|
Mahoning posted:It only happened in like 3 or 4 states. Stop looking at nationwide exit polls. Jesus Christ. Then show me proof that it happened in those 3 or 4 states. And don't just show me turnout numbers, show me specifically that registered Democrats in those states voted in significantly greater numbers for Trump than Romney or McCain
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:33 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:You're quoting a poster who sunk a ton of money into the already-known-to-be-bankrupt Mt Gox bitcoin exchange while they were in the processing of closing their doors completely, and he still clings to this as being a good decision. Let that sink in for a moment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Covok posted:To be honest, the fact I don't know what internal strife you're all referring to probably has a lot to do with it. I frankly know very little of Chinese politics other than the occasional story of a person being silenced for subversive dialogue/actions. China is basically a system of provincial officials running hog wild in periods of monetary expansion, and getting their provinces saddled with enormous debt in an effort to stimulate growth more effectively than their "competitors" from other provinces. Then the federal government responds with monetary restrictions, and starts bailing out regional projects that failed to meet their expectations, while the successful officials get promoted. It's a huge lottery where, as a career bureaucrat, you need to go all in when presented with an opportunity for investment, and hope to win big in order to get a promotion, or get destroyed and have your career ruined. Then the central authorities clean up the mess. That is just not a stable, sustainable system, it is a machine for making the largest economic bubble in history, and nothing more.And that's not even taking into account the looming demographic crisis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Women are a majority of the country and I'd rather see another female candidate than a second Bernie run. You cannot be this stupid. Tokenism is what sunk the democrats this year. You need that archetype - a man of the people - or you will lose again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
No, an ad hominem attack would be where I claimed that he was wrong because he made other dumb decisions. MLR is wrong because the data doesn't support his conclusions. My post is just making fun of you for supporting a bitcoin true believer who makes bad life choices
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Right now? Us. In a year? Nobody. Well, this is worse than I assumed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Judakel posted:You cannot be this stupid. Tokenism is what sunk the democrats this year. You need that archetype - a man of the people - or you will lose again. So you're arguing we literally need to run an old straight white dude because of the appeal of the ~archetype~? Nah. I want Kamala Harris.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Then show me proof that it happened in those 3 or 4 states. And don't just show me turnout numbers, show me specifically that registered Democrats in those states voted in significantly greater numbers for Trump than Romney or McCain I don't have those numbers, I'm not sure they exist yet, but how about you read the article that Mark Blyth tweeted and has been posted and reposted in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I don't think conceptually people understood that "sit down, shut up, and listen" is not addressed to working class white people. It's addressed to the white progressives who seek to organize the new Democratic Party. Is there even any other way to parse it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:
Lol if this is seriously the way Dems plan to approach anyone who either didn't vote or voted for trump, then you might as well get ready for 8 years of the orange god There's a lot of people out there where getting a job or getting help with their student loans is more important than what bathroom someone uses even though they aren't bigots
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:31
|
|
KKK.
|
'I voted for Obama twice' is the new 'i have a black friend'. I dont care who you voted for, I respect your vote regardless. People not showing up because Clinton didnt inspire and are now worried.. not so much. But I am glad they act up on it now! Also: jfc, breitbart in the White House. I feel for you America, I feel for you. Including Republicans, because even if a large number voted Trump out of despair (any change is better than what it is now. Any change) I really doubt they will be better after these 4 years if reps can get all their wishes granted. Unless trickle down economy works out of the blue
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:I don't have those numbers, I'm not sure they exist yet, but how about you read the article that Mark Blyth tweeted and has been posted and reposted in this thread? Why are you drawing conclusions from numbers that you don't have, then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Covok posted:Okay, at the risk of annoying y'all with questions, why is everyone else doing so bad and we're doing so good? I think that if anyone here could answer that definitively they probably wouldn't be posting on SA.  Seriously, though, who knows? Part of it is probably that we didn't respond to our financial crisis with a massive push for austerity the way that the EU countries did around 2012. China is in a bubble and their government seems to have no idea how to react at either a federal or provincial level. Russia and other petrostates are reeling from cheap oil. The US economy is on life support at the moment, but at least we haven't been actively making the worst possible decisions at every juncture... until now, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Antonin Scalia posted:I think working class white people will easily parse this statement as exactly equivalent to what the DNC has been telling them for some time, that is, "you're here to provide votes, and we're here to tell you what you want". I mean, reading comprehension is hard, bro. It's on a list that starts with "for progressives." Furthermore, I would never campaign on such a thing. It's for the organizing and leadership choosing phase, not the campaign. My Linux Rig posted:Lol if this is seriously the way Dems plan to approach anyone who either didn't vote or voted for trump, then you might as well get ready for 8 years of the orange god I don't give a single gently caress about your vote. There's several million other white working class people out there who aren't massively smug pricks about voting for somebody they knew was a shithead and didn't care about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:So you're arguing we literally need to run an old straight white dude because of the appeal of the ~archetype~? If identity politics are a factor, I'm go to say absolutely no to any white collar politician from California or New York.