Maggie's Farm

That's not how we would have phrased it, but it's hard to argue with the point.

Gringo: Are you going to argue with Jonathan Pie's point that the Democrats have largely given up logical arguments in favor of the incessant otherizing

Clinton is actually a wonk, meaning she does make logical arguments. However, elections are won by messaging, and she was lousy at messaging.

The larger point of cutting off reasoned discussion with the white working class who feel marginalized is valid. There was a Trump voter interviewed on one of the networks from Pennsylvania who didn't like Clinton, but hoped he would be able to keep his ObamaCare. And while Trump was against it at the time, the Obama Administration saved the U.S. auto industry from implosion during the financial crisis, but got little credit for it.


Even a small number was sufficient to tip the election in closely contested states (though she is nearly 2 million ahead in the popular vote, and counting). In a close election, one can always point to many factors that make a difference on the margins. Russia hacking and leaking private emails from the Clinton campaign and the DNC had some effect. Comey's letters at the last minute had a substantial impact. Ultimately, millions of Americans voted for the Internet troll, and that's where the ultimate responsibility lies.

This brings up a bit of a sidebar. When new technologies are introduced, it can disrupt the political system. The printing press resulted in vast changes to society. The introduction of radio allowed Hitler, Churchill, and Roosevelt to strongly influence their societies in new ways. Television led to McCarthy and the Kennedy-Nixon debates. Talk radio and the conservative movement were long intertwined. Cable news resulted in rage TV. And now the Internet has led to revolutions around the world, and the election of someone who tweets grudges at 3 AM.

Gringo: That otherizing mantra-attacking the person- is an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is not a not valid argument.

That's not quite correct, or at least not clear. That presumes an argument, as opposed to simply ignoring people's concerns, which is closer to the mark. As for ad hominem itself, it is not always a fallacy, such as when discussing qualifications for a particular job.

Gringo: I am reminded of so many Demos saying that Trump was such a ___ [fill in the blank] candidate, in contrast to Romney or McCain or Bush or Reagan, who were good people. Then one looks at what Demos did when those people were campaigning.

Democrats are a large disparate group. You can probably find Democrats who said all sorts of things. The Bush Administration shaded the truth in the run-up to the Iraq War, assuming it would work out in the end. Bush certainly thought he was doing the right thing for his country, even though his judgment was clouded by ideology. He never really got a handle on the situation until he pushed aside some of his advisers. Bush deserved a fair amount of criticism. McCain was a hero, but damaged his reputation by choosing Palin as his V.P. Romney is the neighbor family who show up with a cake when you are having troubles.

BillH: ...she is nearly 2 million ahead in the popular vote.... Totally irrelevant.

It was a parenthetical. In any case, while it's not relevant to who won, it is relevant to the question of whether voters did or did not support Clinton in the election. Most voters did.

BillH: Anyone who understands how and why the U.S. system was crafted knows it's irrelevant.

The Electoral College was the companion compromise to the 3/5 compromise. Direct election would not have been supported by slave-owning states.