Why Hillary really lost

It is time for the Democratic Party to understand that their choice of candidate is what really made Donald Trump the president of the United States. The party had a much better choice who would’ve actually won the election if the party leadership had given him a decent shot at winning the primary  but instead of  giving them that  shot the party leaders  decided to back the deck against him.  People should stop trying to make this about James Comey and Russian hacking and accept that this loss was about a much more fundamental issue for the Democratic Party.

 

The real issue is that the Democratic Party has been taken over by rich elites who are not actually interested in representing the interests of working people in the way that they should be and need to be in order to win future elections. Democrats actually got what they deserved in this election, since they selected a candidate who in a lot of ways was completely flawed in relation to the issues that the Democratic Party should have been representing in this election, like jobs for working-class people and a response to climate change. This happened because the weird system that the Democratic Party uses to choose a nominee where the party elites get enough special votes to sway the process by the use of superdelegates. Because Republicans didn’t use a system like this to rig their primary process they actually selected the candidate whoactually  represented what there voters wanted and failed to nominate one of the candidates the party leadership wanted.

 

I have seen an incredible number of people on the Internet talking about all the different reasons why Hillary Clinton lost election and most of them are things that really did happen but are pretty ridiculous when offered as the reason she lost. That is certainly the case with voter suppression activities which were horrible, but  had nothing to do with her losing in the rust belt where the voters she lost who had been previously been Democratic voters in the past were primarily white. Certainly voter suppression was an issue in some important states like North Carolina and Florida, but it is hard to make a case that voter suppression activities were the reason she lost in those states either since most of the same sorts of voter suppression activities were taking place in those states the last time that Obama won.

 

With respect to Russian hacking the issue for Democrats was not the hacking, but rather the terrible activities within the Democratic Party that hacking revealed. When it comes to Edward Snowden most progressives think that he should be pardoned because all he did was provide the American people with information they should have had available to them but could not get because the government made the documents top-secret. I think that anybody who takes that approach with respect to Snowden’s activities should also accept that the Democratic Party is responsible for the crap it did to one of its nominees during the election process.  everyone needs to understand that it is the party itself that is responsible for those things not the people who brought it to light.

With respect to the FBI investigation. I don’t really see what better choices James Comey actually had available to him.  It was initially Democrats wanted him to say what he thought about charges being brought in relation to the Clinton e-mails. Democrats at that point thought iswas important for people to not vote with the notion that  Hillary Clinton could be indicted after the election.  That put him in a position where he was expected to explain what he thought and what information he was making judgments based on. It was this situation that made him need to keep telling people what he was doing as investigation kept going forward. If he had not released the information that he was looking at new evidence Republicans would have said he was screwing them since he had been willing to say what he knew and what he was thinking earlier, when it seemed helpful to the Democrats

 

While the electoral college really is an issue that should be addressed it’s clear that no one in the Democratic party was actually worrying about it before the election results went against them. And it has been the rule in our presidential elections all along. It probably is something that should’ve been talked about and addressed long time ago. But that doesn’t make it wrong that election was decided on that basis, as it always has been. Perhaps Democrats after Al Gore’s loss should have made this a bigger issue than they did. But Democrats ever did make a big effort to make that case.

How to support regulation in a way that most people can understand

Democrats need to make the conversation about regulations focused on the specifics of the regulations under consideration. Conservatives, on the other hand simply want the question to be whether more or less regulation is worthwhile.  Most Americans understand that a lot of regulation exists to protect consumers and users of products and that regulations of this sort definitely need to be preserved. Lots of regulations are also designed to protect the environment and the things that live in it and I think most people support this type of regulation as well, though that is definitely a closer question, in terms of what most people want. I think that these kinds of regulations will be viewed as worthwhile by most people, but where people see environmental regulation as at odds with jobs. The issue is far more complicated in terms of what people think, which suggests a real need to explain that environmental regulation creates job opportunities as well as standing in the way of some types of work.

On the other hand, I think most people believe that a lot of the regulation that exists that is designed to control individual peoples personal conduct and that this type of regulation is too common and often unnecessary. After the financial crisis, I also think most people support increased regulation of Wall Street.

