|
feingold said he'd never accept a cup of coffee from lobbyists, went to Washington for 20 years then raised a bunch of money for his campaign from them to reclaim his seat #draintheswamp he was literally everything that trump was talking about with Washington "corrupting" you
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
Months of being told to shut up and fall in line for a corrupt blue state conservative may have had some tiny effect on turnout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
on top of that someone voting "gently caress dems" isn't likely to spare downticket dems, no matter who the gently caress they are
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
NecroMonster posted:this wasn't an election about "execution", this was an election about appeals to the disenfranchised and only one candidate really made any (they were all loving bad, but bad is better than none) And Hillary disenfranchised a hell of a lot of people during the primaries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
it was a god damned mess, the results are real loving bad and are going to get worse and we deserve it
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
ok, so feingold had his problems, and i dont claim to know a much about him or wisconsin politics. but he lost the state by a worse margin than hillary. and corruption or not he was still one of the better dem senators. sooo... yeah. thats alarming.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
Personally, I do think sanders would have won the election, but I don't think he would have gotten Wisconsin. The real damage to party reputation was done over a course of 2 years, during which Obama probably won as much off of inertia and Romney being uninspiring as anything else. But Wisconsin is an example of exactly what DNC behavior has hurt the party with midwestern states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:50
|
|
|
NecroMonster posted:you'd have to offer something good enough that it defeats the stigma associated It bugs me that the rut all political movements are stuck in is "collect giant bags of money, spend it on advertising to get elected, THEN do practical stuff". Maybe the giant bags of money could be spent on practical things, concrete and permanent investments in target communities, instead of all on advertising and consultants and polls. Look at this poo poo. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/ Two billion dollars. Just for these two, for this election cycle. How much capital goes into both parties on the big scale? I dunno, I'm some dumbass in hicksville and I'm not anywhere as smart as I like to think I am but it feels like so much effort in politics goes into, y'know, the effort in politics, and nothing concrete is expected until a winner is elected and moves poo poo around in the legislative system years afterward. Maybe take some of all this superpac and private donation money and put it into party owned/operated business in rural areas. Sell bonds to collect more. Clinics maybe. Light manufacturing maybe. Retail, maybe. Fuckin Walmart is a major job provider in a lot of poor areas, Bezos could personally compete against them on a local scale very easily. I dunno, I'm a pretty dumb guy 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
rum sodomy Rainbow Dash posted:I guess I'm thinking of OWS, which more or less petered out, and the general atmosphere today that seems hostile of any kind of protest that isn't astroturfed. Thank you for reminding me of the failure that was OWS. The largest financial disaster in modern history caused by a reckless elite and Clinton-Bush era deregulation was a great opportunity to build a movement dedicated towards addressing economic inequality. It was completely wasted, and I can't think of a single concrete accomplishments that came from the occupations. What laws were passed? Who got primaried? Maybe it contributed to Obama's 2008 landslide victory (didn't help much in 2010). Progressives failed to effectively organize following the 2008 crisis, which doesn't inspire much hope that the rise of Trump will finally spur people to action. My pet theory is that the left still hasn't recovered from the demise of organized labor, and there are no national organizations or movements through which progressives can organize and co-ordinate political action (aside from the Democrat party itself). If the DNC truly has given up maybe the party can be rebuilt with an explicitly progressive focus, I guess we'll see. More likely the existing party leadership will try to find an Obama-clone and hope charisma wins the 2020 election (this actually worked for the Canadian liberals in 2015). edit: Flesh Forge posted:It bugs me that the rut all political movements are stuck in is "collect giant bags of money, spend it on advertising to get elected, THEN do practical stuff". Maybe the giant bags of money could be spent on practical things, concrete and permanent investments in target communities, instead of all on advertising and consultants and polls. Look at this poo poo. Money in US politics is no joke. On top of all the other headwinds facing the Democrat party, Citizens United means essentially infinite money can be dropped in any state or local race. This will make it harder for Democrats to regain control of state legislatures, which is a huge prerequisite to regaining control of the house. I don't