|
The Nastier Nate posted:In Clinton's defense, universities are money pit black holes who do dumb poo poo like pay for this. Your average university's spending priorities usually goes: Well in that case, it's really good that Hillary Clinton charged universities $250,000 speaking fees.
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
mugrim posted:Trump spent most of his time and money on the midwest and rustbelt, and instead of just sending surrogates he was constantly there. That makes volunteer recruitment way easier, which makes getting a small edge much easier if your opposition doesn't show up. Clinton herself went to Hamilton during the election three times more than she went to Michigan in the general. Sorry, she's a really lovely candidate and I think trying to track election trends in an election with two of the worst politicians ever seems futile. Trump didn't have a real volunteer program. He didn't do field at all, essentially. So let's not pretend like he had some sort of vaunted field program that won those states because he had a few rallies there. They really don't do anything. quote:She showed up when most democrats don't, I honestly think it makes more of a difference than you do. I do not think it was the entire 5% though. I know the theme this election was "Rally's don't matter", and for the primary sure they don't, but in 2008 and 2012 over 2/3rds of our volunteers came from visits where Obama actually showed up. It's dumb, but people physically seeing a person will be motivated and give you dozens of hours of free labor, and physically drive people to calls and check that everyone actually went. Well first - look, one rally with a few thousand people isn't going to make a big difference. It's just not. I'm sure it got a few votes, but it was almost certainly such a small amount as to be statistically indistinguishable. Earned media is simply not that powerful. The kind of voter that goes to a rally or cares about it is not the kind of person that needs persuading. As far as volunteers go, I've been working in field for about 5 years now. 2/3rds of our volunteers in 2012 didn't come from rallies. They came from the thousands of field staff that sat there making phone calls to recruit them. Rallies are good at generating leads, but they're notoriously poor at actually getting shifts. You can certainly a get a lot of sign-ups, but the flake rate is typically 80%+. I would actually argue that rallies matter a lot more in primaries than they do in the general election. The pool of persuadable voters is much larger, and even people supporting another candidate might be inclined to attend. Primary voters tend to like most of their field (because they're mostly hardcore partisans) and might switch their votes. quote:We've had a 13% increase in eligible voters since 2008, and a 6% or so increase from 2012. Exceeding turnout by less than those margins is a loss, and a significant one considering all the advantages we have since then. Again, not true. The turnout I mentioned was not in raw votes, but against VEP. Nationally, turnout was 58.6% (so far) - exactly the same as 2012. quote:
first, i think there is a thing going around that trump got more latino votes than romney did. i sincerely doubt that. exit polls were pretty bad this year, and they are generally really bad at counting latinos. latino decisions thinks 18% of latinos voted for trump, and another precinct-level analysis (that i can't find, argh) thinks it was under 15%. i'm inclined to believe that because 1. it jives with common sense and 2. arizona and texas can't move 5 points if a modest surge in latino turnout is washed out by a decline in the democrat's share of the vote. i'm not saying texas is going to go blue in 2020. however, i am saying that demographic trends will make it POSSIBLE that it will become a battleground state if trends hold - although that status might need to wait until 2024. the huge cost of competing there may make it a state democrats will not yet want to compete in, but essentially growth in texas is so rapid that the state is becoming very different very quickly. the last estimate i saw put the state becoming majority-minority in just 18 years, which is amazing. you mention that they'd have to swing the state by a million votes, but texas added nearly a million new voters between 2012 and 2016. democrats win a very healthy share of new voters, so adding another million votes suddenly makes it look a hell of a lot more competitive. as far as the midwest goes - i think the general issue is how much better a democrat needs to do nationally. is this a temporary trump bump, or is it a trend toward gop? if it's a trend then that's bad news for midwest dems. a challenger might still beat trump in PA, WI, and MI in 2020, but it will probably mean they were winning the national vote by a lot more than hillary did. and in 2024 those states may drift even farther away from democrats, necessitating a significant shift in presidential electoral strategy as i outlined earlier. i will also mention that in some ways we are due for this. it's very unusual, historically, for an electoral map to remain as static as it has over the last 16 years. we've essentially been competing over the same battlegrounds. but at the same time, we've seen the party's base change. in 2000, republicans ran about even with democrats among young voters. today, they overwhelmingly vote for democrats. muslims used to be a republican bloc, now they're democrats. latinos have shifted more and more toward democrats. black voter turnout has surged. this has formed the basis of the modern democratic party, but at the same time we have gradually lost the working class white voters that elected bill clinton in 1992 and 1996. as a party, we should certainly aim to compete harder for midwest voters. we shouldn't write it off. however, nc, fl, tx, az, and eventually ga are the future of the party. quote:I think a moderately popular democrat who's not afraid to poo poo on trade deals/wall street or vouch for a minimum wage of 15 bucks will have 2020 numbers that look far more normal. i think the issues don't really matter - hillary was just a uniquely unpopular candidate. pennsylvania, ohio, wi, mi, and ia had no trouble voting for barack obama twice after all. i think progressives will be deluding themselves if they