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I think that if anyone here could answer that definitively they probably wouldn't be posting on SA. Sounds more and more like our country has been narrowly avoiding a serious global crisis through good governance and we just threw away good governance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I don't give a single gently caress about your vote. There's several million other white working class people out there who aren't massively smug pricks about voting for somebody they knew was a shithead and didn't care about. It is the Age of the Edgelord.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Squinty posted:If identity politics are a factor, I'm go to say absolutely no to any white collar politician from California or New York. Kamala Harris is of the progressive wing. I sure as poo poo would rather have her than Cory Booker, who is another obvious candidate who suffers from being a conservative Dem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:And before that happened one Howard Dean was going to run for that seat. Do you think Keith Ellison would've won on his own merits versus Dean, absent the party leadership backing him up? A party leadership made up of old white guys. I think the fight is obviously a lot harder for Ellison if he doesn't have the support of party leadership. Although Sanders and Warren endorsements may have be enough, certainly Schumer and Reid help a lot. That said there is nothing wrong with the system because a person who had previously done the job, and who is considered to have done it very successfully is looking to take it back. There is no other situation in which you would look at it with this sort of strange racial scrutiny. If you had someone doing any other service, and they left and then a new person took over and did not do as well, when that new person left you would probably think about hiring the old one back. quote:See, I think they made the right play. They're cool. But they just as easily could've backed Dean instead, and that would've been a shame. I think Ellison is probably a better decision, because I don't want to compromise on progressive issues to pursue a fifty state strategy. If Ellison being black or Muslim excites people then I'm happy enough about that but I'm not cynical or racist enough to choose a leader on the basis of their race or religion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I haven't seen any proof to suggest that traditional Dem voters went for Trump in any significant numbers. That wasn't what I was saying. They just didn't come out to vote Voter suppression might have played a role, and the media selling the narrative of an easy Clinton win probably didn't help either. But the story from most people I talked to was that they didn't like either candidate, and they were pretty disappointed in their own party for dismissing them and their candidate completely
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Multipolarity is the future. Everyone else is a bigger gently caress up than us, more than willing to sign off under our lead to keep things easy for themselves. The future is still ours for the lifetime of everyone reading this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
chelsea clinton 2024
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Everyone else is a bigger gently caress up than us, more than willing to sign off under our lead to keep things easy for themselves. The future is still ours for the lifetime of everyone reading this. Most likely, it's just going to be a fair bit shittier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
In all serious, how likely are we to experience a serious economic depression in the next 4 to 8 years?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:I think the fight is obviously a lot harder for Ellison if he doesn't have the support of party leadership. Although Sanders and Warren endorsements may have be enough, certainly Schumer and Reid help a lot. That said there is nothing wrong with the system because a person who had previously done the job, and who is considered to have done it very successfully is looking to take it back. There is no other situation in which you would look at it with this sort of strange racial scrutiny. If you had someone doing any other service, and they left and then a new person took over and did not do as well, when that new person left you would probably think about hiring the old one back. The problem is that if we do not push for minority candidates, then mysteriously the best candidates will always end up being straight white guys. Progressives and liberals aren't immune to systemic racism. Thatim posted:It is the Age of the Edgelord. I don't care about Trump voters' feelings in this thread. Sue me. Out there, in the real world, organizing? I'll pretend like I don't hate them for caring so little about the damage they voted for. But here? Nah, gently caress 'em.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:So you're arguing we literally need to run an old straight white dude because of the appeal of the ~archetype~? No. You need to run a good candidate REGARDLESS of whatever label you can attach to them. I didn't say straight white guy, I said someone who appeals to the working class. Kamala Harris is seen as part of the democratic establishment and she won't win. For someone surely obsessed with getting past labels, you sure see them as a huge factor in picking candidates. Learn from this defeat. Don't just come back here and repeat all the same mistakes you made the first time. Don't pick unappealing candidates due to pedigree or tokenism. Are you traumatized by this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Covok posted:In all serious, how likely are we to experience a serious economic depression in the next 4 to 8 years? Like 100%
