|
KaptainKrunk posted:You don't. You say "we need to recalibrate our policies, but these fucksticks on the other side of the aisle are in our way." Which is 100% true. Unfortunately the message is badly delivered because the Dems lack any sort of spine or fighting spirit. They think they've elevated themselves above the vulgar blood sport that is politics. But they haven't; they just suck rear end at it. In politics, you need to destroy your enemies, employing hyperbolic rhetoric if necessary.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
i liked obama's bits about like 'progress is on the ballot! justice is on the ballot!" and stuff like that. its not the kind of thing that would sound good from hrc for any number of reasons but i liked it
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:well yeah, but the good ones don't sound like they were i think it's also partially expectation, if you expect the candidate to be run by committee there's going to be confirmation bias on anything she says although that becomes a fault on her part
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
any person that takes 10 goddamn hours to deliver a concession speech and then ends it with "scripture tells us" should have their entire family run out of town on a rail
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
hillary was just terrible and was never going to win no matter what she did. a lot of people really really really really don't like her (whether justified or not) and when you don't really like any of the candidates you're more likely to just stay home rather than hold your nose and wait in line to vote for the "lesser evil". now if there was a democratic candidate with higher favorability ratings and a solid, consistent economy-focused message that didn't come off as dishonest, hypocritical or condescending then maybe the Dems could have done better but... there just.... wasn't.... anyone.... like that. oh well! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
one of the biggest issues facing democrats now is that it's a machine damaged beyond repair that can be remade into something so much better and efficient, except there's nobody good to use it on in 2020
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
I will run for president.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:This is the exact opposite of Obama, of just pushing through pure partisanship and demonizing everyone who opposes you. Obama loving campaigned on being a uniter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:one of the biggest issues facing democrats now is that it's a machine damaged beyond repair that can be remade into something so much better and efficient, except there's nobody good to use it on in 2020 Thanks Clintons!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Segmentation Fault posted:Make America Great Again? Oh for fucks.... that was literally never used once. It was a rumor that got floated on Twitter, but somehow everyone here is loving convinced she used it as a catchphrase!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:Thanks Clintons! yea gently caress the clintons for systematically murdering literally everyone in the party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Are you seriously going to try and claim that Hillary was actively oblivious to any economic problems being faced by people in the rust belt, and not a single one of her plans and policies had anything to do with helping these towns? Or is this just the return of "Well she didn't really MEAN it" fallacy? Yes. She cannot relate to people outside of her social circle. She can't even imagine that poor people exist. She did her best throughout her general campaign to ignore them. She saw them as votes that she didn't really need and nothing more. Very similar to her thoughts on the minority vote, except that she knew she needed them, that's why she walked back her "All Lives Matter" answer, but then immediately ignored the issues of BLM. Her most important issue was getting herself to the white house and paying off her political debt, everything else was in service to those goals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Oh for fucks.... that was literally never used once. It was a rumor that got floated on Twitter, but somehow everyone here is loving convinced she used it as a catchphrase!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
speng31b posted:You're also forgetting to note the history of the matter, where - as another poster pointed out above - when the Democrats claim to run on both economic and social issues, the latter tends to get dropped at every turn, and the same people suffer for it over and over again. This isn't speculative, it's happened again and again, and will continue to happen unless we take stands against it at every turn. It's preventative because it's happened before and pretty much everyone knows it's going to happen again if we let it. We're not attacking or strawmanning YOU for suggesting it, just pointing out that the Democratic party - if left to its own devices, if not pushed kicking and screaming towards social progress - will leave it in a ditch for dead. This is not true in at all. When Democrats campaigned on both, both saw stunning success. See "Great Society" and the 1960s and 1970s. This is a myth perpetrated by neoliberal establishment Democrats who have turned their backs on minorities more than any other flavor of the party. The American Left hasn't had a seat in the Democratic Party since then and thus minority rights have been squandered left and right. History has consistently shown that you can be both economically progressive and social. They often tie hand in hand as a matter of fact. This notion that you can be one or the other is total bullshit and is extremely dangerous thinking that has led to the parties demise. Tatum Girlparts