think the Democrats have any real response to this except to fight fire with fire. Also political campaign spending in the US is easily an order of magnitude higher on a per capita basis compared to other western countries. It's completely nuts. edit 2: VVVV If nothing else, I hope OWS taught everyone involved how NOT to organize a political movement. Nocturtle has issued a correction as of 10:59 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Thank you for reminding me of the failure that was OWS. The largest financial disaster in modern history caused by a reckless elite and Clinton-Bush era deregulation was a great opportunity to build a movement dedicated towards addressing economic inequality. It was completely wasted, and I can't think of a single concrete accomplishments that came from the occupations. What laws were passed? Who got primaried? Maybe it contributed to Obama's 2008 landslide victory (didn't help much in 2010). OWS was crippled in the crib, because it was organized by anarchists who wanted to experiment with non-hierarchical forms of political organizing and collective action. Of course it failed, but at least it radicalized a ton of people when they saw the cops burn their Peoples' Libraries and mace them out of public.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:So a loving Archdruid ended up being smarter than all the Democrats, Goons and Pundits put together. This is from January 20th: It's a very good piece. Clinton lost the election when she called the wage class 'deplorables.' Right now, people are protesting against the wage class in Oakland, literally threatening to kill them for supporting Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
I don't think the Bernie aspect is about selling socialism to rural red state voters, but rather to enthuse the 2008/12 voters who looked at Clinton and stayed home or jumped ship out of sheer frustration with the party's refusal to acknowledge how lovely things had gotten for them. Clinton vastly underperformed in union households; these are people who are normally sympathetic to the left and its ideas, but since the party has essentially been paying them lip service for decades as they declined and faced new, terrible roadblocks to their very existence (and Obama pushing TPP), they didn't feel like there was much to lose by blowing up the party. Trump getting McCain numbers and Clinton underperforming means that the Dems' problem is not about necessarily converting the inconvertible, they have lost their appeal with the base that gave them power in the first place. We watched Obama continue Bush policies, refuse to prosecute any of the Wall Street offenders while bringing in various anti-regulation bankers as advisors, and a variety of other things that coddled the powerful in the name of preserving the established order. If it wasn't for the goodwill and charisma Obama had as a politician, he'd already be on thin ice himself. Hillary choosing to then sell herself as Obama with even more centrism was the worst possible way to enthuse anyone, especially after 2010.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:Who allowed that to happen? How was every single poll so wrong? They weren't actually all that wrong, they showed the election being a rather tight one, with Hillary being slightly ahead. Well, Hillary did collect more votes, but lost the electoral college because with things that tight anything can happen. The real problem was not the polling but the the DNC chose to look at the Hillary vs Trump polls and thought to themselves "good enough", instead of looking at the Trump vs Sanders polls where Sanders was consistently ahead of Trump by huge margins and was thus the better candidate to run against him. The DNC hated Sanders and chose to gamble with the future of the whole country because their mega-donors didn't want Sanders to make them pay more taxes. Whoops. Mr.48 has issued a correction as of 11:04 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
The point is to sell socialism to people who don't vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:Who honestly thinks lame memes mean anything other than this is the year 2016? I mean 90% of the C-SPAM posts were us posting and laughing at terrible Trump and pepe memes. From a ways back, but Im willing to bet the obsession with 'exposing' the alt-right and its stupid loving memes probably turned off a number of voters on both sides who were too old/cranky to deal with that horseshit from major political parties.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 11:07
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:The DNC hated Sanders and chose to gamble with the future of the whole country because their mega-donors didn't want Sanders to make them pay more taxes. Whoops. Hey, that's super-reductionist! They also wanted to continue getting contracts for privatized public services, unregulated banking and market speculation, and military dollars, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
NecroMonster posted:that druid report article isn't nearly perfect, gives donald a better appraisal than i believe he deserves, and comes off a whole lot more "optimistic" about the future than I would be. I'm very optimistic about our new country, once this blueteamredteam bullshit stops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 11:21
