|
punk rebel ecks posted:If they are going to keep doing the same bullshit election strategies that lose, which are constantly criticized, then they deserve the vitriol. Well I think now is a perfectly unique time to productively use that vitriol to reform the party so this bullshit doesn't happen again.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
Grognan posted:Sorry, that's racism. It 100% is when you're telling minority groups to wait their turn while we work on problems for white people for another 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Doredrin posted:I think it is funny that the last time the Republicans had the senate, house, and White House was in 1928 given what happened in 1929. Didn't they hold all three in 2004?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Didn't they hold all three in 2004? Yeah I misread that headline, it is the 2nd time since 1928. Which is also funny given what happened in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Doredrin posted:I think it is funny that the last time the Republicans had the senate, house, and White House was in 1928 given what happened in 1929. The Republicans were the party of the north back then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Fraction Jackson posted:I think that factors in a lot to not just this campaign and why Clinton lost, but the issue with the Democratic party in general. Set aside the third way stuff and the clash between identity politics and reactionary racism/sexism/etc: the biggest problem with the party as a party, top-to-bottom, is that there seems to be very little sense that previous victories can be taken away and that history is not a straight line. There is very little sense that the party has to keep fighting, constantly, not just to move things forward but to preserve what has been won in the past. Laws are taken for granted, states and voting blocs are be taken for granted. And after eight years of the GOP working itself into a frenzy, the Democratic Party assumed that voters would see the GOP as crazy and reject it, without offering any new reasons why they should do so I believe you were warned about precisely this kind of thinking from the camp of Marxsplainers and Berniebros who were ironically even more demonized this year by the """""""left""""""" than I've personally ever seen. Progressives referring to themselves as being on "the right side of history" was particularly adorable given that none of them are actually old enough to have experienced anything that resembles history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Harrow posted:https://twitter.com/LPDonovan/status/796808623146016768
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Sorry, that's racism. not if you package them ~together~ hey working class white guy, vote for us and we'll work hard to provide you with economic security. also we're gonna help minorities. instead this election was literally "gently caress your economic plight you racist, misogynistic, bigot, we're gonna focus on minorities. and if you don't like it gently caress you, your community, your family, and your heritage, devil" spoiler: it didn't work out well chumbler posted:As a white man, yeah pretty much. I'm exaggerating a bit, but it has become apparent from this election that whitey is going to be the reason the democratic party is dead. After these results no marginalized group has any real reason to trust a white professed democrat because they couldn't be bothered to vote against a social backslide. Were there non white democrats who stayed home? Sure. But they sure as hell weren't all 6 million who stayed home. Similarly women don't have a lot of reason to trust proclaimed democratic men. stop this. the reason the democratic party is "dead" is because the democratic party hosed up. they actively spurned segments of their electorate (just as you are now) and those people didn't show up to vote for them. its no surprise. the democratic party hosed up by not including serious economic reform as a major part of their platform. we can have pluralism AND economic populism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
chumbler posted:This is a massive trust problem among the voters that probably can't be fixed. Fortunately we won't have to suffer long before the republicans run the country into the ground. They sure as poo poo better, because moral regressivism was apparently waiting for a candidate to give it a voice, justify its existence, and tell it that yes, its opinions matter and should be validated to the point where they are elevated to the Presidency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:If they are going to keep doing the same bullshit election strategies that lose, which are constantly criticized, then they deserve the vitriol. I agree, but by the same token, we can't adopt a different strategy that's equally doomed to fail. The notion that the Dems need to abandon social justice politics, as multiple people in this thread (not disjoe, I just am using his wording) have advocated, in favor of focusing exclusively on economic populism, is a losing one. The Dems were right to focus on the social justice part of the equation this year; they just should have put an equal amount of time and effort into the economic justice end of things as well. The next Democratic nominee needs to balance BOTH objectives, not just sacrifice one in favor of the other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Doredrin posted:Yeah I misread that headline, it is the 2nd time since 1928. Which is also funny given what happened in 2008. well to be fair, the Dems won huge in 2006 and took back a lot of the legislature. things were looking like they would radically change before 07-08, but that's heading into conspiracy territory *wink wink*
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
PKJC posted:It 100% is when you're telling minority groups to wait their turn while we work on problems for white people for another 4 years. ACTUALLY it might just be that bourgeois turncoats and power brokers who righteously assert a shared identity between themselves and what is presumed to be a faceless monolithic bloc of voters like "the black community", and by the way who do so citing twenty year old academic jargon produced by a class of people who have nothing except their skin color to connect to them to such politics as those racialized as being "black issues", are a bunch of loving parasites who think economic equality and opportunity is "just some poo poo white racists want".
