|
punk rebel ecks posted:I'm not going to lie, after seeing the sheer arrogance and corruption of the DNC, as well as them strategist to ditch the working class to eat up more Republican voters, I am in some way kind of glad that the Democrats got slaughtered during this election as a big "gently caress you!" toward them. Should I...feel bad for thinking this? If anything it was splash of cold water on bad dems. For the last few years they could brag about two Obama landslide wins, even though the GOP won a majority of victories at the state and congressional level. They grew complacent and too addicted to wall street money to realize the level of pain in the country especially in poor rural areas. How can you explain how counties that Obama decisively won in the Midwest decided to support Trump by large margins. Maybe overnight they got turned into racists despite voting for Obama in the past?
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:Yeah, the idea that populism is the way forward has clearly taken hold. I think it will be a major part of 2020. This is what I was going for, yea. Most of these voters are not unaware of the solutions that have been offered from the left. It's not even like Trump pretended to be on that side of things, really. Isn't one of his major coming focuses 'entitlement reform'? It's not like Trump ran on some c/p Bernie Sanders message and won, thus proving that the white working class is crying out for full socialism now. He ran on a populist message. Populism isn't inherently noble, and his kind of populism was very focused in nationalism, and that combo tends to be really loving successful with white voters, and only with white voters. etalian posted:How can you explain how counties that Obama decisively won in the Midwest decided to support Trump by large margins. This is some weird 'obama was elected, racism is over' poo poo that the left needs to stop bringing up. Yea, a poo poo ton of those voters were assholes despite voting for Obama. The term 'Reagan Democrat' is not a positive indicator for how one views many issues, typically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
The concentrated hatred against the DNC makes me realize how much people sort of expect their parties to be these centralized machines, something they really haven't been in a long time. Individual campaigns are centralized machines, and like, the pseudo confederation of campaigns led by say a national campaign and maybe directed by prominent members of the party using some common but mostly ad hoc infrastructure can give the appearance of clear order, but the organization called the DNC is just not a huge player in american politics, is my understanding. So this fixation with it as the root of or even a symbol of everything wrong w/the dems is very strange to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
etalian posted:How can you explain how counties that Obama decisively won in the Midwest decided to support Trump by large margins. It doesn't disqualify racism/sexism as a thing that exists in those areas, but it sure does make it seem like "vote for change" and "vote for jobs" is more important to a lot of people. The dems can be ultra effective at harnessing those things, but they sure did gently caress it up this time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:This is some weird 'obama was elected, racism is over' poo poo that the left needs to stop bringing up. Yea, a poo poo ton of those voters were assholes despite voting for Obama. The term 'Reagan Democrat' is not a positive indicator for how one views many issues, typically. They believed in Obama and counties that he won by very large margin supported Trump in the most recent election. ' So all these people were stealth racists/assholes who only pretended to support and believe in President Obama's message?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:And no one is actually saying to Activate White Genocide or whatever but shutting down any person, especially minority voices, saying 'no but why is it every regressive thing seems to come on the back of white voters' isn't the way to go at this. The idea that these voters just formed from thin air and instantly became Economically Anxious is ignoring history. There are economic issues that need to be addressed but a poo poo ton of Trump's platform was social (or that thing where you wrap social issues in safety issues so you blame immigrants for crime and poo poo). Him coming out and making 'I AM THE LAW AND ORDER CANDIDATE" was a major part of his platform and a poo poo ton of his economic message was wrapped in nationalism. Yeah, but... People didn't like that. Why do you think his favorables were so low? To ignore all that and pretend that these voters only heard "They're Bringing Rapists" and went running to him is patronizing as gently caress, you're treating them like children who can't help themselves or something. Even the most sympathetic piece talking about the ~Trump Voter Issues~ can't avoid having at least a couple guys on it being all 'and ya know they're all racists and we shouldn't have to explain this poo poo to them, ever, for any reason, because it's on them to do that for themselves..." Race was a major factor, just as it has been for literally every election ever, people who are bad off feel ignored just like they have every other election ever, and a lot of voters also vote the way they do for bigoted rear end reasons just like every other election ever. To cut that list up and say 'no THIS is the thing' is absurd because none of these issues are actually new at all. The difference is which candidate was talking about which issues and how they were talking about them. Hillary's campaign was about Trump. Trump's campaign was about Trump. Why do you think they voted for Trump? No, no, I know: Racism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:Yeah, the idea that populism is the way forward has clearly taken hold. I think it will be a major part of 2020. Trump didn't gain any more votes than Romney did percentage wise of the voting age population. Trumpism isn't a winning rhetoric so much as Clintonism is a losing one. Tatum Girlparts posted:I mean, do you think the people who are going to be hurt most by Trump and the GOP are going to be the DNC leadership you're mad at? Of course not, but this election does serve as a wake up call to many on the left side of America's political aisle. Tatum Girlparts posted:This is some weird 'obama was elected, racism is over' poo poo that the left needs to stop bringing up. Yea, a poo poo ton of those voters were assholes despite voting for Obama. The term 'Reagan Democrat' is not a positive indicator for how one views many issues, typically. Nobody is saying that. What they ARE saying is that it is unlikely that all of these Obama voters have anti-immigration and racial hatred as a key motivation being that is dichotomous from the platform Obama ran on. speng31b posted:It doesn't disqualify racism/sexism as a thing that exists in those areas, but it sure does make it seem like "vote for change" and "vote for jobs" is more important to a lot of people. The dems can be ultra effective at harnessing those things, but they sure did gently caress it up this time. This. These people want change. Trump brought it to the table. Hillary didn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
