|
blamegame posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkUr99epJh8 He's really doubling down huh? Vox Nihili posted:Trump received more votes than Romney. There were a wave of lovely articles making wild claims about votes and turnout. Most of the authors forgot that absentee ballots are still being counted because they are incompetent hacks. There are ten million more eligible voters this year than in 2012. Trump had lower turnout than Romney.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
Schnorkles posted:npr is dumb neoliberal public radio
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
In Kaine's defense, I was glad Hillary picked him because had Hillary got elected, it would've gave progressives a chance to deny the VP a nomination coronation in 2024. I couldn't imagine the same thing happening with Booker or Castro. And Kaine, as an older face of the party's old guard, offends me way less than the fresh faces of the old guard. Of course, that all doesn't matter anymore. I doubt Kaine's still next in line now that Hillary blew it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
devtesla posted:I'm all in for Keith Ellison and what convinced me was this perfect tweet. devtesla posted:His apology was incredibly stupid too Going way back to quote this but has anyone else noticed the surge in editorials blaming identity politics and political correctness for Clinton's loss? All these pundits think you can't have social liberalism and economic populism at the same time. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html?_r=0
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Sebadoh Gigante posted:Going way back to quote this but has anyone else noticed the surge in editorials blaming identity politics and political correctness for Clinton's loss? All these pundits think you can't have social liberalism and economic populism at the same time. it sucks. i dont know what to do about it. it's like we don't have the language that can connect w/people about how this stuff is interrelated and complementary. for all the 'lol intersectionality' it was at least a way of starting to talk about it, even if it was in a kind of alienating, academic elitist way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
devtesla posted:I'm all in for Keith Ellison and what convinced me was this perfect tweet. this tweet is beautiful in its simple, zen-like stupidity
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
I didn't know Keith was part of the Obama coalition
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
I also think there's a lot of different stuff people mean when they talk about identity in politics and identity politics. I think the more real problem is identity politics as practiced by establishment dems which seems to be more about "representation" that only benefits the already priveleged, and making those who identify a certain way feel obligated to support politicians because of it even though those politicians promise nothing in return but get pissed if you "betray them", and justifying ignoring the diversity within identity groups and treating them as a monolith which is pretty lovely. I dont think the way it is practiced right now by the dems in general is very good for actual social justice, and hopefully whoever is up next adopts a better way to do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I also think there's a lot of different stuff people mean when they talk about identity in politics and identity politics. I agree. Too many neo-liberals have no interest in actual social justice, they just want a more diverse oligarchy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Sebadoh Gigante posted:Going way back to quote this but has anyone else noticed the surge in editorials blaming identity politics and political correctness for Clinton's loss? All these pundits think you can't have social liberalism and economic populism at the same time. It's incredibly stupid and completely terrifying. Obama won on both, why the gently caress would we not try this again?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
devtesla posted:It's incredibly stupid and completely terrifying. Obama won on both, why the gently caress would we not try this again? because whitelash isn't limited to the republicans
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
blaming political correctness or identity politics is wrong. the issue is not that the democrats focused on them, its that they didnt focus on economics at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:blaming political correctness or identity politics is wrong. the issue is not that the democrats focused on them, its that they didnt focus on economics at all. and the reason they are pretending that social justice and economic justice are incompatible is because it gives them a convenient excuse for not being economically left at all
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
social justice (the basics like "maybe black people can be programmers too", not stuff like "maybe we should not let police murder black people at will") is in with corporate america, but economic justice isn't, which is why hillary's campaign which catered to corporate america ignored economic justice like the plague
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/u52Oz-54VYw
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 10:26
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:blaming political correctness or identity politics is wrong. the issue is not that the democrats focused on them, its that they didnt focus on economics at all. They also didnt use them well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Jon Stewart 2020? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Cory Booker is pretty good IMO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Though he spits a lot when he speaks, at least when I saw him in '08.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
kenner116 posted:Cory Booker is pretty good IMO. [in Borat voice] NOT!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
kenner116 posted:Cory Booker is pretty good IMO. he needs to stay in the senate op
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Cory Booker can give a good speech and is very personable. That's literally all you need to win elections today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:blaming political correctness or identity politics is wrong. the issue is not that the democrats focused on them, its that they didnt focus on economics at all. it's not so much that they didn't focus on economics - they did. it's that they didn't focus on economics framed toward specific segments of the population that tilted the electoral college. i think there's also some sort of myth here that democrats never focus on economics arguments and that's why they lose. in 2014, the entire dem message was economics! they basically ran on raising the minimum wage and college affordability but no one gave a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:it's not so much that they didn't focus on economics - they did. it's that they didn't focus on economics framed toward specific segments of the population that tilted the electoral college. At least n the current cycle, they had a plan - a very good, progressive plan - but refused to even try to advertise it. All of Clinton's ads were pointing out how lovely Trump is. Everyone knows Trump is a lovely person. Few people knew how that would negatively affect them personally, and they didn't even try to explain that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
