some point.

[Renegade7]

41 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

(Yes, Hillary failed to garner as much support in traditional Democratic strong holds as Obama did that are also having a falling population.  Shockingly fewer voters = fewer votes)

 

Your graph shows the trend stretching back to the 1970s, the difference in population is miniscule between 2012 and 2016.  She got 75K less votes then Obama in 2012 (which if she got even a fraction of that she wins the state), yet your graph shows the population in total for the county did not drop by 75K in that time period.

 

I can't support a democrat not voting in that election, but that's not what this conversation has steered to.

[Zguy28]

Oh look, its children pretending to be adults...and Donald Trump too. He won't last forever.

12 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

That's unequivocal BS.  We might as well not have 3rd parties if that's the case. 

 

 

It's a false dilemma.

[mcsluggo]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

That's unequivocal BS.  We might as well not have 3rd parties if that's the case. 

 

A number of swing states Hillary lost in the number of people that voted D in 2012 and not 2016 is larger then the total number of independents that voted in that state in 2016, like Ohio and Wisconsin. In other cases, there are actually more registered democrats then republicans and she still lost (I didn't believe it, but that's actually the case in Florida).

 

http://dos.myflorida.com/elections/data-statistics/voter-registration-statistics/voter-registration-monthly-reports/voter-registration-by-party-affiliation/

 

This was our own fault.  If we don't accept that, this will happen again at some point.

 

not liking a fact doesn;t make it untrue

 

It is my OPINION that Trump is a historically bad candidate/president.   Not everyone needs to agree with that opinion.   

But it is a FACT that people that agree with my opinion failing to vote against Trump allowed him to get him elected.

 

If you thought that Trump was a historically bad option, and failed to vote against him in November 2016, then yes... you helped to get him elected.   Not liking this fact does not make it untrue.

 

 

 

 

edit:  

(and you don't need to like clinton AT ALL for this to be true.... but yes... you have to think that she was/is LESS historically bad than Trump.  A high bar, i know... ) 

 

[Renegade7]

19 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

not liking a fact doesn;t make it untrue

 

It is my OPINION that Trump is a historically bad candidate/president.   Not everyone needs to agree with that opinion.   

But it is a FACT that people that agree with my opinion failing to vote against Trump allowed him to get him elected.

 

If you thought that Trump was a historically bad option, and failed to vote against him in November 2016, then yes... you helped to get him elected.   Not liking this fact does not make it untrue.

 

You're not making sense.  Voting Independent IS voting against Trump.  Ya'll are just saying that voting for Hillary is same as voting for Trump and that is absolutely an opinion, not a fact. Like Zguy28 said, they didn't check the box for Trump, they selected someone else.

 

Plenty of cases where if the same number of people, not more, but the same amount that voted D in 2012 did in 2016, we're not having this conversation, regardless if Independents joined in.  That's a fact, not an opinion.

[Zguy28]

6 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

not liking a fact doesn;t make it untrue

 

It is my OPINION that Trump is a historically bad candidate/president.   Not everyone needs to agree with that opinion.   

But it is a FACT that people that agree with my opinion failing to vote against Trump allowed him to get him elected.

 

If you thought that Trump was a historically bad option, and failed to vote against him in November 2016, then yes... you helped to get him elected.   Not liking this fact does not make it untrue.

 

Last I checked I checked the box of the person I voted FOR, not against. On the other hand, if I want to use your type of logic, running a candidate that possibly was the one of the worst possible from a polarization and perception standpoint makes Democrats complicit in helping Trump win.

 

[DogofWar1]

11 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

That's unequivocal BS.  We might as well not have 3rd parties if that's the case. 

 

A number of swing states Hillary lost in the number of people that voted D in 2012 and not 2016 is larger then the total number of independents that voted in that state in 2016, like Ohio and Wisconsin. In other cases, there are actually more registered democrats then republicans and she still lost (I didn't believe it, but that's actually the case in Florida).

 

http://dos.myflorida.com/elections/data-statistics/voter-registration-statistics/voter-registration-monthly-reports/voter-registration-by-party-affiliation/

 

This was our own fault.  If we don't accept that, this will happen again at some point.