If progressives can get the conversation organized in this way about what a particular regulation does I think that there will be a lot of support for much of what progressives want to see in terms of regulation, but as long as the conversation remains about the value of regulation generally most people find it hard to make the case for more regulation.

As with most electoral issues, conservatives have done a much better job of controlling the nature of the conversation.  Democrats have been much more focused on policy than on the optics of what they’re doing, while conservatives have been much more focused on telling the story they want people to perceive than on the policies they support. I think that this reality is going to make a huge difference in future elections since they are now much more focused on optics than on policy such that if Democrats want to win elections, they are going to need to do a better job of speaking about their positions on issues in ways that the general population can understand and agree with.

It should be much easier to explain a position then it is to develop it in the first place, which is a lesson that Democrats definitely need to learn to compete effectively in future elections. Democrats and Progressives need to spend a lot more time focused on explaining their message and selling it, which we need do not well at this point. If we believe that our message is clearly superior, then we need to be able to say that message in a way that most people, not just other Democrats or Progressives, can understand.How to

Purchasing tickets to events if you’re a handicapped or disabled person

The rules regarding handicapped people purchasing tickets to events should be that you can have as many seats together as you want rather than the two that is the current rule under federal law. Handicapped people should be assumed to want to sit together with all the people who they purchased tickets with rather than only two members of their party. The current rule is applied by Ticketmaster to require them to only sell two tickets together to a handicapped person, even in situations where the venue has not told them to impose this limitation and even in situations where the event is not sold out. So that all of the available handicap seating is not likely to be used.

 

I have been to a number of events where there were plenty of seats together in next to a handicapped seating space that could have been sold to the other members of my party but where Ticketmaster required us to sit separately for no particular reason.

 

If any event is near capacity, then there can be a good reason to impose this limitation in venues that actually have separate seating areas for handicapped individuals. But lots of venues don’t have their handicap seating in separate areas. Ticketmaster and other ticket selling entities should be required to understand this distinction and make this distinction when applying the federal law to their actual decisions regarding seating handicapped individuals and their parties for events. All it would take to do this would be for Ticketmaster or a similar entity to contact the venue one time to ask if this policy is necessary with that particular venue.

 

And even in venues where the policy is sometimes necessary to apply because of the way the venues seating is organized that doesn’t mean it needs to be applied all the time, which is what happens now. The difference now venues for organized in terms of handicapped seating is typically based on whether there are stairs that need to be used to get into some of the regular seating area. In venues where there are steps that need to be used in order to get to some of the seats like sports stadiums then there are really only a limited number of handicapped seats available and they need to be left available for use by handicapped people, which is why the federal limitation exists at all, but most venues don’t present this problem at all. With respect to seating handicapped people in those venues the limitation serves no actual purpose and only serve the purpose of preventing handicapped people some sitting with the rest of their party.

Distinction between venues where this rule sometimes makes sense and those where it makes no sense at all is not a very complicated distinction for the regulation writers and the ticket agencies to apply. Given that most venues don’t present the problem that the federal rules are designed to deal with the rule should recognize this distinction and not ask venues and ticket agencies assume this standard needs to be applied everywhere, including venues where there are no separate handicapped seating areas.

Two types of science fiction StarWars V CloseEncounters, RogueOne V Arrival

 

Back when the original Star Wars movie came out. It was bookmarked by another science fiction movie of the very different kind which was Close Encounters of the Third Kind. There were definitely certain people who were drawn to Close Encounters rather than Star Wars, but many more drawn to Star Wars  who were not particularly interested in Close Encounters. These two movies in my estimation represented two different views of what science fiction meant, with one including far more science than the other. That one being Close Encounters, which was working from a premise about real human contact with people coming to earth from other places.

I think we have the same kind of situation this year with rogue one and arrival. Arrival is definitely much in the same tradition as close encounters and wrote one is obviously in the same position as the original Star Wars.

This year with Rogue One and arrival showing up in the same year we have done same dichotomy playing out again. Arrival is a real close parallel to close encounters with both of them involving other civilizations coming to earth to meet with us in the present time. Rogue One as a part of the actual Star Wars series obviously parallels with the original Star Wars. I am one of those people who thinks the movies dealing with the present time and people coming to visit us in the present time is the much more interesting kind of film and the one that I will choose to see.

