|
Panzeh posted:A candidate that can unite disaffected rust belt folks and young black people.. nah, i'm with the Annointed One. I'm still not sure it would have mattered. People have been talking about the rust belt eventually flipping because of demographics. What if we've already hit that point but nobody realized it? Republican majorities in the Governer/Senate/House in WI, MI, OH, people like Feingold underperforming Clinton, etc... It's the economy, right?  Clinton lead among those folks nationally. But what about Wisconsin itself?  Clinton lead among the economy folks there too. Huh.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:She has, last time she was asked anyway, said the opposite of this. yep confirmed. http://www.npr.org/2016/10/03/495820477/no-ruth-bader-ginsburg-does-not-intend-to-retire-anytime-soon ok, well that's comforting at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:I'd be surprised if even 10% of the people using the term "neoliberalism" knew its meaning beyond "thing I heard is bad." Let me see here. It is a ideology that believes in privatization of government functions, the empowering of finance to better facilitate "efficent" markets. Beleiuves at the core is the awakened individual and tends to embrace the whole "no such thing as society" of Margaret Thatcher. Yeah it has done the world no good and should be resigned to the scrap heap of history as a destroyer of lives and an enabler of nazism. Also yeah we'll stand with Ellison as he actually is for what we want. Look I know you probablythink privatizing SS is a good idea, but then you can join the libertarian party for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Let me see here. It is a ideology that believes in privatization of government functions, the empowering of finance to better facilitate "efficent" markets. Beleiuves at the core is the awakened individual and tends to embrace the whole "no such thing as society" of Margaret Thatcher. Yeah it has done the world no good and should be resigned to the scrap heap of history as a destroyer of lives and an enabler of nazism. Also yeah we'll stand with Ellison as he actually is for what we want. Look I know you probablythink privatizing SS is a good idea, but then you can join the libertarian party for that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2Ec_oHjEFM
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:02
|
|
darth_pizza posted:yep confirmed. I said it in the SC thread, no one wants to talk about the possibility but I have four words for ya'll: Eleven Justice Supreme Court.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Well if its wrong, tell me what it really is? BTW I liked that story of how they pretty much took people who identify as Latino for granted. Yeah they may eventually support the Dems, but thats just disgraceful to abandon them like that. I mean it almost seems like the neoliberals in the party only ever had identity issues as window dressing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
fknlo posted:I'm still not sure it would have mattered. People have been talking about the rust belt eventually flipping because of demographics. What if we've already hit that point but nobody realized it? Republican majorities in the Governer/Senate/House in WI, MI, OH, people like Feingold underperforming Clinton, etc... Is that a surprise? Trump still got 43% out of a 55% slice of the total preference pie´. That is a lot, and a small fraction of this block would have changed the course of the election. Definitely easier than trying to sway the both smaller and more ideologically entrenched groups of people who were more worried about immigration or terrorism. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
darth_pizza posted:yep confirmed. She has to make it 4 years minimum since there's no hope of taking the senate in 2018. So do the other old liberal judges. I'm not exactly hopeful. Do Supreme Court justices get any kind of Secret Service protection? I don't want some nutbag white nationalist to try and kill them after Trump starts talking about "second amendment solutions" when something doesn't go his way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
fknlo posted:I'm still not sure it would have mattered. People have been talking about the rust belt eventually flipping because of demographics. What if we've already hit that point but nobody realized it? Republican majorities in the Governer/Senate/House in WI, MI, OH, people like Feingold underperforming Clinton, etc... she led on the economy among people who voted i'd wager a lot of dems that thought she was poo poo on the economy stayed home edit: seriously, the problem with clinton is low turnout and you're basing your analysis of why she didn't get enough votes on people who turned out? Condiv fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:BTW I liked that story of how they pretty much took people who identify as Latino for granted. Yeah they may eventually support the Dems, but thats just disgraceful to abandon them like that. I mean it almost seems like the neoliberals in the party only ever had identity issues as window dressing. As a European the latino thing is baffling to me because latino's constitute so many different nationalities, religions and cultures that it as a signifier must assuredly be almost completely worthless. Like if I were to do a comparative study between second generation Cubans and Mexicans about political attitudes I sincerely doubt that their response would be uniform to the level that pollsters bungling treatment of them would imply.