 

 

We functionally don't have 3rd parties nationally.

 

A high single-digit/low double-digit percentage of the population lives with the flawed notion that 3rd parties are viable nationally or could be within 2 presidential cycles.  Get to 5%, then catapult to major party status next cycle with all the money and exposure from getting on the same stage.  It's a fantasy.

 

A 3rd party coming to be in any viable fashion is a multi-generational project, started from the ground up locally, and likely one that doesn't end with 3 actual parties, but more than likely 2 parties with the newcomer absorbing one of the older ones.

 

If libertarians couldn't pull it off in 2016, the odds of it happening are basically nil.  You likely cannot leapfrog over the local growth.  No one has been successful at local growth.  What-is-Aleppo guy's supporters allowed themselves to be reabsorbed into another faction, or sat out.

 

As for Dem registration/voting, it depends on what the specific reason for a voter/voters not showing up is.  There are some things that can be fixed, logistical issues and the like.  Some things might be fixed by swapping the candidate, sure, but then we have to delve into whether there was a legitimate reason to oppose Clinton or whether it was irrational.  How many dems do you think bought into the Seth Rich conspiracy, Uranium 1, or Benghazi?  Or even disliked her because she was a woman?  Or was their disagreement more based in real political disagreement, not liking her hawkishness or stance of healthcare?

 

Even so though, whatever the reason, that doesn't change that we can clearly see today Clinton was the objectively vastly superior choice, and if 2020 was literally Trump v. Clinton again, there would be no rational reason to support Trump, tacitly or otherwise, over Clinton.

 

 

In many ways, 2016 and 2020 are basically two back to back trolley problems, only you don't know which track it'll hit instead of knowing it's going towards one vs. the other.  Enough people chose not to push the lever towards 1 person that we hit 5.  We now see the same situation approaching.  Do we sit out and risk hitting the 5 again?

[PeterMP]

15 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

You're not making sense.  They DID vote against Trump.  Ya'll are just saying that voting for Hillary is same as voting for Trump and that is absolutely an opinion, not a fact. 

 

Plenty of cases were if the same number of people, not more, but the same amount that voted D in 2012 did in 2016, we're not having this conversation, regardless if Independents joined in.  That's a fact, not an opinion.

 

Nobody's arguing that.  Clearly if everybody votes in 2012 the way they did in 2016, then nothing changes.  Nobody said that voting for somebody else is the SAME as voting for Trump.

 

But if you sit and watch somebody to get beaten death and don't do anything to stop it, you bear some responsibility.  Not as much as the people that actually carried out the beating, but that doesn't mean your responsibility is 0.

 

Was Hillary's loss because of (historically) bad turnout)?  You've brought up FL, and I don't know about FL, but that's certainly not true nationwide, in PA, or Michigan.  Turnout wasn't historically high, but it was at least average.

 

Obama had 3 advantages;

 

1.  He actually drove historically high turnout.  If Democrats need Obama like turnout to win Presidential elections, they are going to be in trouble.

 

2.   Independents and Republicans crossed over for him for a way they don't normally do and there was some of a switch.

 

There's no doubt that people that voted for Obama turned around and voted for Trump:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/upshot/a-2016-review-turnout-wasnt-the-driver-of-clintons-defeat.html

[Renegade7]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 Nobody said that voting for somebody else is the SAME as voting for Trump.

Peter, people absolutely have been saying that in here, go back a couple pages.  These hyperbolic analogies are getting old, though, we get it.  Trump is a terrible candidate.  Is it really so hard to accept that Hillary got less votes because Dems liked her less then Obama?  The game is changed with the Trump base being in play, we absolutely need to garner higher turnout to keep up, especially in non-november elections.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Your graph shows the trend stretching back to the 1970s, the difference in population is miniscule between 2012 and 2016.  She got 75K less votes then Obama in 2012 (which if she got even a fraction of that she wins the state), yet your graph shows the population in total for the county did not drop by 75K in that time period.