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Covok posted:In all serious, how likely are we to experience a serious economic depression in the next 4 to 8 years? No-one really knows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Why are you drawing conclusions from numbers that you don't have, then? http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/11/11/23174/ quote:The Rust Belt states that delivered the presidency to Trump—Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan—were extremely close. On one hand this means that any number of factors can be said to be a “cause” for the outcome. Slightly lower black turnout, third-party candidates, and depressed Democratic turnout generally will all be cited as such factors. But none of that addresses the fact that to shift Michigan, say, from +10 for Obama to even cannot be explained by these factors. You still have to account for people who voted for Trump, many of which probably flipped from being Obama voters. Digging deeper into county results supports this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Covok posted:In all serious, how likely are we to experience a serious economic depression in the next 4 to 8 years? Nobody here can predict the future
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
My Linux Rig posted:That wasn't what I was saying. They just didn't come out to vote That was my experience as well; my feeling was that people just weren't excited about Clinton. I'm not sure if there's anything that she could have done to change that, though; her scandals, even when they were completely meaningless, have been the focus of the entire year, and progressive felt like her somewhat-progressive platform wasn't authentic. If Clinton had come right out and said "we're adopting the Sanders platform" or "we're going to legalize weed ya'll" or "day 1 I am arrested everyone on Wall Street" I'm not even sure if people would have believed her
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:chelsea clinton 2024 No. Admiral Ray posted:Like 100% Pretty much. Even if Hillary and the Dem Senators had all gotten elected. It's a cycle. Judakel posted:No. You need to run a good candidate REGARDLESS of whatever label you can attach to them. I didn't say straight white guy, I said someone who appeals to the working class. Kamala Harris is seen as part of the democratic establishment and she won't win. For someone surely obsessed with getting past labels, you sure see them as a huge factor in picking candidates. Learn from this defeat. Don't just come back here and repeat all the same mistakes you made the first time. Don't pick unappealing candidates due to pedigree or tokenism. I'm not "traumatized" by anything. I am deeply suspicious that "appeals to the working class" means "Joe Biden," however.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:So you're arguing we literally need to run an old straight white dude because of the appeal of the ~archetype~? Yeah, a white dude is an easier sell than a woman sorry to say. This country is sexist as hell. We need someone charismatic like Obama and for a woman that means she would need to be better than Obama or at least have a rock solid populist appeal. Hard to do right and not worth loving up. Don't ignore the reality: people thought Hillary was a shrill bitch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That was my experience as well; my feeling was that people just weren't excited about Clinton. I'm not sure if there's anything that she could have done to change that, though; her scandals, even when they were completely meaningless, have been the focus of the entire year, and progressive felt like her somewhat-progressive platform wasn't authentic. She withstood scandals just fine. Nothing really stuck or dissuaded people. The problem seemed to be, as another poster mentioned a few days ago, that no one could figure out why she was running in the first place. It was just "her time".
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Covok posted:In all serious, how likely are we to experience a serious economic depression in the next 4 to 8 years? Like, literally nobody can answer this question. Go poll a huge pile of economists and you'll get a ton of wildly varying answers, although I doubt any of them would use the term "depression." A recession, though? We're already beyond the average length of a US recovery post-WW2. A recession is all but guaranteed in the next four years, but that would be true with a Clinton presidency too. If there's no recession between now and 2020 then that's an oddity in and of itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Most likely, it's just going to be a fair bit shittier. The potential is.....hilariously terrible, but there's still a chance that Trump is no worse than "Bush 2, but slightly more". Which wouldn't be great, there are real issues a Republican government is likely to ignore, but that is something that you can start to shake off in 4 years rather than something that gut shot the country forever or whatever loving doom and gloom scenario is going through some people's heads. And again, everyone else is doing *even worse*. There is no massive generally influential country even vaguely in our ballpark, nobody waiting in the wings to swoop up influence and capital. It's us or it's nobody, and the world isn't ready for it to be nobody. So it's us. Unless Trump goes full retard and makes all the wrong moves, honestly 4 years from now looks mostly the same. Probably more hate crimes and no real socially progressive development, but pretty much the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Judakel posted:You cannot be this stupid. Tokenism is what sunk the democrats this year. You need that archetype - a man of the people - or you will lose again. What the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The problem is that if we do not push for minority candidates, then mysteriously the best candidates will always end up being straight white guys. Progressives and liberals aren't immune to systemic racism. I feel you buddy. But I ment the guy who you was replying to. In 20 years he will probally be ashamed by how he acted (not saying that everyone voting for Trump should be ashamed) or he will try to justify. He gives the people that voted Trump because they are desperate a bad name. He just thinks its ~cool~
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:things aren't looking so peachy for China either, their economy is in a really precarious place and when it crashes it's gonna crash hard When it crashes so will ours.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:33 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:No. Biden is not what I have in mind, but so what if he fit? So what if it is a straight white guy? Jesus...
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:44
|
|