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
PKJC posted:It 100% is when you're telling minority groups to wait their turn while we work on problems for white people for another 4 years. Except it goes to everyone instead of just one group rear end in a top hat. Those are your loving words, not mine. Your goddamn masters will never help either of us in either capacity because they are neoliberal hacks that figured out the magic words that they can tar any economic populism with. By all means, double down on corporatism, those trans flags out in front of goldman sachs are totally signs of progress when people starve and give up on having kids regardless of whatever identity is in vogue that cycle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Except it goes to everyone instead of just one group rear end in a top hat. Those are your loving words, not mine. Your goddamn masters will never help either of us in either capacity because they are neoliberal hacks that figured out the magic words that they can tar any economic populism with. Best post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Except it goes to everyone instead of just one group rear end in a top hat. Those are your loving words, not mine. Your goddamn masters will never help either of us in either capacity because they are neoliberal hacks that figured out the magic words that they can tar any economic populism with. spotlessd posted:ACTUALLY it might just be that bourgeois turncoats and power brokers who righteously assert a shared identity between themselves and what is presumed to be a faceless monolithic bloc of voters like "the black community", and by the way who do so citing twenty year old academic jargon produced by a class of people who have nothing except their skin color to connect to them to such politics as those racialized as being "black issues", are a bunch of loving parasites who think economic equality and opportunity is "just some poo poo white racists want". Wow, sounds like you guys really have a handle on the unique challenges that black people in America face. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
... so my mother just called to let me know that Trump is looking to hire people for the west wing and is specifically looking for people with no experience in DC, going "well it's a job I think you should apply, it's good to be around people that don't think the same thoughts you do right?". "I find this man and the things he is channeling to be abhorrent." "GO WORK FOR HIM!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I agree, but by the same token, we can't adopt a different strategy that's equally doomed to fail. The notion that the Dems need to abandon social justice politics, as multiple people in this thread (not disjoe, I just am using his wording) have advocated, in favor of focusing exclusively on economic populism, is a losing one. The Dems were right to focus on the social justice part of the equation this year; they just should have put an equal amount of time and effort into the economic justice end of things as well. The next Democratic nominee needs to balance BOTH objectives, not just sacrifice one in favor of the other. The problem is that white males (hello) are being blamed for Trump en masse already, even if they voted for Hillary (which I did). The process of alienating us from the Democratic party has already begun, while Trump is reminding us of a time when all the power in this country was in our grasp. Not 24 hours after the election, the Democratic party started a PR problem that is going to haunt them in 2020 regardless of how badly Trump and the Republicans gently caress up the country. All the people that I worked hard to defend and support are villifying me while Trump is appealing not just to the Republican base, but to the base instincts of white men everywhere. And I'm a loving HRC true believer. I wouldn't turn on the party, now or ever, but even I can feel the pull from one direction and the push from the other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:ACTUALLY it might just be that bourgeois turncoats and power brokers who righteously assert a shared identity between themselves and what is presumed to be a faceless monolithic bloc of voters like "the black community", and by the way who do so citing twenty year old academic jargon produced by a class of people who have nothing except their skin color to connect to them to such politics as those racialized as being "black issues", are a bunch of loving parasites who think economic equality and opportunity is "just some poo poo white racists want". This is a pretty hosed up thing to say
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I agree, but by the same token, we can't adopt a different strategy that's equally doomed to fail. The notion that the Dems need to abandon social justice politics, as multiple people in this thread (not disjoe, I just am using his wording) have advocated, in favor of focusing exclusively on economic populism, is a losing one. The Dems were right to focus on the social justice part of the equation this year; they just should have put an equal amount of time and effort into the economic justice end of things as well. The next Democratic nominee needs to balance BOTH objectives, not just sacrifice one in favor of the other. Yeah at the end of the day this party is a big tent and we should identify that some problems are shared across all people and other problems are unique to minorities. We can work on both.