|
Zwabu posted: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. JFK isn't a despite, he's a "because of" when it comes to the older Cuban exile community and the Democratic Party. You say Cuban Missile Crisis, they say Bay of Pigs.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
An Angry Bug posted: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 I'm confused. Should Ds be trying to win in Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, etc (50 state strategy) or should we be getting rid of those candidates because they're not exciting/liberal enough (gently caress blue dogs)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They just brought bills doing two of those three things to the floor and voted on them in the last 2 months. I haven't seen poo poo on them running on any of this. But I'm in a non-competitve district in a blue state, so maybe I'm not seeing the good ads or anything of the like. I could be a bit disheartened, but it's hard not to in a decent blue state that can't even keep a white nationalist off the major party's general election ballot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
They should actively and loudly be decent human beings. And they should actually work to challenge the status quo. But that's not going to happen, because they're corrupt neo-liberals and would rather drift rightward a few paces behind the Republicans since people like you will defend them to their dying breath rather than risk temporary harm while working to make an actually progressive party. In any remotely sane country the Democrats would be the right-wing party. They're in favor of the status quo, they constantly kiss corporate rear end, they avoid standing up for the underprivileged if it risks losing support of the powerful, and they support genocidal lunatics abroad. But this is America, and since the Republican party exists I guess us leftists should just be grateful for whatever scraps the Democrats bother to give us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:They should actively and loudly be decent human beings. And they should actually work to challenge the status quo. Lol, I'm sorry you're so discouraged that you believe they don't already do those things. Once again, you shouldn't be surprised that a majority party has moderate and conservative elements to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:A good metric of 'hosed' is asking whether or not someone's one bad break from ruin. It has always been that way, however. At least some people have health care now, even if they can't afford to use it. Progress.  Trabisnikof posted:As this thread has shown, there is no way in reality that democrats could do anything but disappoint their own base. Bernie Sanders said today that he might run. But, he isn't a Democrat. Pohl fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:They should actively and loudly be decent human beings. And they should actually work to challenge the status quo. But that's not going to happen, because they're corrupt neo-liberals and would rather drift rightward a few paces behind the Republicans since people like you will defend them to their dying breath rather than risk temporary harm while working to make an actually progressive party. In any remotely sane country the Democrats would be the right-wing party. They're in favor of the status quo, they constantly kiss corporate rear end, they avoid standing up for the underprivileged if it risks losing support of the powerful, and they support genocidal lunatics abroad. But this is America, and since the Republican party exists I guess us leftists should just be grateful for whatever scraps the Democrats bother to give us. Henry Rollins / Bernie Sanders 2016 Punks not Wonks
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
If it weren't for all the minorities and disadvantaged groups that the Republicans would harm, I'd say gently caress it and let them win. The people who vote for them would deserve every last ounce of misery it'd cause.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They just brought bills doing two of those three things to the floor and voted on them in the last 2 months. We're not arguing about stuff they actually do once elected, we're arguing about the fact that the DNC isn't pushing jack poo poo. Also, the fact that you're arguing that they shouldn't waste money in Texas when they would have a real chance to make significant political gains there both this election and the next one if their organizational capabilities in the state weren't a loving joke is just a great example of everything that's wrong with the party. The point of the 50 state plan was because it's important to have that groundwork in place. You don't win elections be ceding victory to the other side decades in advance, especially when the other side will work constantly and tirelessly to take the states you think are safely yours. Trabisnikof posted:But what specifically do you think Democrats should be pushing this election that would result in better electoral outcomes rather than worse? I think they'd have a lot of success pushing marijuana and minimum wage, at least openly supporting it in states where it seems to be happening anyway. I've honestly seen more support for legalizing marijuana among Republicans than I have democrats at this point. Pushing on what started this conversation, the whole ACA thing, trumpeting their successes at the things they have accomplished (like the two bills brought to the floor, to indicate they are trying at least to make things better) would be great. But ultimately, I don't give a gently caress! Something! Anything! Ask me what the Republican Party stands for, what they want, what they're pushing, and I can give you a great long list. Do the same for the Democrats, and I have no loving clue, despite having every intent to vote Democrat. Even the things they are actively doing the party seems terrified to actually embrace because they might turn off some swing voters. But as long as they are terrified of having a policy, they're not going to be able to do anything to control the conversation or the message, and they're not going to inspire many people to support them. So I'd really like to start seeing them push anything, really honestly anything, that the Democratic party itself is actually supportive of. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz isn't terribly charismatic either. The media has done a fantastic hatchet-job playing up just how shrill she can get and putting her in the most negative light possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm confused. Should Ds be trying to win in Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, etc (50 state strategy) or should we be getting rid of those candidates because they're not exciting/liberal enough (gently caress blue dogs)? Truthfully, gently caress blue dogs. I'd rather have a combative congress than have to deal with the loving blue dogs again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Truthfully, gently caress blue dogs. I'd rather have a combative congress than have to deal with the loving blue dogs again. Well I wouldn't worry then, since they're more or less extinct these days. Most lost their seats to tea baggers in 2010.