|
Badger of Basra posted:Do you really think this is why Democrats don't turn out in the midterms? He's completely and utterly wrong because while nobody called him out, everybody has made it very clear that Democrats are experts at destroying the morale of their own base, while Republicans mostly get what they want until they don't and that's why the country's political apathy seems strongest among people whom should be the base of Anti-GOP voting every election, but they stay home allowing guys like him to pretend everybody who stays home has a Che poster in their room.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:There was a thing on NPR excerpting Obama's Northwestern speech this morning, and the thing that stuck out to me is that by the standards of the Very Serious People who are of course Neutral Centrist Moderates rather that ideologues pushing their own set of ideas Obama has done fairly well. Stocks are up, deficit is shrinking, health care costs are slowing, unemployment is down, new trade agreements are coming along, high end goods costs are dropping bringing the average market basket prices down, and he's bombing the Middle East. The interesting thing is that the recovery is pretty okay in blue states and basically not there in red states. Especially the ones that the Republicans have done their magic in - see Kansas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
As this thread has shown, there is no way in reality that democrats could do anything but disappoint their own base.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Also Nate Silver needs to go back to sports or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
anonumos posted:My wife is Colombian/Cuban and she has told me, Yes. Her generation of Latin Americans are swinging for the Democratic Party these days, largely because of Republican poo poo-posting on immigrants and minorities. She said even older immigrants are losing their thirst for social conservatism in favor of "Can we please just live our lives like any other American even though we aren't as white as a picket fence?" A lot of this was going to happen just because of the younger generation of voters, their behavior and voting patterns will more closely resemble "young voter" than the older voters in the ethnic group they are from. Cuban and, say, Vietnamese immigrants represent a bit of a special case because a lot of the immigrants from the 60s and 70s were specifically against the Communist revolutions there and fled those, so their main and often only issue was virulent antiCommunism and the GOP had the antiCommunist name brand despite JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The younger generation from those groups don't see being against Castro or Ho Chi Minh as their beef and will more closely resemble their cohort of young voters, or young Latino and Asian voters. So a great deal of this was inevitable just from the passage of time, but the degree to which it has happened can, I think, largely be ascribed to the open courting of racists of the GOP in the last few decades, and the racist tone of the messaging.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Do you really think this is why Democrats don't turn out in the midterms? Yes
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:As this thread has shown, there is no way in reality that democrats could do anything but disappoint their own base. Except there are several Democrats that people in thread support and think have done well? There's obviously plenty of ways in reality for Democrats to do things other than disappoint their own base. There are several (individual) Democrats that actually have really good support among their base! It's just that a great many Democrats seem to have no interest in doing those things, and there are oh so many ways for politicians to disappoint in reality. The party itself does seem to be really bad at pushing things, taking risks, or even looking like they care whether or not they win (depending on where they are). GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
You know you can poo poo on political apathy all you want but blaming leftists for the DNC being a bunch of incompetent idiots isn't actually addressing the party's problems nor is it going to get your poorly run party out of its electoral rut.
Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Seriously the attitude that leftists won't vote for Democrats unless they are the next coming of Lenin is idiotic when the party generally either ignores issues until their hands are forced or shifts farther to the right. When some guy comes out endorsing universal health care, re-enacting new financial regulations, or stronger civil rights laws to protect minorities and the liberals all stay home since the banks weren't nationalized then maybe it will be a point. Simply saying the boat could be sinking faster isn't going to motivate people regardless of the truth that we'd be worse under the other guys. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Anybody aware of how effective Act Blue has been on races?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:The interesting thing is that the recovery is pretty okay in blue states and basically not there in red states. Especially the ones that the Republicans have done their magic in - see Kansas. Even there for most people wages are down and prices are up. There are more jobs, but wages are still low with little to no bargaining power to ask for a raise. Sure CPI may look great, but differentiate that by product category and you start to see where the bite is and why most people are seeing a greater impact than the metric would indicate. Those states are doing better than the GOP states, but, again, "it could be worse" is not a winning political message. Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