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:As a European the latino thing is baffling to me because latino's constitute so many different nationalities, religions and cultures that it as a signifier must assuredly be almost completely worthless. Like if I were to do a comparative study between second generation Cubans and Mexicans about political attitudes I sincerely doubt that their response would be uniform to the level that pollsters bungling treatment of them would imply. Same in the U.S., but the racist shitheels don't care about that - as long as you're a not-white-passing latino you'll be hosed with - so to some extent there can be unity against that racism presuming anyone bothers to try. That breaks down pretty fast, though, and by just not openly rallying around a massively racist platform the republicans could pretty easily break that up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:As a European the latino thing is baffling to me because latino's constitute so many different nationalities, religions and cultures that it as a signifier must assuredly be almost completely worthless. Like if I were to do a comparative study between second generation Cubans and Mexicans about political attitudes I sincerely doubt that their response would be uniform to the level that pollsters bungling treatment of them would imply. Oh true, but would you say that many would feel the fact the democrats cannot be bothered to give Latinos a voice at all a real reason to turnout?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:21
|
|
Condiv posted:she led on the economy among people who voted i'd wager a lot of dems that thought she was poo poo on the economy stayed home The low turn out argument was refuted earlier in the thread, once the votes are counted the turnout will be very close to or equal to the turnout in 2012.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:I said it in the SC thread, no one wants to talk about the possibility but I have four words for ya'll: Though, I always say "fifteen Justice Supreme Court" but whatever. Thing is now that the GOP control the government they might just beat the Democrats to the punch to lock in SCOTUS advantage even further. But yes, assuming we can replicate 2006 and 2008 in the coming elections this is absolutely a thing that should be done. We'll need to purge the loving "we're ready to work with Trump" cowards from the Democratic leadership starting with Nancy Pelosi, but yeah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:The low turn out argument was refuted earlier in the thread, once the votes are counted the turnout will be very close to or equal to the turnout in 2012. Can you source this? Everything I can find shows that even adjusting for uncounted votes this has been / will be lowest turnout in 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:The low turn out argument was refuted earlier in the thread, once the votes are counted the turnout will be very close to or equal to the turnout in 2012. haha http://host.madison.com/ct/news/loc...4d37204669.html you had great turnout in places that were dem strongholds, you had poo poo turnout in wisconsin keep trying to pretend you guys couldn't see this coming. it was the economy stupid and you guys ignored that
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
fknlo posted:there's no hope of taking the senate in 2018
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Turnout wasn't down much in MN yet Trump almost flipped the state Red for the first time in a very long time. http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-leads-nation-in-turnout/400763681/
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
I think as far as turnout, from everything I've read, it's definitely down across the board but down and up unevenly (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voter-turnout-fell-especially-in-states-that-clinton-won/). In certain areas it's absolutely true that turnout was only marginally down, and particularly on the county level turnout was even up for Clinton compared to Obama in places. I think we're seeing the results of campaigning against Trump - as always, you can't run a campaign in opposition to another candidate, you have to stand for something. Clinton wasn't poo poo on the economy when she talked about it, she just didn't talk about it enough - but not just the economy, the whole platform. The platform wasn't used, the focus was wrong, and that's the whole party's fault. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the dem platform itself will win in a fair fight almost every time, but you have to use it.