posted:As for 'just do what obama did', it's not at all that simple. Obama had an insane coalition behind him, do you think there's ANY party with just a roster of Obama's ready to deploy every 8 years? A combo of being a serious black candidate and being young and charismatic as gently caress as well as a platform that was pretty robust on both economic and social issues was what got him a lot of areas. You can do some of those easy, most importantly the platform issues, but no we'll probably never be able to 'just do what Obama did' 100% This again makes no sense. What does "coalition" at large have anything to do with it? We are specifically focused on Obama's working class whites coalition. Hillary lost the coalition of the white working class in these areas. This is due to her not being inline with Obama's rhetoric on jobs and the economy. Therefore the white working class left. This isn't difficult to understand. punk rebel ecks has issued a correction as of 02:52 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Yes. She cannot relate to people outside of her social circle. She can't even imagine that poor people exist. She did her best throughout her general campaign to ignore them. She saw them as votes that she didn't really need and nothing more. Very similar to her thoughts on the minority vote, except that she knew she needed them, that's why she walked back her "All Lives Matter" answer, but then immediately ignored the issues of BLM. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:one of the biggest issues facing democrats now is that it's a machine damaged beyond repair that can be remade into something so much better and efficient, except there's nobody good to use it on in 2020 I still say Duckworth could. Jaminjami posted:it's not a either or thing You cannot make any attempt to be a unifier if you spend your time saying "gently caress those guys, those guys are assholes, everything is all their fault", you come off as just as stupid and insincere as Trump sounds now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:i think it's also partially expectation, if you expect the candidate to be run by committee there's going to be confirmation bias on anything she says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxfMUEf9otQ
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:This is not true in at all. When Democrats campaigned on both, both saw stunning success. See "Great Society" and the 1960s and 1970s. This is a myth perpetrated by neoliberal establishment Democrats who have turned their backs on minorities more than any other flavor of the party. The American Left hasn't had a seat in the Democratic Party since then and thus minority rights have been squandered left and right. Yes, and those neoliberals are the exact problem I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:53
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Oh for fucks.... that was literally never used once. It was a rumor that got floated on Twitter, but somehow everyone here is loving convinced she used it as a catchphrase! 
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
speng31b posted:Yes, and those neoliberals are the exact problem I'm talking about. This doesn't make sense because neoliberals literally cannot be economically left wing. Therefore the argument of you can't campaign both on economically left wing principles and racial/social principles goes out the window.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Hey look, a bunch of Twitter posts floating a rumor. Now, anyone have anything with Hillary saying the words Dangerous Donald? No? Thought not. punk rebel ecks posted:This is not true in at all. When Democrats campaigned on both, both saw stunning success. See "Great Society" and the 1960s and 1970s. This is a myth perpetrated by neoliberal establishment Democrats who have turned their backs on minorities more than any other flavor of the party. The American Left hasn't had a seat in the Democratic Party since then and thus minority rights have been squandered left and right. History has consistently shown that you can be both economically progressive and social. They often tie hand in hand as a matter of fact. This notion that you can be one or the other is total bullshit and is extremely dangerous thinking that has led to the parties demise. Oh yeah, remember when all those working class whites came running into the Dems due to caring way more about economic issues than social ones following 1964? And who can forget that goddamn height of dem power from 1968 to 76? Is there any problem you won't blame on those nebulous democratic elite who seem to hate every single person they represent and exist only to stop the plucky leftists, who would be undefeatable if only those dastardly party elites weren't easily squashing them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Oh yeah, remember when all those working class whites came running into the Dems due to caring way more about economic issues than social ones following 1964? And who can forget that goddamn height of dem power from 1968 to 76? EDIT - Furthermore, this makes zero sense. Obama had blocks switch from Republican to Democrat despite Obama strongly being for more racial and social equality. In contrast, the white working class of yesteryears, specifically those in the South, were consistently Democrat for years but once the party presented candidates who were for more racial and social equality they left the party. It's the exact opposite. This makes your argument completely moot. Fulchrum posted:Is there any problem you won't blame on those nebulous democratic elite who seem to hate every single person they represent and exist only to stop the plucky leftists, who would be undefeatable if only those dastardly party elites weren't easily squashing them? punk rebel ecks has issued a correction as of 03:18 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:
Why are you ignoring the plight of minorities?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Opiod addiction focus and rehabilitation to affect poverty cycles, and heavily subsidizing green energy factories in those same towns to manufacture lithium batteries, solar panels, windmills, and so on. maybe she should have tried telling anybody about these policies because it's the first i've heard of them
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
resar posted:Why are you ignoring the plight of minorities? This obviously leads to another GIGANTIC hole in their argument. If minority rights really are THAT damaging, they'll never attempt to do anything that moves the mark. Which makes complete sense as things like busing and defacto/dejur desegregation have gone out the window for the party. Not to mention them rolling around for racist crime policies and incarceration rates. In reality the party fights for neither, and uses this bullshit "you can pick one or the other" to ignore the economic plight while still dangling a bone to minority voters. Which even they are gradually getting tired of as even some of them have turned toward Trump. punk rebel ecks has issued a correction as of 03:09 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
fulchrum for dnc chair imo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
if you were a trump elector would you go faithless? i can't see it doing any good but at the same time gently caress having anything to do with his election
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:maybe she should have tried telling anybody about these policies because it's the first i've heard of them Of course she told people about them, just never in TV ads or through celebrity surrogates or at the tiny rallies she had sometimes or any of the obvious trivial political strategies a layman like you could understand. She did it through intangible messages, like the psychic waves of pure benevolence you could feel radiating through you when you clicked through pictures of her on her campaign's website. Y'know, otherwise known as "her campaign". DUH. God it's like you're a newborn baby who has no idea how political campaigns really work. It's really hard for a seasoned politico like myself to even be in a room with you. Please try to keep up 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:maybe she should have tried telling anybody about these policies because it's the first i've heard of them It's amazing that the media refusing to loving cover her goddamn speeches or her policies at all is still completely her fault. I guess she just needed to try and make a multi-part plan to fix half the country sexier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
the DNC never used Dangerous Donald, now why aren't you guys talking about all of these political policies Hillary Clinton has clearly brought up throughout her campaign
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:It's amazing that the media refusing to loving cover her goddamn speeches or her policies at all is still completely her fault. I guess she just needed to try and make a multi-part plan to fix half the country sexier. worked for the other guy
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:It's amazing that the media refusing to loving cover her goddamn speeches or her policies at all is still completely her fault. I guess she just needed to try and make a multi-part plan to fix half the country sexier. If even savvy political nerds never heard of these policies, it is a clear instance that she sucked at communication period.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Out of left field hot take here: If Hillary would have owned her persona of "establishment bitch" she could have probably done better then pretending to be a nice old grandma. America very obviously doesn't give a poo poo about being nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:It's amazing that the media refusing to loving cover her goddamn speeches or her policies at all is still completely her fault. I guess she just needed to try and make a multi-part plan to fix half the country sexier. As far as I can tell the media didn't cover anyone's speeches They cover speeches when there's a ridiculous gaffe in them or something else noteworthy, I don't know why you're blaming that dastardly old MSM for not running headlines reading "HILLARY CLINTON GIVES SPEECH"
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
loquacius posted:As far as I can tell the media didn't cover anyone's speeches did you follow the election man?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Fulchrum when someone who devoted to time actually trying to get hillary elected will not defend a point maybe it isn't worth defending.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
blamegame posted:did you follow the election man? Please give me an example of a prominent article in a major publication covering a candidate's policy speech for a reason other than that they had hosed up or said something otherwise unexpected
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
loquacius posted:Please give me an example of a prominent article in a major publication covering a candidate's policy speech for a reason other than that they had hosed up or said something otherwise unexpected wow ok, so by media you mean print media (?? lol) and by speech you mean policy speech. and even still you're so wrong it's like, you obviously didn't follow the election at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
Maybe it was a bad idea to run a candidate that had 30 years of scandals (real or not) against her. Clinton herself probably increased republican turnout.Hell the RNC pretty much was Hillary's show trial.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:25
|
|