etalian posted:
2008 Obama was, rhetorically, a populist most of the time (it's why "they cling to their guns and religion" stuck out so much and was so off message). He also ran the best campaign in modern memory. He also was running w/the benefit of everyone hating Bush. And McCain really did give off the impression of being a clueless out of touch dude a lot of the time. Remember, this is the guy w/no idea how many houses he owned. The white vote in 2008 was complicated for a lot of reasons but those right there are some good ones, as far understanding why Barry was able to take, like Indiana. 2012 is a different but also similar story.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
blamegame posted:The concentrated hatred against the DNC makes me realize how much people sort of expect their parties to be these centralized machines, something they really haven't been in a long time. Individual campaigns are centralized machines, and like, the pseudo confederation of campaigns led by say a national campaign and maybe directed by prominent members of the party using some common but mostly ad hoc infrastructure can give the appearance of clear order, but the organization called the DNC is just not a huge player in american politics, is my understanding. So this fixation with it as the root of or even a symbol of everything wrong w/the dems is very strange to me. When people say DNC they aren't only talking formally about the DNC but the business/donor/Wall Street/investor class/ex-DLC and New Democrats wing of the Democratic party. Despite failing over and over again, this wing of the Dems refuses to let go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:When people say DNC they aren't only talking formally about the DNC but the business/donor/Wall Street/investor wing/ex-DLC and New Democrats wing of the Democratic party. Despite failing over and over again, this wing of the Dems refuses to let go. Maybe this is just semantic, but when I hear "DNC" I think small potatoes but when I hear "investment bankers' I think "most powerful political group in the US besides maybe the MIC." If we want the leadership of the new dems to actually be different than the previous alphabet soups, we can't lack that specificity, or else whatever group of professional politicians takes over will just fall into the same patterns. I think Bernie is generally pretty good about this
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
ThndrShk2k posted:It's the economy, stupid! bing bong bing SO simple 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
blamegame posted:The concentrated hatred against the DNC makes me realize how much people sort of expect their parties to be these centralized machines, something they really haven't been in a long time. Individual campaigns are centralized machines, and like, the pseudo confederation of campaigns led by say a national campaign and maybe directed by prominent members of the party using some common but mostly ad hoc infrastructure can give the appearance of clear order, but the organization called the DNC is just not a huge player in american politics, is my understanding. So this fixation with it as the root of or even a symbol of everything wrong w/the dems is very strange to me. It's a start, I think. I see it less as a positive expectation and more of a feeling of how it is, that it feels like the democratic party is controlled from on high because it's hard to see, at least as observers, the influence and power of the local and state levels. So when people get mad at "the party," they really only have things like the DNC to get mad at. As long as changes to the DNC don't make people stop being angry, I think it's okay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:
So why were all these people who were 100% very devoted to Obama's core platform suddenly willing to vote for the guy who was the literal opposite then? Mirthless posted:Yeah, but... People didn't like that. Why do you think his favorables were so low? I don't think your 'redo my post to support your argument' bit works as well when my point was that these are both major issues too, but I just had issues with the idea that we had to pretend that bigotry can't be cited as a factor at all in these voters. Also you're a whiny baby who thinks protesting makes us look bad so at this point I literally don't know what you want other than to smugly sneer at as many people as you can. Nothing to do with this post, just in general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
The top level DNC is a big problem since it sets things like the overall strategy and funding aid for various races. In this case you have very bad out of touch leadership, that has a dismal record especially in state and congressional level races.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Nobody is saying that. What they ARE saying is that it is unlikely that all of these Obama voters have anti-immigration and racial hatred as a key motivation being that is dichotomous from the platform Obama ran on. To be clear here, anti-immigration sentiment and racial hatred can absolutely be a danger here - if the Republicans are allowed to win elections using them as bogeyman because an effective alternative isn't presented, they'll get worse. And they absolutely do exist now, and they absolutely were at least an element in play this election. We have to recognize that along with everything else that was in play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Zikan posted:maps coming in to prove that you should be angry at hillary clinton I saw an interview right before the election where they were talking to people on the street in Scranton and one old guy they talked to said he wasn't going to vote for Hillary because her dad was from Scranton and buried there, and he'd never seen any flowers on her dad's grave. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:bing bong bing SO simple Also don't forget healthcare