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:I don't think the Bernie aspect is about selling socialism to rural red state voters, but rather to enthuse the 2008/12 voters who looked at Clinton and stayed home or jumped ship out of sheer frustration with the party's refusal to acknowledge how lovely things had gotten for them. Clinton vastly underperformed in union households; these are people who are normally sympathetic to the left and its ideas, but since the party has essentially been paying them lip service for decades as they declined and faced new, terrible roadblocks to their very existence (and Obama pushing TPP), they didn't feel like there was much to lose by blowing up the party. Exactly. As bad as things look for the Democrat's they don't really need to gain new constituencies so much as to motivate existing supporters to actually show up and vote. They should of course try to make inroads into red states to ensure the broadest base of support, but that would not address the core turnout problem seen in this election. Trump isn't uniquely popular and didn't bring in a bunch of new supporters. Trump won because existing Republican voters decided they didn't really mind explicit racism and proceeded to vote Republican the same as always while Democrat turnout dropped ~5-10%. Mr.48 posted:The DNC hated Sanders and chose to gamble with the future of the whole country because their mega-donors didn't want Sanders to make them pay more taxes. Whoops. It's worth remembering that Bloomberg threatened a 3rd party run if Bernie became the nominee (ie essentially threatening to hand the election to the Republicans). There will absolutely be a lot of resistance to progressives taking control of the Democrat party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 11:21
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:Hillary Clinton needed some hypno-therapy from Revolver Ocelot to make her believe that she was, in fact, Bernie Sanders. Two years is a lot in politics. Obama won a landslide in 2008 and had 60 senate seats and both houses of congress, and the Dems got shellacked in 2010.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:OWS was crippled in the crib, because it was organized by anarchists who wanted to experiment with non-hierarchical forms of political organizing and collective action. Of course it failed, but at least it radicalized a ton of people when they saw the cops burn their Peoples' Libraries and mace them out of public. One of the biggest weaknesses of OWS was its general directionlessness. They never had any goals, even touting it as one of the movement's strengths, and were quickly derailed by their hatred of the police and whatever pet issues they brought to the campaign. They didn't get anything accomplished because they were waiting for congress to notice the unrest and fly down like a fairy godmother waving a wand, turning the wicked banks into pumpkins.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 11:47
|
|
|
Here's an outstanding question I have: Why the gently caress did Hillary pick Tim Kaine? Sure, I get that he's a nice guy and all that but he's not super enthusiasm-creating. Why did she not pick Sanders or loving SOMEONE that would have appealed to the Bernie people? Tim Kaine was the most "well, more of me!" choice there possibly could have been. I just do not understand it. Thanks for this thread. It is beyond fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
Pathos posted:Here's an outstanding question I have: If you understand that Hillary basically considered this election a coronation for her, that she had no chance of losing, then you can pretty easily understand all her decisions. She also is predisposed against populism in general personally and is chronically incapable of hiding that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
You will not believe me, but when I saw Kaine for the first time I knew then more certain than the dawn that Kaine wasn't going to be VP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:You will not believe me, but when I saw Kaine for the first time I knew then more certain than the dawn that Kaine wasn't going to be VP. We need a trump CMANO scenario, stat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I hope you and your politically connected insider family get real jobs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:You will not believe me, but when I saw Kaine for the first time I knew then more certain than the dawn that Kaine wasn't going to be VP. your right, i dont believe you
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:It's a small lesson, but next time avoid shining the light on Lena Dunham, Lady Gaga, and their ilk. I doubt you could find two people that better embody the stereotype of a wealthy coastal liberal that doesn't understand or give a poo poo about anyone outside their bubble. Get Willie Nelson on the phone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
Pathos posted:Here's an outstanding question I have: Unlike Trump who is going to basically have Pence be his Cheney, VP picks almost never have any real effect on candidates winning or losing elections. Look at Dan loving Quayle, for example. The base was going to look at the VP pick as cynical, or a way of putting someone in a position that has very little actual influence on policy anyway. Bernie would have had far more effect as a senator during the Clinton admin than he would as VP, same with Warren.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