think bernie did well because he was a progressive, rather than he did well because 1. hillary clinton was his opponent and 2. he was a uniquely good candidate for a significant enough portion of the electorate. it's notable that, as i've mentioned before, russ feingold did fairly worse than hillary in wisconsin despite supporting a $15/h minimum wage and hating on both wall street and trade deals. if progressives think they can run anyone who yells about bankers and they'll automatically win all those bernie voters, they're going to be very disappointed in 2020 - after all, it's worth noting that startling statistic that 40% of west virginia primary voters for bernie sanders said they'd support trump in the general election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:GA will be a swing state likely to go GOP. Unless the DNC there gets a combination of serious talent and financial support, it'll take more then four years ro make it a true battlefield imo. i generally agree that GA will still lean red in 2020, but if a candidate performs very strongly against trump it will go blue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:my name is fulchrum and i'm here to say Hey, he could be a lot worse. And, I'm sure, soon will be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:"Santa Claus is not real" is not the type of statement I'd hear and then expect that person to give gifts at Christmas. It's literally like the mindset of a five year old. If you don't believe in the magical impossibility, you obviously don't ever want to improve things for anyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
What do you think is far more likely: A massive party shift happening simultaneously across 9 or so states over just under a decade (while most of the rest of the nation remains relatively stationary), or that in an election with two of the least popular candidates ever, there was just too much fuckery to actually evaluate anything? I'll gladly write an apology note if in 2020 swing states become hard red rather than slightly more towards the incumbent (or even losing to it) but it's far more likely that it was just a matter of the democrats having the rare candidate who had tons of money to influence things, but zero charisma, and zero policy proposals anyone gave a poo poo about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:It's literally like the mindset of a five year old. If you don't believe in the magical impossibility, you obviously don't ever want to improve things for anyone. At the rate health insurance is going up, it really won't be long before no one can literally afford it. Critical mass in healthcare is a real thing and it's coming. Also, it is something you can do. I know Slay Queen failed to do it in the 90's despite trying when she had zero political power with a president who won with less than the popular vote, but it is an achievable goal, especially the higher premiums get. The worst case scenario is you over promise and get to expand something else. Always ask for more than you know you can get. The answer is not that Clinton doesn't think it was doable or knows it's 100% not doable, it's that she doesn't want to be held accountable once in and probably doesn't care about it nearly as much as you think she does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
mugrim posted:At the rate health insurance is going up, it really won't be long before no one can literally afford it. Critical mass in healthcare is a real thing and it's coming.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You do get that there are multiple other solutions to this problem that aren't the one that has been a consistently proven loser and public opinion on all levels but the abstract has swung further against, right? You keep trying to phrase this as there being only two options - adopt single payer tomorrow, or march all the poor people into gas chambers run by the insurance companies. But there are other ways that might meet the same ends that have a better chance of succeeding. like what
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Well the government could provide health care directly, thats one that work well We could also adopt different cultural norms, like killing the ill at the first sign of weakness
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
mugrim posted:What do you think is far more likely: A massive party shift happening simultaneously across 9 or so states over just under a decade (while most of the rest of the nation remains relatively stationary), or that in an election with two of the least popular candidates ever, there was just too much fuckery to actually evaluate anything? the former. for one thing, we know the relative coalitions of the parties have changed. young voters have swung heavily democratic. latinos have swung toward us. black voters are voting more. white voters, who used to be split more evenly, are now voting republican. this is a continuation of the trends that sent west virginia from a dem-leaning state to a solid republican state (at the federal level). it's false to say that the rest of the nation remained stable as well. there was a lot of movement this election. states like RI, WV, and NY all became more significantly more republican, while states like GA, CA, and AZ became more blue even if it didn't hit a tipping point and shift their votes. we don't *need* to use this election alone to see the trend. in PA, for example. it tended to vote 3-4 points ahead of national margin for democrats. by 2012, that had eroded to 1 point more than national. in 2016, it's now about 1-2 points behind national. this was a state that was generally reversing against federal democrats in the first place, regardless of candidates. trump may have exacerbated that process but in general democrats have been losing white working class voters for years - they just lost a lot more of them this time. as i mentioned, the stable electoral map is an oddity in history. it was bound to eventually change. this is where the overall trends are sending us. quote:I'll gladly write an apology note if in 2020 swing states become hard red rather than slightly more towards the incumbent (or even losing to it) but it's far more likely that it was just a matter of the democrats having the rare candidate who had tons of money to influence