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
constantly be changing, never set an actual platform, if you ever run someone with a similar view twice just loving kill yourself. What? Things take more than 4 years to happen? gently caress off shill!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
The idea that people can't be racist because they voted for Obama is the "Some of my best friends are black!" of politics. Racism isn't a binary on/off thing, it's a whole spectrum. However, Obama voters switching to Trump is a good justification for the idea that populism can be used to push messages that aren't based on racism. They listened to Obama before, maybe they will listen to someone similar again. But how long can the democrats convince people that their brand of populism is better when it is almost guaranteed to not give them the results they are looking for? My worry is that the extreme-right can get a LOT more mileage out of their scapegoating. Also, I'm really concerned that these people won't be able to get past "you wanna RAISE my taxes?" And I'm concerned that there is almost no focus on that issue. Everyone is concerned with the whole "don't call them racist" part, which is sort of ironic because they also blame establishment dems for focusing too much on social issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Has anyone got numbers on those counties where Trump won that Obama won? I'm still wondering if there is any truth to the idea that anyone who voted for Obama voted for Trump, or if it was just a hugely depressed dem turnout while Republicans would not be dissuaded from voting against a D.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Silly question but did the Clinton's make much of an effort to paint Trump as a rich rear end in a top hat during the campaign? I remember hearing a lot about how he was a racist and a sexist but little to nothing about him being a rich kid that had everything handed to him, that he treated his employees like garbage, etc. Which is basically how the Obama campaign painted Romney in 2012 and that worked like a charm, all I could remember people talking about was how much of a rich rear end in a top hat Romney was. I'm wondering if maybe Hillary wasn't interested in attacking Trump on his wealth or maybe she was interested but focus groups told her it'd be a bad idea because she was wealthy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
ThndrShk2k posted:Good advice hot take but if Bill ran instead of Hillary he probably would have won
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Silly question but did the Clinton's make much of an effort to paint Trump as a rich rear end in a top hat during the campaign? I remember hearing a lot about how he was a racist and a sexist but little to nothing about him being a rich kid that had everything handed to him, that he treated his employees like garbage, etc. Which is basically how the Obama campaign painted Romney in 2012 and that worked like a charm, all I could remember people talking about was how much of a rich rear end in a top hat Romney was. The Hillary campaign was very passive and had a run down the clock mentality. They thought given his history of gaffes that it would sink him, instead of making him seem more authentic to GOP and independent voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Silly question but did the Clinton's make much of an effort to paint Trump as a rich rear end in a top hat during the campaign? I remember hearing a lot about how he was a racist and a sexist but little to nothing about him being a rich kid that had everything handed to him, that he treated his employees like garbage, etc. Which is basically how the Obama campaign painted Romney in 2012 and that worked like a charm, all I could remember people talking about was how much of a rich rear end in a top hat Romney was. the people funding and running her campaign were comprised of trumps who think they arent racist or sexist
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Silly question but did the Clinton's make much of an effort to paint Trump as a rich rear end in a top hat during the campaign? I remember hearing a lot about how he was a racist and a sexist but little to nothing about him being a rich kid that had everything handed to him, that he treated his employees like garbage, etc. Which is basically how the Obama campaign painted Romney in 2012 and that worked like a charm, all I could remember people talking about was how much of a rich rear end in a top hat Romney was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:constantly be changing, never set an actual platform, if you ever run someone with a similar view twice just loving kill yourself. What? Things take more than 4 years to happen? gently caress off shill!!! Do "things" take 24 years to happen? How long until the wisdom of the third way is finally revealed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:So why were all these people who were 100% very devoted to Obama's core platform suddenly willing to vote for the guy who was the literal opposite then? The only reason you think that is because you think your viewpoints are the only ones that matter, and that is why we have lost this election; because you are representative of an overwhelming portion of the left. I also don't think we should let the bigotry go but it's ridiculous to assert that was the only or even main reason Trump won, sorry. Mirthless has issued a correction as of 01:51 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Mark Blyth was right that Trumpism is not a unique US political phenomena and it's pretty much connected to how the billionaire class have been wreaking havoc on a global level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Like the ~ECONOMIC ANXIETY~ meme is so emblematic of how loving awful we were to the working class in this election so please stop peddling that poo poo Tatum it is really old at this point. Learn some lessons from this idk what else to say 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
