|
MARTIN O' MALLEY DOT COM
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:how do you loving define this though? Like, for me and many other moments like this I do not even know what to say to this. You literally do not understand what a message of hope even is. Forget the message part, I genuinely think you do not understand what hope is, even though I expressly described it to you exactly what you'd have to find to demonstrate it. You offered a link where her only messages were understanding and obligation - one positive, one needed, neither of which are hope! I feel like I'm talking to a goddamn algorithm at this point, and that I've reached the limits of your programming.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Okay, here, I'm going to make it as absolutely simple for you as possible. Give me three examples where Hillary Clinton expressly states, with no equivocation, that the future for the target audience will be better than what they have right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
I actually really hope there is a lesson learned that good policy needs to be understandable for it to be good policy. Like Obamacare has certainly helped a lot of people but I think it has certainly hurt his presidency by being so loving dense that many people are just reflexively against it. As opposed to something straightfoward like 'hey anyone can now sign up for Medicare if you want', which is at least partially why people are drawn to Sanders so much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I do not even know what to say to this. do you genuinely not know how someone running to be president of the loving country allying herself with a movement of people who lost their family to functionally legally protected racial violence and promising to fight for them and all is a hopeful message for people who see other leaders saying 'eh maybe that kid deserved it huh?' and compared to mr LAW AND ORDER BLUE LIVES MATTER?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:do you genuinely not know how someone running to be president of the loving country allying herself with a movement of people who lost their family to functionally legally protected racial violence and promising to fight for them and all is a hopeful message for people who see other leaders saying 'eh maybe that kid deserved it huh?' and compared to mr LAW AND ORDER BLUE LIVES MATTER? "I have allied with you" and "I understand what you're going through" are not "things will be better." "This shouldn't happen" isn't "this won't happen again."
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:"I have allied with you" and "I understand what you're going through" are not "things will be better." "This shouldn't happen" isn't "this won't happen again." Oh thank god, other people see it too. I was honestly worrying for a moment that maybe it really was me. But no, it's obviously him. Tatum, that someone could find that article hopeful is absolutely irrelevant to what I'm asking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Okay, here, I'm going to make it as absolutely simple for you as possible. so what you want three clips of her stump speeches? You literally just want poo poo like https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...-stiffing-them/ quote:And so we’re going to stand up for small business and help create more of them to create more good jobs here in Iowa and across America. We are also going to make the economy fairer. How are we going to do that? We’re going to raise the national minimum wage so it’s no longer a starvation wage. We are also going to do what Tom Harkin has stood for his entire life – we’re going to make sure people with disabilities have jobs and opportunities in this economy. And we’re going to make sure that women finally get equal pay for the work we do. or does her invoking her opponent mean this never happened, because if that's the standard Trump sure as poo poo can't make a speech without grumbling about how 'crooked hillary' and Obama and the government as a whole wants to hurt Americans and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
GOOD TIMES ON METH posted:I actually really hope there is a lesson learned that good policy needs to be understandable for it to be good policy. Like Obamacare has certainly helped a lot of people but I think it has certainly hurt his presidency by being so loving dense that many people are just reflexively against it. As opposed to something straightfoward like 'hey anyone can now sign up for Medicare if you want', which is at least partially why people are drawn to Sanders so much. The obsession the center left has with means testing and complicated hoops to jump through are all super depressing and annoying. The residual model of social services they push is the same drat model the conservatives do, just with easier hoops. gently caress hoops! Don't make people jump through poo poo! We've managed to let the right turn entitlements, you know, the word that means "poo poo you goddamn deserve," into a bad word. gently caress that! People deserve these things! It's written in our goddamn founding document that as people, we deserve things!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
For whatever you consider Hillary's strengths to be, it's hard for me to count being inspirational or particularly charismatic among them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
She probably could've sold 'Female Strongman'