zegermans posted:At least n the current cycle, they had a plan - a very good, progressive plan - but refused to even try to advertise it. All of Clinton's ads were pointing out how lovely Trump is. Everyone knows Trump is a lovely person. Few people knew how that would negatively affect them personally, and they didn't even try to explain that. they went back and forth on this, but yes i think that's true. their testing basically said "telling voters trump would make a terrible president works better than talking about policy," but oftentimes items that test well in focus groups and message tests don't actually motivate voters to the polls. it's a really big issue overall with the democratic messaging machine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:i think there's also some sort of myth here that democrats never focus on economics arguments and that's why they lose. in 2014, the entire dem message was economics! they basically ran on raising the minimum wage and college affordability but no one gave a poo poo. And meanwhile we finally have a nationally known senator asking why we aren't doing more and the Democratic Party finds that an uncomfortable question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Cory Booker can give a good speech and is very personable. That's literally all you need to win elections today. You can have any number of wives and ex-wives, but you need at least one
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Zeris posted:You can have any number of wives and ex-wives, but you need at least one Oh, he's single?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Cory Booker can give a good speech and is very personable. That's literally all you need to win elections today. I have nothing but scorn for him and all third way Dems, but any port in a storm, said the guy who suggested Bill Maher for president ITT and was only mostly joking
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:it's not so much that they didn't focus on economics - they did. it's that they didn't focus on economics framed toward specific segments of the population that tilted the electoral college. It's about perception. Hillary talked a bit about economics (and certainly had plenty on her website about it), but if people wanted to distill a singular message from her campaign, it wouldn't be that -- it'd probably be something along the lines of 'Donald Trump hates women.' Hillary's economics plans weren't bad -- they're at least as good as Obama's, for what it's worth -- but despite her proposals for job expansion, minimum wage, etc, the underlying message toward it always seemed to come across (to me at least) as 'things are pretty good now, so let's keep doing that.' The thing is, despite what U3 unemployment numbers may suggest, the economy still sucks hard for a lot of people, and she did not acknowledge or tap into that. I disagree with the notion that the 2014 focus from the Democrats was all economics. I don't know if they really had much of a singular focus, but from what I recall, one of the recurring themes seemed to be trying to tie the Republicans to extreme misogyny for a repeat of 2012. It didn't work. I specifically remember it in the context of the Colorado election: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/13/mark-udall-has-been-dubbed-mark-uterus-on-the-campaign-trail-thats-a-problem/
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
zegermans posted:At least n the current cycle, they had a plan - a very good, progressive plan - but refused to even try to advertise it. All of Clinton's ads were pointing out how lovely Trump is. Everyone knows Trump is a lovely person. Few people knew how that would negatively affect them personally, and they didn't even try to explain that. eh, i don't think hillary's economic plan was that good, but if she had actually advertised it she almost definitely would've won. her campaign was a comedy of errors that managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I also think there's a lot of different stuff people mean when they talk about identity in politics and identity politics. Oh yeah, fighting against torture of gay people and the forced public humiliation of trans individuals is just for "representation". Totally nothing important or meaningful being done there. This is entirely why people see a tradeoff - because you are so loving eager to poo poo on all the progress on social issues that we have made it makes it clear you don't consider those victories important in any way, and thus, they will be ignored or regress if we listen to you. Suckthemonkey posted:It's about perception. Hillary talked a bit about economics (and certainly had plenty on her website about it), but if people wanted to distill a singular message from her campaign, it wouldn't be that -- it'd probably be something along the lines of 'Donald Trump hates women.' Hillary's economics plans weren't bad -- they're at least as good as Obama's, for what it's worth -- but despite her proposals for job expansion, minimum wage, etc, the underlying message toward it always seemed to come across (to me at least) as 'things are pretty good now, so let's keep doing that.' The thing is, despite what U3 unemployment numbers may suggest, the economy still sucks hard for a lot of people, and she did not acknowledge or tap into that. But that message never got out. Most of that is on the Clinton Campaign not putting the proper focus on that, but you must admit, a large bit is on the news channels, where discussion of policy loving nosedived this year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
People say that Democrats focused on economics in 2014? The "I'm not Barrack Obama " year? They're just making poo poo up now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Oh yeah, fighting against torture of gay people and the forced public humiliation of trans individuals is just for "representation". Totally nothing important or meaningful being done there. One of her first general ads was economic policy, but then she just ran "trump bad" ones for the rest of the cycle until the Katy perry one after Halloween lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Oh yeah, fighting against torture of gay people and the forced public humiliation of trans individuals is just for "representation". Totally nothing important or meaningful being done there. Lol if you think social progress has been on the back of efforts made by the establishment Democrats that passed DOMA and only "evolved" on the issue so they could claim part of the credit instead of the incredible LGBT groups that had already done all the hard work of pushing a platorm of public acceptance while the Democrats were busy triangulating away from them. Unless there was some particular Democratic core plank of destroying the horror of conversion camps once and for all and prosecuting anyone ever involved in running them, I dont know what the gently caress you are actually talking about anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Lol at people who actually believe the Democrats gave a poo poo about LBGT rights. They only switched the second it was inconvenient to them to not to hold that stance. Once national polls hit 51% for gay marriage, every Democrat just happened to become "enlightened" or at best "evolved".
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
And now we see you going beyond that to pretending that Dems didn't do anything to advance these causes and that they just naturally happened regardless of politics, so of course we can ignore them completely and things will go great. You're about 5 posts away from going full Ted Rall "maybe a few neo-nazi beatings and round of national humiliation will make gay people ready to support the revolution".
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
They did little to nothing to advance those causes. I'm not sure why correctly pointing out that advocacy groups have done and do do all the work is consigning people to die in the streets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
There was nothing natural about it happening, and the politics involved were vicious, and the fact that you would take what is honestly a stunning achievement away from the peole who actually accomplished it, to defend those who did nothing at best and often actively opposed it, it is disgusting.
GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 23:35 on Nov 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
I look forward to Fulchrum defending the third way Establishment Democrats on all the incredible progress they made ending the drug war a decade from now, lol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 23:37
|
|