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Tobbs Gnawed posted:The problem is that white males (hello) are being blamed for Trump en masse already, even if they voted for Hillary (which I did). Yeah, well, on one hand, Trump's base of support is disproportionately white and male. On the other hand, I'm a white male too, voted for Sanders and then Clinton, want the party to move to the left economically but stay woke socially, etc. So yeah, people shouldn't make broad-strokes assumptions. I don't think the Dems are going to adopt a policy of vilifying white guys, though. That would make their winning in 2020 even harder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Wow, sounds like you guys really have a handle on the unique challenges that black people in America face. well you're not going to help them by losing elections to clowns like trump. its not going to get better for minorities unless you can form a coalition that benefits other parties too. shouting down working and middle class whites and their equally real needs isn't bringing them any closer to our side. we can have BOTH. pluralism AND economic populism. i say 2/3rds economics, 1/3 pluralism and you'll dominate elections for years to come
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Tobbs Gnawed posted:All the people that I worked hard to defend and support are villifying me while Trump is appealing not just to the Republican base, but to the base instincts of white men everywhere. self delusion level: tony blair
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:I believe you were warned about precisely this kind of thinking from the camp of Marxsplainers and Berniebros who were ironically even more demonized this year by the """""""left""""""" than I've personally ever seen. Progressives referring to themselves as being on "the right side of history" was particularly adorable given that none of them are actually old enough to have experienced anything that resembles history. I mean, for all it matters I voted for Bernie in the primaries. It was not an easy choice, but it was where I came down. I believed both would have been good Presidents but I knew they both had warts as candidates. So I'm keenly aware of the lesson, and was before. I'm mostly still just a bit shocked at how thoroughly the party seemed to forget it, and it's one of the things that needs to change to turn this around. Majorian posted:I agree, but by the same token, we can't adopt a different strategy that's equally doomed to fail. The notion that the Dems need to abandon social justice politics, as multiple people in this thread (not disjoe, I just am using his wording) have advocated, in favor of focusing exclusively on economic populism, is a losing one. The Dems were right to focus on the social justice part of the equation this year; they just should have put an equal amount of time and effort into the economic justice end of things as well. The next Democratic nominee needs to balance BOTH objectives, not just sacrifice one in favor of the other. This is the best way for a winning coalition, period, to say nothing of a better country, period. We don't have to sacrifice either half. It's not a complicated message. You can focus on jobs, healthcare, education, agriculture, replacing old industry with new profitable ones, better energy independence, all of this - and also say, "these opportunities need to be for everyone and we are a stronger, more prosperous, and healthier nation when every group - white, black, hispanic; european, middle eastern, asian; male, female, straight, LGBT; baptist, presbyterian, jewish, muslim, athiest - all get to participate fully in society and have a chance. No matter who you are, we can build a system where you do better when everyone else does, and everyone else does better when you do, too." But we have to do both. This year the party forgot the economic half of the message, we have to bring that back without losing the other half.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:well you're not going to help them by losing elections to clowns like trump. its not going to get better for minorities unless you can form a coalition that benefits other parties too. shouting down working and middle class whites and their equally real needs isn't bringing them any closer to our side. I agree, which is why I said the Dems need to balance both objectives as equally as possible. quote:i say 2/3rds economics, 1/3 pluralism and you'll dominate elections for years to come I think there needs to be more pluralism than that, simply because some of the problems facing demographics like the black community are so incredibly acute. I mean, rural/Rust Belt white poverty is a very important issue that needs to get solved right the gently caress now, but holy poo poo - young black men are getting gunned down by cops willy-nilly. It's hard to blame them for wanting their problem to finally reach the front of the line. And it's only going to get worse under AG Giuliani. Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