E: ^^ A VP pick is usually expected to secure the VPs home state as well, but aside from balancing out a photo thats about itPanzeh posted:If you understand that Hillary basically considered this election a coronation for her, that she had no chance of losing, then you can pretty easily understand all her decisions. Hillary thought she was gonna flip Arizona and Georgia. So much so she diverted resources from Florida and Rust Belt states. She thought she was going to run the board on Trump. Also Kaine was chairman of the DNC from 2009 to 2011, a position he probably got by being friendly with Clinton although he was asked by Obama. His role was to be a safe, religious white man with good relations with Republican senators and to deliver Virginia to Hillary (and maybe put more of the South in play - lol blue NC)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:We need a trump CMANO scenario, stat. Every CMANO scenario going forward .... will be a trump scenario.... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
Pathos posted:Here's an outstanding question I have: the logic was that warren or sanders could still contribute their vote to the senate, they were better suited to working in the senate, and vice presidents dont usually do much (unlike our real next president, mike pence!) plus a governor-turned-VP could be used to swing a 50/50 senate. clinton was playing for the long game, for actually getting into office. remember, by all metrics except turnout, clinton was ahead, so the goal was to get as many EVs as possible, get a mandate, pass legislation. it just turned out to be loving worthless when clinton got wiped out in round 1
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:Unlike Trump who is going to basically have Pence be his Cheney, VP picks almost never have any real effect on candidates winning or losing elections. Look at Dan loving Quayle, for example. While this may be true it's not always true (Cheney as you mention) I think it would have shored up her support immeasurably to have him as her VP. Whether or not it was effective in terms of his political power, it would have been incredibly unifying for the Bernie people. I remind absolutely baffled as to why she didn't do this. Why didn't she do something to placate the kids who were shown, on national TV, crying at the primary for Bernie? Why, loving why?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
Pathos posted:While this may be true it's not always true (Cheney as you mention) I think it would have shored up her support immeasurably to have him as her VP. Whether or not it was effective in terms of his political power, it would have been incredibly unifying for the Bernie people. I remind absolutely baffled as to why she didn't do this. Why didn't she do something to placate the kids who were shown, on national TV, crying at the primary for Bernie? because it was her loving turn.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
Jonny 290 posted:because it was her loving turn. This made my blood pressure spike
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
Pathos posted:While this may be true it's not always true (Cheney as you mention) I think it would have shored up her support immeasurably to have him as her VP. Whether or not it was effective in terms of his political power, it would have been incredibly unifying for the Bernie people. I remind absolutely baffled as to why she didn't do this. Why didn't she do something to placate the kids who were shown, on national TV, crying at the primary for Bernie? Because the polling at the time showed it was unnecessary and in fact stupid to turn a senator (ie one of the most powerful positions in Washington) into a Vice President (ie one of the least powerful positions). It was the correct decision, especially as Bernie was out there anyway campaigning for Clinton. Any additional "unifying" by making him the VP pick would have been marginal. A lot that went wrong in this election can be blamed on terrible polls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
Jonny 290 posted:because it was her loving turn. I heard unironic statements to the effect of "it's her turn" at the caucuses, mostly from old women who wanted to see a female President in their lifetimes and were willing to ignore everything about her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Because the polling at the time showed it was unnecessary and in fact stupid to turn a senator (ie one of the most powerful positions in Washington) into a Vice President (ie one of the least powerful positions). It was the correct decision, especially as Bernie was out there anyway campaigning for Clinton. Any additional "unifying" by making him the VP pick would have been marginal. this holy poo poo, this was the right decision clinton made all the right tactical moves, but totally hosed up the strategy
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
Jonny 290 posted:because it was her loving turn. This pretty much explains her decision making.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:this Isnt that pretty much the story of 2008 too?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
dunno, obama was pretty consistently ahead, and palin turned out to be a strategic mistake from pretty early on
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:44
|
|