Beyond that, I think that this distinction between different kinds of science fiction is true across most of what is considered science fiction, and I think that recognizing this distinction as important maybe a way to get some people who think they are not interested in science fiction at all to begin to make a distinction that makes them interested in certain parts of science fiction that they would not have otherwise recognized as something they were wanting to read or see.That year

tickets to events for #handicapped or #disabled individuals

The rules regarding handicapped people purchasing tickets to events should be that you can have to four seats together rather than the two that is the current rule under federal law. Handicapped people should be assumed to want to sit together with all the people who they  purchased  tickets to the event with. The rule as applied by Ticketmaster to require them to only sell two tickets together to a handicapped person, even in situations where the venue has not told them to impose this limitation.

 

I have been to a number of events where there were plenty of seats together in next to a handicapped seating space that could have been sold to the other members of my party but where Ticketmaster required us to sit separately for no particular reason.

 

If any event is near capacity, then there can be a good reason to impose this limitation in venues that actually have separate seating areas for handicapped individuals. But lots of venues don’t have their handicap seating in separate areas. Ticketmaster and other ticket selling entities should be required to understand this distinction and make this distinction when applying the federal law to their actual decisions regarding seating handicapped individuals and their parties for events. All it would take to do this would be for Ticketmaster or a similar entity to contact the venue one time to ask if this policy is necessary with that particular venue.

 

And even in venues where the policy is sometimes necessary to apply because of the way the venues seating is organized that doesn’t mean it needs to be applied all the time, which is what happens now. The difference now venues for organized in terms of handicapped seating is typically based on whether there are stairs necessary to get into some of the regular seating area. In venues where there are steps to some of the seats like sports stadiums then there are really only a limited number of handicapped seats available and they need to be left available for use by handicapped people, which is why the federal limitation exists at all, but most venues don’t present this problem at all with respect to most of their seating and in those venues the limitation serves no actual purpose and only serve the purpose of preventing handicapped people some sitting with the rest of their party.

This is not a very complicated distinction for the regulation writers and the ticket agencies to apply. Given that most venues don’t present the problem that the federal rules are designed to deal with the rule should not assume this standard needs to be applied everywhere because the standard really does place handicapped ticket purchasers in a very different situation than everybody else.

This election is not bad for progressives as you think

It is time for the Democratic Party to recognize that this is all its faults because of the choice the party made in selecting a candidate. I think it was clear all along that what people were looking for was an outsider and someone who would stand up for blue-collar working people. The Democrats had a candidate available, who met these criteria and who people in the rust belt really seem to like a lot.  If the Democratic Party had been smart enough to recognize this I feel sure he would have won. As a result I don’t see this election result as one that suggests that the Democratic Party is in really bad trouble.  Instead, the problem is that the Democratic Party leadership refused to follows its voters choices and intentions. I think that was an important lesson for the Democratic establishment to receive and I hope that it will cause the party to rethink how it makes decisions about its candidates in the future, and how it selects its leaders.

The real issue was the extent to which Hillary Clinton was able to co-opt the whole Democratic establishment to deny her opponent a decent chance to get the nomination. I think that this was in large part a result of the notion of being able to elect a woman president, which was a thought that appealed to lots of people. But it doesn’t seem that that notion meant much of anything to millennial’s who think that this is a battle that has already been won in most respects, and doesn’t think this battle need to be won particularly with regard to the presidency the presidency.

And it was not just Hillary Clinton, who screwed up. It is also the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which throughout the election talked only to immigrants and transgender people and black lives matter  in its rhetoric about who mattered to the party and to progressive. It’s not that the party couldn’t talk about and worry about these populations, but it needed also to recognize the needs of about the needs of the globe working class and those being displaced from jobs as a result of globalization. Bernie Sanders did speak to economic issues for the working class. But that was not the focus most of the progressive conversation.