disjoe posted:Come to find out, the ideas Trump ran on don't reflect how he is going to govern Yep. I'm wondering how many people are going to be disappointed in that. Doredrin posted:I think it is funny that the last time the Republicans had the senate, house, and White House was in 1928 given what happened in 1929. I'm pretty sure they had full control in 2000 as well, which, of course, look what happened in 2001.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This is a pretty hosed up thing to say Theres some soapbox nationalist on this very forum going around saying "oh my mommy bwought me to India for her jawb and all the children at the factory reawwy hate bwack people" and this is the person, because its always this person, who can afford to lose big in elections and doesn't really have any fundamental beef with neoliberalism, who thinks that black interests revolve around white people checking their privilege and hiring more "diversity consultants". Its very easy to spike economic populist platforms out of spite for white racists when your only experience on a factory floor is firing workers who step out of line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Yep. I'm wondering how many people are going to be disappointed in that. These are Republicans we're talking about. Trump is literally a gift sent down by God from Heaven.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Fraction Jackson posted:
That's class war, Johnny!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Wow, sounds like you guys really have a handle on the unique challenges that black people in America face. Looks like all you got in the tank for a response is "must be racism? They say things that are doubleplusungood, deploy magic words!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Fraction Jackson posted:This year the party forgot the economic half of the message, we have to bring that back without losing the other half. i totally agree with you except this part the party didn't forget economics. they're in bed with the opposition (big business/money), chose a candidate that people associate more with the opposition, shouted down anyone pushing change as delusional, and hoped no one would care
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Doredrin posted:I think it is funny that the last time the Republicans had the senate, house, and White House was in 1928 given what happened in 1929. 2003, actually
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Looks like all you got in the tank for a response is "must be racism? They say things that are doubleplusungood, deploy magic words!" No, it just seems to me that you don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Fraction Jackson posted:I mean, for all it matters I voted for Bernie in the primaries. It was not an easy choice, but it was where I came down. I believed both would have been good Presidents but I knew they both had warts as candidates. So I'm keenly aware of the lesson, and was before. I'm mostly still just a bit shocked at how thoroughly the party seemed to forget it, and it's one of the things that needs to change to turn this around. I'm pretty sure 'doing both' has been hinted at by others as a historical excuse to ignore social justice and therefore the reason to focus only on social justice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No, it just seems to me that you don't know what you're talking about. kind of like you at the start of this thread when you were coronating Hillary
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:kind of like you at the start of this thread when you were coronating Hillary Not a thing that happened. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:i totally agree with you except this part And because of that you were willing to throw all social issues away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Yes, because Sanders would have had a better chance against Trump than Clinton did, because Clinton was widely reviled and grossly incompetent. I'm just picking this post at random from several pages ago. This is still a huge loving assumption. The theoretical polls that were out during the primaries don't mean poo poo. There are a ton of ways Sanders could have lost to Trump. What if he couldn't mobilize minorities? It doesn't matter if you carry them 90-10 if millions stay home. They didn't seem to find his message very inspiring during the primaries, we don't know if that would have changed during the general. We're arguing about how "it isn't safe to assume x" in regards to all this poo poo, I don't think it would have been safe to assume that Sanders would have been able to get minorities out in force. We don't know that Trump's message wouldn't have resonated just as well in the rust belt against Sanders as it did Clinton. "Yeah Bernie says he wants to bring your jobs back, but he wants illegal immigrants and terrorists to continue to flow across the border to take them from you!". Hell, maybe his message on healthcare would have sunk him. Single payer got blown the gently caress out in Colorado, maybe that would have drug him down in other places as well? None of that gets into him vowing to raise taxes or attacks on socialism. You could probably throw a thousand more possibilities in there. We don't know, we'll never know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Clinton came pretty close to winning Imagine how strong a platform of gently caress white men coupled with economic populism will be
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:this is the question. Lol what does your heart of hearts tell you... they want those donor bux.... and running campaigns is OH SO expensive... e: also ty whoever bought me my new "Hillary booster having a mental breakdown" av, I love it <3
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:2003, actually My memory is a bit hazy wasn't that a good year where no bad decisions were made?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 23:35
|
|