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:"I have allied with you" and "I understand what you're going through" are not "things will be better." "This shouldn't happen" isn't "this won't happen again." I mean, do you genuinely believe she never said that her agenda would be to keep that poo poo from happening?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Yeah, it's true. Hillary's message, at it's best, was more one of "things are actually going pretty well, let's not lose the progress we've made, and here's how I will keep that progress going". Which is great if you accept the central premise (that things are actually going pretty well). While I would argue that it offers hope of a sort, it doesn't (and didn't) offer much of anything to people for whom things aren't going well at all, and that was a big problem. Hell, just look at how any discussion of the ACA almost immediately devolved into a war between 'it's better than things used to be/I can actually get insurance now' and 'I CAN'T AFFORD MY USELESS HIGH-DEDUCTIBLE INSURANCE WHICH IS ALL I CAN GET HOW THE gently caress IS THIS BETTER', with no real answers aside from complicated proposals that may never see the light of day forthcoming for the latter group. The thing I think GlyphGryph is missing (and I mostly agree with their assessment otherwise) is that our future message can't just be one of HERE IS HOW I WILL FIX THINGS FOR YOU, it needs to include a solid answer to what I'm sure will be the big question of 2020 (and possibly even 2018): "Why should I believe you now, when you completely ignored my problems in 2016?" I think most of Trump's promises (aside from the ones about gently caress Muslims and gently caress Mexicans) will be shown as empty by that point, but that doesn't mean people in the Midwest will start believing that the 'coastal elite' Democrats'suddenly care about them now, and it's gonna take more than "those were the Neoliberals, we're the Progressives, we're completely different, trust us" to win them over no matter what message we give them. The other thing is that we need to absolutely acknowledge that, while Clinton's incompetence and hubris lost this election, that there were other things happening too that are just as important to address. We can't keep shouting down reports of voter suppression or (sigh I know) Russian interference or the media being useless or polling being useless with YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO ABSOLVE CLINTON YOU NEOLIBERAL CULTIST YOU. No. We're not. She hosed up. Other bad poo poo happened too, and those other things are problems we can't ignore any more than we can ignore the mistakes Clinton made, and that might mean we have to do two things, or even three.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Okay, here, I'm going to make it as absolutely simple for you as possible. Do the paid speeches where she told Wall Street that they are the smartest people in the room and should regulate themselves count?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
iospace posted:https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/801080921181081600 Policy was covered though? Krugman is a dummy who thinks that because there was a platform and policy statement written on a website somewhere that obligated people to take it seriously. But it doesn't take a dedicated Breitbart reader to think "hmmm, Hillary has been nebulous throughout her public career, she doesn't really stand for anything, and even if we treat her like Obama we have 8 years of realizing that campaign promises mean nothing." If you want policy covered, you have to believe in your policy, present your policy as the reason you're running, and speak in a way that people can connect with it. I don't think he was perfect at it, but Bernie did that. Trump's policies were awful, but he did it. People talked about their policies. Hillary didn't. She spent the primaries telling people to lower their expectations and having side conversations with donors- and suddenly people were supposed to take positions on her webpage seriously? Also I'm going to guess 'cover' to Krugman means having him and a bunch of other piss-smelling dorks on tv shows to try to make government accounting sound cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
hillary was about as good at campaigning as obama is at governing something tells me it might not be vice versa though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Fiction posted:hillary was about as good at campaigning as obama is at governing i'm sure she would have very efficiently continued the steady hollowing out of the middle class to further pad the accounts of the big money donors whose support allowed her to run at all
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:so what you want three clips of her stump speeches? You literally just want poo poo like You finally did it! The fact that it took you this long to manage speaks volumes, of course, and the fact that you include and then proceed to complain about the irrelevant second paragraph says quite a bit as well. I mean, as far as messages of hope go that's still some weak rear end poo poo for reasons that should be obvious to most people but to which I am sure you are completely oblivious, and only one is generally applicable to the audience we were talking about, but you know what, I'll give it to you. Good job. You finally did it. Now, do you honestly believe that was a central message of her campaign, one she put a lot of working into getting out in front of people and really placed front and center, and that the only reason people didn't think of it a central message was due to the media? Tatum