It would be possible to support immigrants and people of color and gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals without making it seem like you don’t care at all about the middle class, which is what the Democratic Party did in this election. I saw a discussion with a number of Trump voters in the Midwest who indicated that this rhetoric was a big part of why they didn’t vote Democratic in this election. Rhetoric actually makes a huge amount of difference in terms of how people vote and so is important to have the rhetoric be something that all the voters you want in your coalition can support, meaning that when you talk about these issues, you also will also need to spend a decent amount of time on the issues that matter to working class voters.

That was particularly true in this election because it was all about rhetoric and not at all about policies and policy proposals. It is my senses that this is way elections will be contested for a long time to come as a result of the impact of social media. This does not mean you should stop talking at all about disadvantaged groups, but suggests that you should also talk about the needs of others who are not quite so disadvantaged as well. I believe that these middle-class, often white voters are just as important if you want to win the election and they are particularly moved by rhetoric as opposed to policy.

If progressives accept this logic and focus their rhetoric accordingly, this election could be a major forward move for the progressive part of the Democratic Party and would probably allow progressives to take control of the party.  Because if progressives had been allowed to take control of the party in this election. The Democrats, certainly would have won the presidency since they had a candidate which appealed to middle-class and working-class voters who ultimately voted for Donald Trump, but with reservations about his conduct and approach. But they felt like the Democratic Party left them no option if they were interested in protecting their own interests.

Voter suppression probably also played a significant role, but certainly not a decisive one, as some progressive organizations have suggested since the election. In the places where the result was not what Democrats expected and wanted the difference was really white middle class voters who were not subject to voter suppression activities focused against them.

Democrats need to offer alternative job strategies for the people working in the industry is that are affected by climate change mitigation efforts so that they can be assured that those efforts will not mean there are no jobs of a sort that they can do left in the economy as we move away from fossil fuels. Democrats and talk a lot about jobs that the clean energy economy can and will create but for the most part they’re not jobs the same people losing work as a result of our move away from fossil fuels are going to be able to get.

We need to create real opportunities for the people who are actually getting displaced which Democrats have so far not done to any great extent. We need to suggest what coal miners should be doing once there once their mining jobs are no longer available, and it has to be things they can do in the same places they are living now. And these jobs cannot require a big educational requirement for these workers to be able to do this. That  is a necessary requirement because many of the people involved are reasonably old and not really well-educated and not particularly looking to become particularly  more educated.

This is definitely a big task but it is clearly one that Democrats need to take on if they are going to continue to be politically viable in the rust belt and Appalachia. It is also something that progressives talk about as something really important to them  to building back the American economy. The answer that has been offered by Democrats to this point is that workers in these occupations need to go back to school and get trained to do other things. But for a lot of people that is not a viable answer because they are pretty old, and not really looking to learn major new skills.  I think Republicans have actually been much more willing to deal with the problems these workers face head-on talking about bringing the jobs back here  including fighting against further globalization of the job market.

This is another area where I think the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is more in tune with the general believes and desires of most Americans than the more conservative wing, which seems to be much more into globalization of the job market than either progressive Democrats for Republicans. This is another reason why I think the problem in this election was not really A Democratic leadership problem with the Clintons able to use the  conservative wing of the Democratic Party issue to get there way. I think that the notion that the conservative wing of the Democratic Party is in trouble is really a wonderful thing for the progressive wing and for the party in general and will bring that part of the party to prominence for some time to come.

Hillary was also the worst candidate in terms of being able to talk about climate change as an issue in this election, since the Clinton foundation is very much funded by fossil fuel interests. That’s also true about talking about Wall Street because the foundation also gets tons of money from that sector as well. When you think about it this way, it may be that this election really will be very important in terms of making the Democratic Party really represent the interests of working people, which it needs to do to win future elections.

None of this takes away from the fact losing this election, we have lost the Supreme Court probably a really long time. That is an incredibly important problem since the court has a huge amount to do with things progressives are concerned about. The impact of this election in terms of our climate change policy is also ridiculously important as well.

Despite all this I think that the worst things that Democrats could do to screw up their chances in the future would be to continue to try to overturn the result of the election through the electoral college or by any other means since the people who elected, Trump are people that the Democratic Party needs to be supported by if it’s going to win in the future, and are also people that should vote Democratic in their own economic interests.