 

I can't support a democrat not voting in that election, but that's not what this conversation has steered to.

 

My graph shows only one country.  As I stated, Obama pulled in people to vote for him that Clinton didn't.  My point is that the issue wasn't (really) voter turn out.

 

Obama got more votes for her partly because he drove record turnouts, but also because more of the people that did turnout voted for him.

[88Comrade2000]

Well, Trump did won alot of those voters who voted for Obama. A Democrat successor to Trump will probably have to peel of, at least some of those Trump voters that were once Obama voters.

 

Best ticket for Dems is a pragmatist as the nominee and a progressive as the Veep.  I know progressive say that pure Progressive candidate will ensure them victory.  Maybe down the line, don't think in 2020.

[mcsluggo]

12 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

You're not making sense.  Voting Independent IS voting against Trump.  Ya'll are just saying that voting for Hillary is same as voting for Trump and that is absolutely an opinion, not a fact. Like Zguy28 said, they didn't check the box for Trump, they selected someone else.

 

Plenty of cases where if the same number of people, not more, but the same amount that voted D in 2012 did in 2016, we're not having this conversation, regardless if Independents joined in.  That's a fact, not an opinion.

 

in a different system, that might be true.  

 

but ANY understanding of Game Theory (even at the most rudimentary, non-technical, instinctive level) makes it clear that:

 

On November 8, 2016, only two candidates had ANY statistical chance of winning.  Period.  

 

you said:  

Quote

That's unequivocal BS.  We might as well not have 3rd parties if that's the case. 

 

which...frankly... is unequivocal BS.   i can understand not LIKING that statistical fact, but... it is not really an opinion.    I can FULLY sympathize with people that hate that reality.  really i can.  and i am willing to discuss and entertain other voting schematics that lessen this harsh statistical reality in the future.   I really am FULLY open to this discussion.

 

but to pretend that it was NOT a statistical reality that only two individuals had ANY chance of winning on November 8 2016 is just making up a theoretical election that did not actually occur on November 8, 2016.   

 

pretending that this is not true, doesn't make it true.  period.

 

[thebluefood]

13 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

[Renegade7's reply]

 

To answer your questions to the best of my ability, I'm going to cite this essay I stumbled upon - which is a transcript of an essay written in 1984 by the Vancouver, B.C. branch.

 

http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-does-iww-mean-by-abolition-of-wage.html

 

Regarding training or risk or necessity as a factor for wages (i.e. the neurosurgeon vs. the ice cream truck driver)

 

Quote

On every job, a number of excuses are offered to explain why I should get more pay than you, and why he or she receive more than both of us combined. Years of education and training are often cited, though this education is largely supported out of taxes we all pay. So those who receive this education really benefit twice. Meanwhile, should employees with four years of university receive more than employees with seven years of an apprenticeship?

Another argument is that some people have more responsibility or take more risks. This can be in connection with our own life or others' lives, or concerned with valuable items or money. But then, why aren't those who work at the most hazardous jobs (as determined by Workers' Compensation Board statistics) the most highly paid? Or. why don't bank tellers earn a lot of money?

Should the people who produce what society needs most be the best paid? This would mean that farmers and agricultural laborers who produce our food would be among the highest paid people. They aren't now! And those who manufacture our clothing are still often immigrant women working for very, very low pay in sweat-shop conditions. And the host of non-union carpenters and others building our housing aren't very well reimbursed for their work, either.
 

 

I'll also add that while it may take more training and certain skills to be a neurosurgeon vs. an ice cream truck driver which makes them more rare and in our current system more "valuable" - let's not forget that the cost of schooling (as well as a number of other socio-economic factors - including access to a decent, healthy breakfast every morning) often serve as gatekeepers and is probably causing a false scarcity of physicians, surgeons, and other medical personnel. I imagine that's a bigger factor here in the States than it would be for our neighbors to the north since a university education is far less expensive up there than it is down here.