Girlparts posted:I mean, do you genuinely believe she never said that her agenda would be to keep that poo poo from happening? I genuinely believe it's possible she never said she would keep that poo poo from happening, yes. I believe it's even more likely she failed to communicate it in hopeful terms if she did. I can guarantee that you failed to provide an example of it. docbeard posted:The thing I think GlyphGryph is missing (and I mostly agree with their assessment otherwise) is that our future message can't just be one of HERE IS HOW I WILL FIX THINGS FOR YOU, it needs to include a solid answer to what I'm sure will be the big question of 2020 (and possibly even 2018): "Why should I believe you now, when you completely ignored my problems in 2016?" I think most of Trump's promises (aside from the ones about gently caress Muslims and gently caress Mexicans) will be shown as empty by that point, but that doesn't mean people in the Midwest will start believing that the 'coastal elite' Democrats'suddenly care about them now, and it's gonna take more than "those were the Neoliberals, we're the Progressives, we're completely different, trust us" to win them over no matter what message we give them. That's actually what I've been saying, or at least trying to. You have to provide an alternative message of hope to have a fighting chance, but if it's one that is stronger because it's based in reality, because it's personal, because you can totally do it, that's how you actually win that fight, obviously. Trumps proposals were empty, it should have been easy to pass them, and it never felt like Hillary tried. GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 19:59 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Do the paid speeches where she told Wall Street that they are the smartest people in the room and should regulate themselves count? The leaked speeches do in fact reveal several messages of hope, but wrong audience so no, not for this situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Any Democrats that act like we can just do what we've done during the Obama years again is sticking their loving head in the sand. The Democratic Party suffered a defeat at every level of government. Yes, the presidential race is probably winnable without changing much. But we need to win state legislatures, governor's seats, and Congress. Or else we get government like 2010-2016, aka government that can't do jack poo poo. And if it does accomplish something, it will be wiped away as soon as the Republicans get back in power (which they will). Yes, turn out the base to vote. If we can do that, we can go a long way to fixing stuff. But you can't get people out to vote if you don't do anything for them while you're in power. And you can't accomplish things unless you win in areas that the Democrats haven't been winning in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
So why should anyone believe our message of hope?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
docbeard posted:So why should anyone believe our message of hope? Now THIS is a good question, and actually ties very well into what I was saying a few pages back: The best way to undermine an opponents message of hope isn't with fact checking and debunking specifics, but undermining their credibility. This question is that - an attack on the Democrat's credibility, but one that applies just as well to the other side and to which the Democrats have significantly stronger responded. You talk about the messages of hope you have offered people in the past. For example: You promised gay people a better life, where they could get married to the person they loved, and you loving delivered it. They had hope, and that hope was realized. You promised those who smoked harmless drugs that they would be able to feel safe in their homes, that they would no longer have to fear that their lives would be stripped away for partaking, (and you also promised everyone else that we could make a ton of money off said people) and in the states where you had the power to do it, you did it! Life is better for many people in those states now - you realized those hopes. We promised that those with existing medical conditions could still rely on insurance and would no longer have to bankrupt their families and friends just to survive, and they can. We promised them hope, and we delivered. And you can do the same for the hopes and dreams of your target audience, just like you did for them. I'm sure you can come up with more examples. (We'll ignore the fact that both of these incredible accomplishments were actually implemented despite overt resistance from Democrats that made them way less good than they could have been) GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 20:09 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
hillary had no policy soundbites that were good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You talk about the messages of hope you have offered people in the past. For example: You promised gay people a better life, where they could get married to the person they loved, and you loving delivered it. They had hope, and that hope was realized. And you can do the same for the hopes and dreams of your target audience, just like you did for them. Before Tatum gets their underwear in a tizzy, please note that the people who are going to be pissed and horrified that you acknowledged gay people as people aren't the people you're trying to inspire. Those people wouldn't vote for a Democrat even if the election was Jesus Christ-D and Satan-R and you know it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