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:^ Not only is there no '1 magic issue', we've got the math down well enough with all the metadata and raw data about you we buy that we can figure out what your most likely issues are and target you as an individual with them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Truthfully, gently caress blue dogs. I'd rather have a combative congress than have to deal with the loving blue dogs again. Me too, gently caress them I hope they fade away and never come back. Blue dogs make it easy to build a narrative when they vote along with Republicans and then when those policies gently caress us over you can say that the Democratic majority was the problem like the Reagan congress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:^ Or it shows that at the peak of Dean's campaign strategy there was still a decent amount of votes to still be wrung out that could have given dems an even bigger victory then and allowed them to hold onto the majority for longer than the two working weeks they did. quote:Just because 26% didn't feel enthusiastic about a candidate doesn't meant there's anything the Ds could do about that. Except for nominating a good candidate. Granted that chart is for 2008 where the presidential election skews things but how is nominating candidates people are more enthusiastic for in lower races not something they could do. quote:My point is there is no 1 magic issue that would engage those voters, instead its a hundred contradictory issues. Well the DNC thinks that one magic issue is "at least we're not republicans" and it doesn't seem to be engaging those voters very well. Trabisnikof posted:Once again, you shouldn't be surprised that a majority party has moderate and conservative elements to it. No but hacking away at the remaining third isn't the way to maintain party unity or morale.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:
Don't forget "it's all the leftists' fault" when they lose regardless of if Joe McModerate decided to either stay home or vote for the Republicans despite sliding rightward. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
To be fair that's not something I've heard outside this forum so I personally wouldn't ascribe that particular thought process to the DNC but it plays into the not having a policy thing glyph mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Or it shows that at the peak of Dean's campaign strategy there was still a decent amount of votes to still be wrung out that could have given dems an even bigger victory then and allowed them to hold onto the majority for longer than the two working weeks they did. No such thing as a free lunch. If your candidate appeals to some slice of that 26% (and let's be clear - a good portion of that is likely to have been "ain't conservative enough for me" people who are never going to vote D) what does that cost you from your existing voters? There's no magic candidate that buys you a chunk of that 26% without costing you elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Henry Rollins / Bernie Sanders 2016 Unironically this. At least this way if anyone yells out "you lie" at the state of the union Rollins can break into
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
So by that argument both parties should sit in the middle all the time in order to rack up the most votes and yet we see better results for the GOP when they don't do that and declining returns for the Democrats when they do. The name of the game is GOTV and having "we're not republicans" as your raison d'être doesn't get the voters fired up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:
This whole argument about the 22 percent that don't vote is kind of missing the point when you look at the 55% that didn't vote because they were sick,or were too busy too,or didn't know about the election,or had an inconvenient polling place or registration problems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
And how are you going to address those problems (well except for the illness one) in your favor without winning over the people that wanted to vote but had no strong reason to do so first. Dems, rightly so, want to make voting easier and have to be in political control to do so. The GOP gets their voters fired up, wins and then puts in voter ID laws to tilt voting in their favor. E: oh and unrelated but as a public service announcement to any California goons that may not be registered to vote. You can do so on the secretary of state's website here and we have awesome an awesome absentee ballot setup. http://registertovote.ca.gov Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I just don't get how throwing more money away in Texas in 2010 & 2012 would really have made anyone happy. If Texas turns blue that's going to be a huge political game changer, especially if the state government is blue (meaning possible state laws that could help stop Texas from loving up schools nationally). Democrats should be spending millions to do massive GOTV activities including straight up having people who do nothing but drive voters to/from the polls, among other things. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They just brought bills doing two of those three things to the floor and voted on them in the last 2 months. Now they need to actually start messaging this, as well as why they don't pass (the GOP blocking it) if it failed, and actually go on the offensive. Democrats are the most  bunch of fucks when it comes to change because they don't actually want to change much.Keep in mind this is the same party who pretty much sat there and took it like a bitch when Roberts and co blatantly gutted part of the CRA on pure political grounds after it had just been extensively reviewed and unanimously renewed only a few years ago. The argument was extreme bullshit and Obama should've forced a showdown with the SC and address that the SC pretty much does whatever it wants without repercussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:And how are you going to address those problems (well except for the illness one) in your favor without winning over the people that wanted to vote but had no strong reason to do so first. Dems, rightly so, want to make voting easier and have to be in political control to do so. The GOP gets their voters fired up, wins and then puts in voter ID laws to tilt voting in their favor. Look I'm not a Democrat but even I can admit they have more than enough people already who want to help but aren't using them even with their current policies. The issue isn't the lack of manpower it's organization and messaging. I've said it in the Texas thread but the Democrats really need to look at who/how they're raising to future leadership. Pick people who hasn't gone to an Ivy league school or is a lawyer that shits mandatory for the Presidency but not anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Except for nominating a good candidate. Granted that chart is for 2008 where the presidential election skews things but how is nominating candidates people are more enthusiastic for in lower races not something they could do. This is the problem in Indiana-8. The incumbent Republican is basically a Tea Partier, and the Dem challenger thinks that the single biggest problem in our country is abortion, and wants to outlaw it nationally. How could I possibly, in good conscience, vote for this guy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Member of the Colorado Board of Education has a Smart Take on the new AP US History exam standards.quote:As an example, I note our slavery history. Yes, we practiced slavery. But we also ended it voluntarily, at great sacrifice, while the practice continues in many countries still today! Shouldn't our students be provided that viewpoint? This is part of the argument that America is exceptional. Does our APUSH Framework support or denigrate that position? Who will teach our children of America's great voluntary emancipation? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Member of the Colorado Board of Education has a Smart Take on the new AP US History exam standards. Voluntarily ending something: having Sherman kick your rear end across the South until you submit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Member of the Colorado Board of Education has a Smart Take on the new AP US History exam standards. I hate these people. I'm kind of at a loss for words to describe how loving much I hate these people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If Texas turns blue that's going to be a huge political game changer, especially if the state government is blue (meaning possible state laws that could help stop Texas from loving up schools nationally). Texas going purple will be driven by demographics not GOTV spends. Plus, before Ds can win a single state-wide in Texas they need: SirKibbles posted:Look I'm not a Democrat but even I can admit they have more than enough people already who want to help but aren't using them even with their current policies. The issue isn't the lack of manpower it's organization and messaging. I've said it in the Texas thread but the Democrats really need to look at who/how they're raising to future leadership. Pick people who hasn't gone to an Ivy league school or is a lawyer that shits mandatory for the Presidency but not anywhere else. Evil Fluffy posted:Democrats are the most You feel this way because they do actually care about change, but only their individual kind of change. Most democratic politicians have areas of reform they care about deeply. They are not passionate about all reforms equally, which is the problem of a majority party that is progressive. But when someone in the left-wing of the party looks at the moderate candidates that win elections, they see someone who "supports the status quo 80% of the time" because they're a passionate education/justice/environmental candidate. Or alternatively, they make massive reforms but the left-wing denies it because it was a compromise (e.g. Obamacare). Evil Fluffy posted:Keep in mind this is the same party who pretty much sat there and took it like a bitch when Roberts and co blatantly gutted part of the CRA on pure political grounds after it had just been extensively reviewed and unanimously renewed only a few years ago. The argument was extreme bullshit and Obama should've forced a showdown with the SC and address that the SC pretty much does whatever it wants without repercussion. This is exactly the misconception I am talking about. The democratic party has done everything possible to counter-act the gutting of the CRA. The Roberts court forced harmed parties to sue instead of giving a pre-approval mechanism. So you know what the Democratic party did? They sued state after state when they implemented these insane rules. What "showdown with the SC" do you think Obama could have done?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:So by that argument both parties should sit in the middle all the time in order to rack up the most votes and yet we see better results for the GOP when they don't do that and declining returns for the Democrats when they do. That's pretty much what they do, though - both parties triangulate towards the center of the electorate from the center of the party when trying to win general elections. When they don't (e.g., Tea Party nominees for Senate races in 2012), they get punished. There are some limits to the "sit in the center" theory because the other party is also triangulating to the center meaning that you can only gain so much by moving in that direction compared to potential losses, but the basic triangulation issue isn't a surprising result, it's Black's median voter theorem from the 50s in action. You can't GOTV for someone who doesn't want to vote for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Texas going purple will be driven by demographics not GOTV spends. Plus, before Ds can win a single state-wide in Texas they need: There are tons of Hispanics here who can vote now and aren't. They need GOTV spending.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:There are tons of Hispanics here who can vote now and aren't. They need GOTV spending. And throwing money at the problem has been proven not to work. Ask OFA about 2012. Its almost as if there is an institution in Texas designed to disable progress. Lets call it the Texans Disabling Progress or the TDP for short. Seriously, its like California. Until the minority party stops being a loser's club they will not win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And throwing money at the problem has been proven not to work. Ask OFA about 2012. What do you propose TDP do to get Hispanics to turn out?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:There are tons of Hispanics here who can vote now and aren't. They need GOTV spending. Yep, Hispanics now are about 7-8% of the voting population and are about 17% of the general population. Even with non-citizens or non-eligible people removed there's significantly more people that can show up that aren't. In Texas it's worse - about 26% of the state are "voting eligible Hispanics" but only 20% of voters in the 2008 election (there's no data for the 2012 election sadly), and something like only 38% of eligible Hispanics came out to vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:What do you propose TDP do to get Hispanics to turn out? Start by being an effective party? Represent Hispanics? Mend the fence between the pro-life and pro-choice wings? Even with the most optimistic estimates Texas would need to have the best GOTV program ever seen, run candidates that don't lose whites or men by more than they do now, and run in a presidential election year to have a chance. Edit: Actually, I take it back the thing the TDP needs to do is exist on the local level. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Edit: Actually, I take it back the thing the TDP needs to do is exist on the local level. "Running Hispanic candidates for statewide positions" might also help too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Unironically this. They'll just tell us things we already know, so we can say we really identify with them, so much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:"Running Hispanic candidates for statewide positions" might also help too. The good old dream team. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Hahah, I was going to mention Phony Sanchez.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Texas going purple will be driven by demographics not GOTV spends. Ah yes the favorite plan of democrats: Do nothing and wait for time to grant us success instead of working for it!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:57
|
|