NP - Reductio ad absurdum on FB

[matthew cissell]

It's about charisma, and Hillary doesn't have it (just do a search with
'Hilary lack Charisma' and see what you get). Look at those polling
numbers. Why did those small but important percentages of latino or
african-american or young voters  NOT line up behind Hilary as they did for
Obama? (Of course the DNC and the rest of the bourgeoisie completely
miscalculated the Latino vote.)  Sam Harris wants to convince people that
the 'Left' failed because the real subject is "Islamism" (he is dead
wrong), but that aint the case.

The fact is that if you compare Hilary's ability to mobilze her base and
reach out to the undecided with Donnie Duck-schmuck's, she could not beat
Chump. That's why those swing-states that went to Obama went to D-Drumpf
this time around.

Electronic voting is a real concern but I don't remember anyone (except the
white angry males and the rest of the neo-con nuts) complaining when Obama
won twice.

Let's hope the DNC develops better candidates this time, enough of letting
the person with the most "juice" be the de facto candidate. They need
someone that gets people out to vote.

And Elizabeth Warren on her own can't do it, you need someone like ...
Corey Booker? Maybe. Or Joaquin Castro. I dunno. Young blood that can reach
out to the folks that Hilary couldn't rouse from the couch. They have four
years to build a grass roots campaign and they will have to work at it.

Maybe the coming pain and suffering will help get the electorate more
passionate about a Dem next time. The Rust belt white boys aint getting the
Industrial US back and when they become disillusioned with the Buffoon
Elect, there will be the possibility of change.

"Good night, and good luck"
mc otis





On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:46 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> A FB sage (& P-lister) recently reasoned that Hillary's loss proved that
> she was the "wrong candidate" for this election, presumably as a lesson to
> be learned for the future.  I challenged that we had the "wrong
> electorate," willing to vote for a clearly visible moral monster over a
> qualified and rational human being.  His counter was that her loss was
> proof of his thesis: She lost, therefore she was the wrong candidate.
>
> Beneath his logic was a belief that Trump voters first need to be
> understood, and not destained.  Understanding is always useful, but it
> doesn't follow that such understanding will become mutual. Nor should it
> imply that opposition to those assholes should become less vehement.
> Understanding a rapist doesn't make him sympathetic.
>
> Hillary's loss doesn't make her the wrong candidate. It only means she
> lost.  By absurd logic she only became the wrong candidate at the moment of
> her loss.  Before that we all knew she was winning.  And this absurd logic
> is accepted as the premise for too much post-loss analysis.  Trumps voters
> are a mix of deplorables, nihilists, racists, opportunists, religionists,
> and a list of other "wrong" electorate qualities.  Our country is less
> noble than many of us thought.
>
> Lesson learned?
> David Morris
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20161116/09f69435/attachment.html>