speng31b fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
last laugh posted:Turnout wasn't down much in MN yet Trump almost flipped the state Red for the first time in a very long time.  She won on the economy in MN too. Huh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Condiv posted:haha Well they need tis. Its easier to say. "I'm right, and their all wrong, and I don't need to change anything", rather then "Yes they were wrong to vote for Trump, but I was wrong to ignore the people who didn't turn up to vote, and maybe I need to rethink my philosophy about why people cannot succeed under this system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
last laugh posted:Turnout wasn't down much in MN yet Trump almost flipped the state Red for the first time in a very long time. nice deflection
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
I'm not sure why ~economic anxiety~ has to be The Reason We Lost for going hard after economic reform as a central policy plank to be necessary and good. I don't think literally anybody is disputing that. Similarly racism doesn't need to be The Reason in order for antiracism and human rights to be a central plank. This argument seems to be as much a proxy for what people believe is politically most vital as an actual attempt to analyze the factors that contributed to the electoral outcome. Anyone who tries to minimize one of those planks is a shithead who needs to be roundly mocked though. In terms of the actual cause, I strongly suspect that it comes down to a genuine sense of unease with the status quo, which includes both the economy and the shifting face of America. This was a scream of rage and a flipping of the table from a group of people who see their dominance slipping away, and the fact that nobody saw it coming is part of why it happened. If people had believed in their guts this could happen in the first place they'd have bothered to get up and vote, or not voted for the Johnson, or whatever. All the other stuff is sort of secondary-- sure if the dem nominee had been ~~inspiring~~ then the sort of voters who only vote if they feel warm fuzzies would have voted. But feeling the actual risk of defeat might have done it too. If only we had a time machine to check! Add in the Dems generally being incompetent as a party organization (into which you can lump Being Too Neoliberal if you like), the media seeing the polls and assuming Hillary had already won which fed into the double standard which they applied to the candidates, the fact that this was an anti-status-quo surge and all the factors beforehand indicated that running against the status quo would be a disaster for Dems (how many times have we heard that Al Gore distancing himself from Clinton was a mistake? honestly even Bernie would've gotten close to Obama on the trail, man is absurdly popular and it seemed like that was a winning strategy to literally everyone), voter disenfranchisement and suppression in key states, and you've got a shitload of blame to go around. poo poo isn't simple and identifying a single overall Reason is politically comforting because it boils everything down to a single obvious solution involving purging the unfaithful, but purging the unfaithful is going to have to be a part of a larger strategy moving forward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Quorum posted:I'm not sure why ~economic anxiety~ has to be The Reason We Lost for going hard after economic reform as a central policy plank to be necessary and good. I don't think literally anybody is disputing that. Similarly racism doesn't need to be The Reason in order for antiracism and human rights to be a central plank. This argument seems to be as much a proxy for what people believe is politically most vital as an actual attempt to analyze the factors that contributed to the electoral outcome. no-one's saying racism shouldn't be a central plank. i think it's good for us to address both at the same time and I've always felt that it was a shame hillary didn't try to. but if you're saying hillary was a good candidate on economic justice, she's not, and refusing to cater to it lost her the election
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Quorum posted:I'm not sure why ~economic anxiety~ has to be The Reason We Lost for going hard after economic reform as a central policy plank to be necessary and good. I don't think literally anybody is disputing that. Similarly racism doesn't need to be The Reason in order for antiracism and human rights to be a central plank. This argument seems to be as much a proxy for what people believe is politically most vital as an actual attempt to analyze the factors that contributed to the electoral outcome. I think you know the answer already - it's a way cleaner thing to just talk about angry white voters in the rust belt, economic anxiety, etc. "That's what the dems get for being so elitist" is the best handwavy explanation. It also has the cool side effect of essentially sidelining discussions on race in our country, because white people are focused on "the real issue" of the economy like good blue-collar working class adults should be or whatever. speng31b fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
I think I'm at the bargaining side of things now because I'm hoping the Dems somehow broker a deal with the Electoral College to give Hillary the Presidency. Can't be the worst thing I'm mean the Compromise of 1877 exists and that was way more of a deal with the devil than this would be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:I think I'm at the bargaining side of things now because I'm hoping the Dems somehow broker a deal with the Electoral College to give Hillary the Presidency. Can't be the worst thing I'm mean the Compromise of 1877 exists and that was way more of a deal with the devil than this would be. you are wrong. using the electoral college like this would get hillary deposed very quick and make sure dems never won election ever again
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no-one's saying racism shouldn't be a central plank. i think it's good for us to address both at the same time and I've always felt that it was a shame hillary didn't try to. but if you're saying hillary was a good candidate on economic justice, she's not, and refusing to cater to it lost her the election I think she did try. I think she failed. The reasons for this are greater than just "because she's a shill," though "her true passions definitely lie more in social matters and she is generally centrist on economics" is a huge part of it. Another part is the media refusing to cover it whenever she did try, because CLINTON TRUMP INSULTS NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN gets way more clicks than "ten minutes of clintons economic plan."