 

Anyway - continuing:

 

Regarding our belief the wage system is not only unfair and hazardous but undemocratic (as well as why anti-capitalists, including Wobblies, often have harsh words for bosses on all levels of the economy):

 

Quote

Besides being irrational, the present wage system is completely undemocratic. We are constantly told by teachers, the media and politicians that we are free citizens of a democracy. But this democracy ends for us the moment we show up for work. On the job we not only do not make the decisions, but we have to obey the orders of people we definitely did not elect to rule over us.

If we don't like it, we are "free" to quit. After that, we can either "freely" starve to death or "freely" agree to obey the orders of some other employer on some other job.

 

When we are employed, we get as wages only a part of the value of what we produce. We are therefore robbed at the point of production; this is the true meaning of exploitation. Besides our wages, the product of our labor goes to pay for raw materials, for research and development, for things our community needs (paid for in the form of taxes) and for profits taken by the already rich owners and managers.

It's true that in any social system workers would not be able to receive as wages the complete value of the product of our labor, for all systems require plant maintenance, research and development, etc. But the decision as to how to divide up among these categories the wealth produced as a result of our work is not made by us.

 

To interject again, I will admit anti-capitalists could stand to have a little more nuance when discussing business owners. The current system pits us against each other (alienation) and in order to "make it," exploration is almost inevitable, especially if you're a business owner. It is "dog eat dog," even though there are plenty to go around for all of us to survive and thrive if we cooperate instead of competing against each other. This is the only system many of us really know and there are plenty of "rags to riches" stories of people who got to the top - from Andrew Carnegie to Steve Jobs to Oprah Winfrey. What we are proposing is a re-calibration of society the whole "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" mantra is unnecessary. No one's going to stop you from trying to make bold new advances in science or literature or industry - you just can't do it at the expense of other people or the Planet on which we live.

 

Which brings me to the centerpiece: what a "wageless society" is and what it could look like:

 

Quote

What the I.W.W. offers in its stead is not a blueprint, but an opportunity. We believe a reorganization of society is needed so that decision-making on the job as well as off is made democratically.

Since human beings are remarkably ingenious, we believe different groups of people will come up with different democratic alternatives to the present way of running society.

- - - 

Why shouldn't things of which there is an actual or achievable abundance - such as basic food stuffs, basic clothing, public transport, etc. - be made "free"? Of course, nothing is "free" since we have to work to produce things. However, many goods and services such as primary and secondary education, libraries, roads, water and sewage systems, utilities, etc. in many countries are out of the price system and free to the user. How many other common items could be free?

Abolition of the wage system, as the I.W.W. sees it, would profoundly change how we work and how our work affects our lives, our community, our planet. We want a society where everyone's basic mental and physical needs are automatically met - a healthy, ecologically-sound society which battles against the formation of social hierarchies.

 

I know this is pretty vague but you have to understand the IWW is not a vanguard party like the Bolsheviks or the July 26th Movement were. Personally, I'm distrustful of vanguards which is why I'm not a Marxist-Leninist or a Maoist - though perhaps that's why they've been more successful than more Libertarian-Socialist and Anarchist experiments (though hopefully Rojava and its political/economic model will be the exception).

 

As a Union, we're not proposing a single path to our goals (including the abolition of the wage system). We don't have a platform - we have an outline because we believe (and I certainly believe) that the path to our goals takes on many paths. I don't believe an individual or a party can lead the way to sustainable liberation for working folks across the globe. Not only would it look different from country to country but even state to state here in the U.S. I don't think socialism could look the same in California as it would in Rhode Island or Mississippi or Pennsylvania. This is going to require a complete upturning of society - not only economically but socially and politically.