What exactly should the DNC be doing that they aren't that would just magically fix everything?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Radish posted:Seriously the attitude that leftists won't vote for Democrats unless they are the next coming of Lenin is idiotic when the party generally either ignores issues until their hands are forced or shifts farther to the right. When some guy comes out endorsing universal health care, re-enacting new financial regulations, or stronger civil rights laws to protect minorities and the liberals all stay home since the banks weren't nationalized then maybe it will be a point. The desire of the Democrat on the ground is simple - they want politicians who at least say they're going to try and make things better. But the Democratic part as a whole, much like the people in this thread supporting their bullshit, seem to be unwilling to go beyond "Well, we'll make things worse, but we'll do it slower than the other guy." It's like, come on, you've at least got to pretend to care you fucks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What exactly should the DNC be doing that they aren't that would just magically fix everything? Bring back Howard Dean, but that ships probably sailed a loooong time ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
^^lol whatup dean buddyTrabisnikof posted:What exactly should the DNC be doing that they aren't that would just magically fix everything? More of whatever Dean did. The party's been sucking hard outside of presidential campaigns since he was fired.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:"it could be worse" is not a winning political message. What I would like to explain to the Democratic party leadership along with the vast majority of the time you should be voting for something not against something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:^^lol whatup dean buddy What exactly was Dean doing that the DNC stopped doing? SirKibbles posted:What I would like to explain to the Democratic party leadership along with the vast majority of the time you should be voting for something not against something. That's a good idea, what policy proposals should the Democratic party stand unified behind?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What exactly was Dean doing that the DNC stopped doing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean#50-state_strategy
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What exactly was Dean doing that the DNC stopped doing? Plyaing the 50 state game and really forcing the GOP to defend themselves everywhere. I'm not a great fan of Dean as a candidate, but he did run the party pretty well from a strategy perspective.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Plyaing the 50 state game and really forcing the GOP to defend themselves everywhere. I'm not a great fan of Dean as a candidate, but he did run the party pretty well from a strategy perspective. So you're prefer the DNC massively reduce spending on the tighter races that might define the senate so that Democrats in Texas can loose by a little less? Really, this is it? This is the big complaint about the Democrats turning off their base?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Given the house and senate outcomes in 2006 and 2008 I'd have to say yeah. e: you jerk you edited in the second line 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Given the house and senate outcomes in 2006 and 2008 I'd have to say yeah. I just don't get how throwing more money away in Texas in 2010 & 2012 would really have made anyone happy. Edit: I have a bad ninja-edit habit. I just think a lot of people are confused by the fact that the Ds and Rs aren't mirrored parties on the opposite side of the spectrum. The R base is unified in a way the Ds never can be because of the nature of a liberal party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Really, this is it? This is the big complaint about the Democrats turning off their base? The turning off of the base and the mismanagement of the DNC are two different things although the later can influence the former.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So you're prefer the DNC massively reduce spending on the tighter races that might define the senate so that Democrats in Texas can loose by a little less? Strategy-wise, that's the difference. Policy-wise, the Rockefeller Repubs running the Democratic party currently do nothing to bring anyone left of center to the polls. But there's a lots of fear that the party would be throwing away poor rural whites, so nobody there is willing to do anything that might be considered a brave step forward. You can see this difference between the parties, with the GOP willing to push the envelope consistently, while the Democrats start handwringing the second someone start talking about social democracy for anyone failing the paper bag test.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Strategy-wise, that's the difference. Policy-wise, the Rockefeller Repubs running the Democratic party currently do nothing to bring anyone left of center to the polls. But there's a lots of fear that the party would be throwing away poor rural whites, so nobody there is willing to do anything that might be considered a brave step forward. You can see this difference between the parties, with the GOP willing to push the envelope consistently, while the Democrats start handwringing the second someone start talking about social democracy for anyone failing the paper bag test. But what specifically do you think Democrats should be pushing this election that would result in better electoral outcomes rather than worse?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What exactly was Dean doing that the DNC stopped doing? Going WOO!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But what specifically do you think Democrats should be pushing this election that would result in better electoral outcomes rather than worse? Campaign strategy or policy wise?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:21
|
|
SAVE_US.CHR
|
Trabisnikof posted:But what specifically do you think Democrats should be pushing this election that would result in better electoral outcomes rather than worse? Honestly? Real civil rights stuff, minimum wage increases, and corprate law reform. All of these things are actively again the status quo, so you won't see any of them attempted. Ina lot of ways, the Democrats are much more stats quo than actively liberal. The GOP is one the one who wants to change things, they ust are spoilsports who want to destroy the country before people unlike them get a serious amount of power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