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
speng31b posted:I think you know the answer already - it's a way cleaner thing to just talk about angry white voters in the rust belt, economic anxiety, etc. "That's what the dems get for being so elitist" is the best handwavy explanation. It also has the cool side effect of essentially sidelining discussions on race in our country, because white people are focused on "the real issue" of the economy like good blue-collar working class adults should be or whatever. Actually I think we can. Argue against continued thug I mean police brutality, go against the attempts to deport the Dreamers. Voter supression certainly had a part in this election and getting people to vote and turning voter supression into what it is. Treason. Hell I think to get some paranoids to vote we should maybe talk about a constitutional amendment to make vote rigging an act of treason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Quorum posted:I think she did try. I think she failed. The reasons for this are greater than just "because she's a shill," though "her true passions definitely lie more in social matters and she is generally centrist on economics" is a huge part of it. Another part is the media refusing to cover it whenever she did try, because CLINTON TRUMP INSULTS NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN gets way more clicks than "ten minutes of clintons economic plan." It'll be interesting to see how the next four years of stories like "Trump supporters harass press and families" and "press out in cold, given no access to Trump admin" play out, because for all the sensation Trump garners in an election, he's going to simultaneously threaten, terrorize and stonewall them as president.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:I think I'm at the bargaining side of things now because I'm hoping the Dems somehow broker a deal with the Electoral College to give Hillary the Presidency. Can't be the worst thing I'm mean the Compromise of 1877 exists and that was way more of a deal with the devil than this would be. Yeah this would be a real great way to wreck her legitimacy and damage the integrity of the political system in a way that even trump probably can't. Unfortunately. A part of me would love this too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Quorum posted:I think she did try. I think she failed. The reasons for this are greater than just "because she's a shill," though "her true passions definitely lie more in social matters and she is generally centrist on economics" is a huge part of it. Another part is the media refusing to cover it whenever she did try, because CLINTON TRUMP INSULTS NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN gets way more clicks than "ten minutes of clintons economic plan." hahaha hillary's job is to get her platform out to the people, not the media's. get used to this if you want to win in 2020, cause if you thought the media was unfair to dems this year just you wait till after 4 years of trump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp_gIWAaQVI also, blaming it on the media is an easy out. hillary intentionally shied away from her economic platform in lieu of worthless poo poo. she didn't talk to the media for a long time. she failed to sell her platform and that makes her a bad candidate™
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:#NeverDean has been a thing for the last 24 hours. Good, good. He was the one who rolled out the 50 state strategy so I don't think this is entirely fair.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:He was the one who rolled out the 50 state strategy so I don't think this is entirely fair. he's also a big-pharma lobbyist atm
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Condiv posted:hahaha In no way am I attempting to minimize the campaign's failure to get the message out, but the playing field is tilted in a particularly galling way when the media simply refuses to cover the things that we all agree a Dem candidate must hit in order to get elected. Learning how to play that game is one of the things the party has to do moving forward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:It's why all the usual suspects on Fox or on AM radio never ever run for office Oh, thank God I did just dream that Jason Lewis was elected to the House.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
last laugh posted:Turnout wasn't down much in MN yet Trump almost flipped the state Red for the first time in a very long time. Listen the the This American Life a few weeks ago about St Cloud.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Maybe I'm still too optimistic, but I think the Dems could roll with just about any young, enthusiastic candidate who has the support of Bernie Sanders, is just a voice for the platform who stays on message, and win 2020. Probably easier said than done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:59
|
|
speng31b posted:Can you source this? Everything I can find shows that even adjusting for uncounted votes this has been / will be lowest turnout in 20 years. I read it earlier in this thread, no one bothered to refute it. Condiv posted:haha TBH I don't really care if you believe me or not, everyone believes what they want to and then cherry picks stuff to support it.  I do think it's dishonest to claim to support any sort of economic reform via political solutions since that is flat out impossible.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
speng31b posted:Maybe I'm still too optimistic, but I think the Dems could roll with just about any young, enthusiastic candidate who has the support of Bernie Sanders, is just a voice for the platform who stays on message, and win 2020. Probably easier said than done. Thankfully Sanders is stacking the DNC and hand picking the Chairmen so we can avoid a nasty primary. Right guys? In all seriousness it is hilarious watching people who cried about DWS and Clinton stacking the DNC do a 180 and support Sanders doing the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:01
|
|