 

And that brings be back 'round to the topic at hand (and thank you @brandymac27 and everyone else for enduring this long-winded sidebar). I know Lefties like myself can be sort of cavalier and I know my reply a couple days ago was flippant. I'm aware that, albeit marginally from my perspective (which is, and I cannot emphasize this enough, from an anti-capitalist point of view), Sec. Clinton would have be preferable to the current President.The current administration is a toxic, draconian, dysfunctional hive led by what appears to be a deeply troubled, incompetent, and bigoted man. Along those lines, Secretary Clinton and her party are the preferred choice to the current administration and his party. I'm not doubting that. It's why I'll at least vote Democrat down ballot and why I may very well vote for a Democrat in the 2020 election (though the Dems are gonna have to do better than John Kerry or Bernie 2.0 - that's a whole different matter) 

 

But right now the country and the world-at-large is like a car sitting on a high cliff that's rapidly crumbling to dust. Under the current congressional and executive leadership, the car is going in reverse at 70 MPH. Chances are if Democrats were behind the wheel, they'd apply the breaks and put the car in neutral which is preferable but we're still not moving and that cliff is giving way. I'm trying to do my part to put the car in drive and get us off this damn cliff altogether before anyone else needs to get hurt. Sea levels are rising, age expectancy is dropping, cost of living is soaring and by and large, wages are staying stagnant. All that has been the case under both Democratic and Republican leadership. This isn't a matter of tightening a few bolts or or unjamming a cog or two - this is a systemic issue and it needs to be addressed as such. Legislation isn't going to solve it. Politicians making big speeches isn't going to solve it. Performative, state-sanctioned demonstrations aren't going to solve it. Even more radical actions like #J20 alone aren't going to solve it. What's going to really get the ball rolling, as far as I'm concerned, can be summed up in one phrase by one of the IWW's founders, Bill Haywood.

 

Quote

This is the power of the working class: If the workers are organized...all they have to do is to put their hands in their pockets and they have got the capitalist class whipped.

 

Once again, I'm sorry for taking up so much space. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. 

 

[Riggo-toni]

As someone who voted for Gary Johnson, let me say a few words in my defense.

First, I live in GA - hardcore Trump territory. After Trump's victory, Dems spent record amounts on a special congressional election in the neighboring county...and still lost by a significant margin. A vote for Hillary would have made no difference whatsoever. Had I lived in FL, WI, or OH, I might very well have voted for Clinton.

 

Secondly, every last pollster picked Clinton to win handily. I don't consider Hillary to be evil, in fact I think she handled her tenure as SoS far more effectively than John Kerry. I was never horrified at the thought of her becoming President as I was of Trump or Sanders.

 

Third - So why not vote for her? My hope was that 2016 would provide a unique opportunity for the Libertarian Party to pass the 5% threshold that would qualify them for matching funds. Since the 92 convention, the GOP has been shoving its head further and further up the evangelical base's ass. A strong showing by the Libertarians combined with federal funds would force the GOP to pay more attention to fiscal conservatives - as happened in the aftermath of the Perot run. It failed. Gary Johnson was a lamentable candidate, and Bill Kristol propped up Evan McMullin in just enough states in order to siphon off potential Libertarian voters.

[Renegade7]

12 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

As for Dem registration/voting, it depends on what the specific reason for a voter/voters not showing up is.  There are some things that can be fixed, logistical issues and the like.  Some things might be fixed by swapping the candidate, sure, but then we have to delve into whether there was a legitimate reason to oppose Clinton or whether it was irrational.  How many dems do you think bought into the Seth Rich conspiracy, Uranium 1, or Benghazi?  Or even disliked her because she was a woman?  Or was their disagreement more based in real political disagreement, not liking her hawkishness or stance of healthcare?

 

Even so though, whatever the reason, that doesn't change that we can clearly see today Clinton was the objectively vastly superior choice, and if 2020 was literally Trump v. Clinton again, there would be no rational reason to support Trump, tacitly or otherwise, over Clinton.

 

Look, man, I don't believe in assigning false equivalencies anymore then you do.  I just believe she lost because less Dems liked her then the previous president in areas that cost her the election. 

 

She was the better candidate in 2016, but that doesn't mean she was a great one, we have to accept that, move on, and focus on nominating better candidates.  It's not Independents job to elected Democratic candidates, our focus should be on getting our own people to the polls first, appealing to a platform that doesn't agree with ours second. 

 

Some of the states she lost are so close that this won't require an insurmountable amount of effort, we just have to acknowledge the problem first.  The state of our non-major party candidates needs to be a different discussion, its not why we lost.

[Cooked Crack]