all the focus groups and all the algorithms couldn't put a Clinton soundbite together again
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:Before Tatum gets their underwear in a tizzy, please note that the people who are going to be pissed and horrified that you acknowledged gay people as people aren't the people you're trying to inspire. Even among the people who don't particularly like gay people you'd have a number who would readily agree they certainly got what they wanted on the marriage front. That you have credibility in general, even if they disagree with that goal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
the only catchy clinton sound bites I can think of are the corny catchphrases she had and "check my website *bzzt*" do better than that next time
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
So whenever I google for Keith Ellison these days it's a litany of right wing rags commenting about how he's a secret Hamas supporter or something equally spurious. I'd like to take this as evidence that he's the right choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:the only catchy clinton sound bites I can think of are the corny catchphrases she had and "check my website *bzzt*" Just chillin' in Cedar Rapids
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
"Trump said he would help you but his proposals are just ways to get his rich oligarch friends richer. I understand that you're hurting and actually want to help you, not some billionaire who makes money from your suffering"
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:"check my website *bzzt*" Hillary Clinton, sentient REST endpoint
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
bump_fn posted:"Trump said he would help you but his proposals are just ways to get his rich oligarch friends richer. I understand that you're hurting and actually want to help you, not some billionaire who makes money from your suffering" -proceeds to get elected -republicans block everything they can and then blame you for things not getting better -republicans elected to replace you
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Gringostar posted:-proceeds to get elected 10,000 years of liberal darkness in California and rich people won't let us build houses and we can't stop cops from shooting black people as much as they want Maybe if the Democrats did something where they have power they could convince people they're capable of doing anything but shoving their own heads way up their asses
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Gringostar posted:-proceeds to get elected Obama / dems never campaigned screaming "these assholes are obstructing us because they don't want to help you" for reasons that escape me Also this is why grasssroots is more important than presidency
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Lemming posted:10,000 years of liberal darkness in California and rich people won't let us build houses and we can't stop cops from shooting black people as much as they want Yeah it's worth pointing out that only one of my examples of Leftist success could actually be attributed to the Democrats, and that they're also the ones responsible for how poo poo it ended up being as a solution. I tried really hard to think of a time in the last several decades where the Democrats actually gave people hope and then followed through on it when they had the power and it was actually really hard, they mostly just seem to... resist cultural changes less strongly?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
bump_fn posted:Obama / dems never campaigned screaming "these assholes are obstructing us because they don't want to help you" for reasons that escape me I don't think that poster actually read any of the thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Yeah it's worth pointing out that only one of my examples of Leftist success could actually be attributed to the Democrats, and that they're also the ones responsible for how poo poo it ended up being as a solution. Democrats: We Have No Proven Track Record Of Success, Ever! Why Aren't You More Excited To Vote For Us???
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Yeah it's worth pointing out that only one of my examples of Leftist success could actually be attributed to the Democrats, and that they're also the ones responsible for how poo poo it ended up being as a solution. i know obama campaigned on the auto bailouts in 2012 but i don't know if that actually lastingly helped
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Lemming posted:10,000 years of liberal darkness in California and rich people won't let us build houses and we can't stop cops from shooting black people as much as they want i don't disagree with you on the second point and on the first point it's either institutionalized racism in police forces that aren't confined to only CA but instead a systemic problem or prop 13 which if you wanted to do poo poo about that the state would swing republican so fast it would make your head spin i say this as someone that wants prop 13 to get reformed
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
Lemming posted:Democrats: We Have No Proven Track Record Of Success, Ever! Why Aren't You More Excited To Vote For Us??? On the other hand, the Republicans have totally come back after the Bush presidency. Bush's years aren't remembered for anything other than 9/11 and a series of terrible gently caress ups.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 21:00
|
|