any examples of the types of economic issues you think she could have moved left on and gained voters?

she lost because of Mi, Wi, Pa, Oh, Fl

the bernie bros there arent the diehard coastal types unwilling to turnout because she cheated in the primary. those butthurt cucks are in CA, NY, WA, OR. etc. where she won by a landslide. she lost these because of depressed workers, moving left wouldnt have gotten their votes.

but yeah, lmk what policy specifically she could have move left on and gotten more votes in the states listed above that cost her the election.

just off the top of my head:

putting the banks on a tighter leash, more government spending on healthcare, vouchers for vocational training, tax cuts which disproportionately go to the bottom 70%, increased child benefits, tougher workplace safety regulations, raising the mimum wage.

putting the banks on a tighter leash: Maybe i can see that, but with her doing 500k speeches for them no one would have taken it seriously.

more government spending on healthcare: midwest liberals aren't coastal liberals. healthcare isnt as big of an issue due to less big cities and far more prevalent union healthcare plans.

vouchers for vocational training: this is a republican talking point, not progressive.

tax cuts which disproportionately go to the bottom 70%: it would be hard to frame this in a progressive way. people hear tax cut and think GOP inherently.

increased child benefits: iirc she did run on paid leave promises, but could have pushed some govt run child care programs. but i can tell u in the midwest govt run child care is a running joke. people hate it.

tougher workplace safety regulations: people were more afraid of not having jobs or losing them to automation than workplace safety. i havent even heard anyone talking about that topic in years and i work in the factor automation business lol

raising the mimum wage: she ran on a lite version of that (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/15/bernie-s/does-hillary-clinton-want-15-or-12-minimum-wage/), but again thats a coastal liberal talking point.




overall, and i dont mean this negatively, i think you're misinformed on midwest liberal mentality. most of the news that makes it to you im sure is coastal liberal activity. or if it is midwest its chicago, milwaukee, detroit, etc news. which also isnt representative of the states generally. your strategy sounds more like a "win Florida" strategy.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jan 10 2020 02:12pm

you're probably right, but then what are the economic interests of midwestern liberals? which liberal economic policies would appeal to them at all?

regarding the healthcare thing: isnt the opioid crisis particularly prevalent in the midwest? maybe this would have been a powerful topic for Clinton, and one where Democrats start with a natural credibility and perceived competence advantage over Republicans.


about your last sentence: Trump won Michigan by 0.23%, any of these policies would probably have been enough for Clinton to take that state from him. Then, winning Florida would have been enough for her to win a narrow 271-266 victory over Trump despite losing WI and PA:
https://www.270towin.com/maps/BP9K3

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 10 2020 03:01pm

specifically jobloss due to automation and outsourcing. and combating those isn't progressive really. Trump is combating them, with very little effectiveness.



Ohio and Penn specifically, yes. i suppose she could have proposed more state run rehab clinics or clamping down on pharmacies, i just dont see it majorly moving the needle.



yes the race was close, but the policies you're proposing would have hurt in MI, not helped. she'd have needed to offer some sort of relief for lead contamination, or appealed directly to the UAW. and the democratic party and the UAW have had a really bad falling out. idk honestly if that relationship can be rebuilt.



overall midwest liberals are very jobs focused on economics, union provided healthcare plans, and more focused socially on letting people live their lives. whereas trans bathroom laws are popular in seattle for example, anti discrimination for housing laws would be more popular in the midwest. midwest liberals are very centrist and hold their positions with a lot less fervor than coastal liberals, whom are diehards.

Edit: also liberals in the midwest aren't looking for more progressive movements in education. we hate common core, and we like property tax driven school funding. we want teachers to make more, but who doesnt i guess.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jan 10 2020 03:10pm

i didn't mean to actually quote you here, but i did.
*poof* you're back in convo

establishment is the exact word i would use for Hilary myself.

as to campaign contributions, the current progressive promise is limited to not accepting "corporate pac money". while i can get behind the premise, not accepting "PAC" money means pretty much nothing.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/why-so-many-democratic-candidates-are-ditching-corporate-pacs/568267/



if you compare how donations add up, it's not even close.
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toppacs.php?cycle=2016
top total PAC donations - $3,973,350

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php?cycle=2016
top total organization donations - $90,589,395

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php?cycle=2016
top total individuals donations - $91,078,136

This post was edited by tagged4nothing on Jan 10 2020 05:09pm

you're conflating non-incumbents in gubernatorial / congressional elections, and candidates for presidential elections. in the former, unknown candidates might not ALWAYS be as attractive to corporate interest, and the 'it's just symbolic' argument could be reasonably made in SOME cases (even though there are many instances where it clearly does NOT apply, and candidates beholden to certain industries are groomed from the very start of their political careers), it is a whole different story concerning candidates in presidential elections - especially coupled with concrete plans for campaign finance reform (as opposed to half-assed promises to appear progressive, like joe bidens hilarious 2 week attempt to do so).

there is a massive difference between individual donations (which everyone, including employees of corporations ofc, should have the right to make), and corporate PAC money, which ALWAYS comes with at least implied conditions and expectations. if a candidate manages to raise large amounts through individual small dollar contributions it suggests large public support for their agenda - if you want to be fair about it look at the average donation size.

if you're seriously trying to suggest that sanders or warren would set up corporate interest administrations like biden or buttigieg for example would, or like trump did with his goldman sachs / exxon mobil cabinet, then you're either severely ignorant of their political record and platforms, or just wildly dishonest by perpetuating the incredibly flawed 'this doesn't mean anything' talking point, which unsurprisingly originates from corporate shills in washington...

I heard that the dead Iranian general is now in 4th place in the democratic primary, behind Sanders, Biden, and Warren.

on fox news or did you talk to ghot?

A therapist colleague, we like to laugh.



This post was edited by Skinned on Jan 11 2020 09:02am