I just realized that Donald Trump may have more personal debt than anyone in the United States. So here's the theory: Donald Trump got himself elected so he could fight for inflation to ease his personal debt burden.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:The only reason you think that is because you think your viewpoints are the only ones that matter, and that is why we have lost this election; because you are representative of an overwhelming portion of the left. I genuinely can't tell if this is a funny joke post or an accidentally funny sincere post, tbh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:So why were all these people who were 100% very devoted to Obama's core platform suddenly willing to vote for the guy who was the literal opposite then? As we keep telling you. Obama won these people over because he promised "hope" and "change". He promised them jobs and an increase of quality in their lives. Trump won these people over by promising to "make America Great Again" as he campaigned on bringing back their lost industry and dropping disastrous trade deals. It's not that difficult to connect. speng31b posted:To be clear here, anti-immigration sentiment and racial hatred can absolutely be a danger here - if the Republicans are allowed to win elections using them as bogeyman because an effective alternative isn't presented, they'll get worse. And they absolutely do exist now, and they absolutely were at least an element in play this election. We have to recognize that along with everything else that was in play. But that was NOT the main thing that had these counties switch teams this time around. The Republican party has ALWAYS been anti-immigration and for racial hatred. Trump just turned it up. Again the reason why these people switched were due to promised economic change. The Democrats can campaign for social and racial justice AS WELL as economic populism and still win these people over handily. Bass Bottles posted:The idea that people can't be racist because they voted for Obama is the "Some of my best friends are black!" of politics. Racism isn't a binary on/off thing, it's a whole spectrum. This is why people switch parties. Because they don't get the results they want or the rhetoric. Hillary didn't campaign on "hope" and "change". She campaigned on what is already entrenched. The Democrats have made zero effort in an attempt to curtail the power they received in 2008 and paid heavily for it. It isn't the fact that the Democrats didn't get the results they promised, but the fact that they sat on their laurels that make it so difficult to be sympathetic with them when the house of cards fell. Mirthless posted:The only reason you think that is because you think your viewpoints are the only ones that matter, and that is why we have lost this election; because you are representative of an overwhelming portion of the left. In what way? Media and pundit wise I'd agree. But population wise I beg to differ. punk rebel ecks has issued a correction as of 02:04 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
etalian posted:Mark Blyth was right that Trumpism is not a unique US political phenomena and it's pretty much connected to how the billionaire class have been wreaking havoc on a global level. yeah this His nov 9 talk is really good
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:I also don't think we should let the bigotry go but it's ridiculous to assert that was the only or even main reason Trump won, sorry. Everyone understands that there are a variety of factors here - noone wants to drop economic issues from the platform. We just also realize that it's not such a far cry from "focusing on economics" to embracing the sort of racist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic bullshit that the Republicans focus on. One way to "focus on economics" is to tell everyone we're shutting down immigration and either explicitly or implicitly punishing immigrants or anyone else we can "otherize" is a bogeyman for taking American jobs. It's loving scary to think about the takeaway from this election being that Democrats need to embrace THAT kind of economic populism, because for a certain brand of centrist Democrat it's absolutely possible that they might think this is a devil's bargain worth making - and then a whole lot of people are going to be disenfranchised, left with no party that cares about them and not (yet) in a demographic position to build their own. speng31b has issued a correction as of 02:06 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
bump_fn posted:yeah this Tatum and those responding to him are acting out, in real time, the divisiveness of Democratic talking points. Why can't you guys just be like the Republicans and decide who you all want to gently caress, then gently caress them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
speng31b posted:Everyone understands that there are a variety of factors here - noone wants to drop economic issues from the platform. We just also realize that it's not such a far cry from "focusing on economics" to embracing the sort of racist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic bullshit that the Republicans are will focus on. One way to "focus on economics" is to tell everyone we're shutting down immigration and either explicitly or implicitly punishing immigrants or anyone else we can "otherize" is a bogeyman for taking American jobs. Literally NOONE is saying this. Nobody. I haven't heard anyone in this thread say this at all what so ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
fortunately Bernie has explicitly said that we can be pro workers and anti xenophobia
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
bump_fn posted:yeah this It's also makes sense listening to Mark Blyth given how all his recent predictions such as Brexit and Trump winning came true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:As we keep telling you. Obama won these people over because he promised "hope" and "change". He promised them jobs and an increase of quality in their lives. Trump won these people over by promising to "make America Great Again" as he campaigned on bringing back their lost industry and dropping disastrous trade deals. It's not that difficult to connect. And when it gets completely and totally ignored yet a loving gain because it's an answer that tries to be informed and relevant, and isn't just "SO MUCH WINNING", then loving what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
I grew up in rural texas and I see those people wondering when trump is going to reopen the factory in the town I used to live in a lot of them are good decent idiots who didnt vote for trump because he did a racism, they voted for him because they are idiots who think trump will get them jobs
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:05
|
|