That's slick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But what specifically do you think Democrats should be pushing this election that would result in better electoral outcomes rather than worse? You're asking the wrong question. A better one would be "what should the Democrats do to keep their voter base from being suppressed into nothing?" Or better yet, how about you make an argument instead of telling others to put forward stuff for you to shoot down?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:You're asking the wrong question. A better one would be "what should the Democrats do to keep their voter base from being suppressed into nothing?" Or better yet, how about you make an argument instead of telling others to put forward stuff for you to shoot down? To be fair to the Democrats in that regard the GOP has the ace in the hole when they can just get bullshit lawsuits up to the SCOTUS where they will just make up a reason that only landed gentry were intended by the founders to vote and anything against that is unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:You're asking the wrong question. A better one would be "what should the Democrats do to keep their voter base from being suppressed into nothing?" Or better yet, how about you make an argument instead of telling others to put forward stuff for you to shoot down? I've made the argument that there is nothing the democrats could do that would please the faction that is saying "the DNC isn't doing enough" without causing a worse electoral result. This is because of the nature of a liberal party and the vast and conflicting concepts of what "progress" is to the different factions of the party. What should the Democrats do to keep their voter base from being suppressed into nothing? rkajdi posted:Honestly? Real civil rights stuff, minimum wage increases, and corprate law reform. All of these things are actively again the status quo, so you won't see any of them attempted. Ina lot of ways, the Democrats are much more stats quo than actively liberal. The GOP is one the one who wants to change things, they ust are spoilsports who want to destroy the country before people unlike them get a serious amount of power. You realize that the second two ideas would force the Ds into an even worse position in any swing states because of the overwhelming corporate dollars that would cause to be leveraged against them, right? Which civil rights stuff? Expanding the VRA? The Republicans also agree we should do that (but won't let it happen) so it won't exactly make a good campaign issue. Reducing sentencing? Also some Republicans favor this, but if you think Ds don't lose to "soft on crime" you don't know how Giuliani got elected. Voter suppression? The Ds are already against this, but this is a state level issue. If you consider yourself very liberal or progressive guess what? The DNC will be more moderate than you, welcome to how a majority party works.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Honestly? Real civil rights stuff, minimum wage increases, and corprate law reform. All of these things are actively again the status quo, so you won't see any of them attempted. Ina lot of ways, the Democrats are much more stats quo than actively liberal. The GOP is one the one who wants to change things, they ust are spoilsports who want to destroy the country before people unlike them get a serious amount of power. They just brought bills doing two of those three things to the floor and voted on them in the last 2 months.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Well color me surprised, because all I've been hearing or getting emails about from them is "the Republicans continue to do horrible things" and "please god dear pretty please give us money look we even put in some of those rock band things all the hip young kids are interested in" and "everything is horrible so you should vote for us" without any of their own actual policies being discussed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I've made the argument that there is nothing the democrats could do that would please the faction that is saying "the DNC isn't doing enough" without causing a worse electoral result. This is because of the nature of a liberal party and the vast and conflicting concepts of what "progress" is to the different factions of the party. I'm not really weighing in on any of this but I just wanted to point out that Giuliani was elected 17 years ago. It is probably time to put that desiccated skull to rest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Re-adopting the "50 state strategy" (which, by the way, is still the official policy of the DNC) is not going to magically recreate the conditions that led to the 2006 Democratic wave election in which this guy played a rather large role.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
 Assuming that 26.4% applies equally to both parties, that's a whole lot of votes that dems are ignoring by not running candidates with policies and ideas they like and I really doubt its the milquetoast wing of the party that's been dissatisfied with their candidates.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
^ Your pointing to a year under Dean so it kinda proves my point. Just because 26% didn't feel enthusiastic about a candidate doesn't meant there's anything the Ds could do about that. My point is there is no 1 magic issue that would engage those voters, instead its a hundred contradictory issues. Berke Negri posted:I'm not really weighing in on any of this but I just wanted to point out that Giuliani was elected 17 years ago. It is probably time to put that desiccated skull to rest. I think the fact that he won based on race baiting in NYC in 1997 is important, especially since he's a hero to a lot of Republicans still.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
But don't you see? If they make too much noise about social issues then all the fair weather Democrats will get scared away by the support those What I'm saying is gently caress Blue Dogs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:51
|
|