things, but zero charisma, and zero policy proposals anyone gave a poo poo about. it's not even 2020 i'm really thinking about. pa/wi/mi are certainly going to be in the mix those years. but 2024 should see a lot of those gop-leaning states start to tip into the blue column, plus the new electoral map is going to take a big ol poo poo on slow-growing midwest states in favor of fast-growing southern/southwest states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You do get that there are multiple other solutions to this problem that aren't the one that has been a consistently proven loser and public opinion on all levels but the abstract has swung further against, right? You keep trying to phrase this as there being only two options - adopt single payer tomorrow, or march all the poor people into gas chambers run by the insurance companies. But there are other ways that might meet the same ends that have a better chance of succeeding. Yeah, but I don't know how down with violent revolt most people would be either. Also, lol if you think the medical industrial complex is not going to take in more and more money year after year. The super hard fought and lovely ACA basically was a gift to them, and they're back to pre ACA rates and it's climbing once more. It's literally not possible to write new ACA style laws every 8 years, that's totally unsustainable politically. The only solution that's not full on single payer is to just keep raising the income bracket for Medicaid over and over and over until you effectively have it anyway. Even if what you're saying was true, which it isn't, you still sell the best possible outcome. Ask for more than you can get, get what you can, people will forgive you. When you don't try at all, gently caress you. Clinton has the leadership skills, charisma, and management capabilities of a mid level bureaucrat. Here's some reading for you on how to negotiate:  I can't believe this fucker has his name bigger than the title lol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:like what Cost and quality control of plans coupled with a full expansion of Medicare to necessary levels. You may recognise that this plan doesn't involve saying "gently caress it" to all progress that has been made over the past 8 years and instead just starting from scratch while believing THIS time, it'll work damnit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:the former. for one thing, we know the relative coalitions of the parties have changed. young voters have swung heavily democratic. latinos have swung toward us. Literally none of these things are true. Trump did better for latino voters than romney, and young voters have swung away from her. In fact, the younger hispanics and blacks and people in general were, the worse they did for Clinton compared to their older members. There was an article just a few pages ago showing that the swing in new young voters happened away from Clinton in a pretty profound way. Groups that were normally dem strongholds, their younger members were either not voting or voting for republicans than prior. That's not to say they became red, they were still blue, but we're talking major drops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
It me, the liberal who still believes demographics are fate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:
the rust belt states will love to vote for team blue as soon as a democrat talks to them and promises to help them (probably also have to seem genuine about it) clinton didn't talk to them, didn't promise to help them, and sure as poo poo wouldn't seem genuine even if she did and it really doesn't matter if demographic shift is going to start winning elections for democrats in a decade (it will probably take longer than that, IF AT ALL) if they eat poo poo in the present, they'll lose all relevancy on the national stage and have no one to build up/train up at the state and local level, no party infrastructure to draw resources and personnel from, no foundation, no stability, no strength the rust belt's response to being ignored by clinton/the DNC was to send a message in the only way they could, by either not voting at all, or voting for donald trump that message was: "listen up democrats, we are not your firewall, we are not your safety states, like it or not the working class is still the kingmaker in american politics, treat us right or become irrelevant"
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Cost and quality control of plans coupled with a full expansion of Medicare to necessary levels. You may recognise that this plan doesn't involve saying "gently caress it" to all progress that has been made over the past 8 years and instead just starting from scratch while believing THIS time, it'll work damnit. This is the primary disconnect between HRC's campaign and tons of people. Here's what's happened. Rates have gone up. Yes, how fast they were going up slowed down, but since it's sped up this last year, it's hitting people hard. All signs indicate it's only going to go up faster for the next 5 years. There's now an angry working class that realizes that if they're in a medicare expansion state, if they earn just over the medicaid line, they owe 2400 to 7000 bucks a year in medical costs and that if they don't pay it they get fined. If they earn just under the line, they don't pay a dime. Gee, I can't imagine how that could cause all sorts of resentment. Lots of young hyper underemployed working class people who owe massive amounts in college loans are now forced to pay for healthcare they'll statistically probably not use for half a decade or so, and they'd simply rather not pay. Lots of people who do contract labor jobs are getting totally screwed by the law as their incomes fluctuate above and below the medicaid expansion line. Sorry, but the PPACA is a loving nightmare for lots of working people and substantially ruins their lives and in states where medicaid expansion didn't occur, the state is honestly worse under it than it was before it because now it's just poor people being forced to buy healthcare who can't afford it, whereas before they could just go to an ER and never pay. The reality is no one gives a poo poo if Donald Trump's kids get free healthcare or go to a public college for free, they get pissed when you tell them they CAN'T get something and someone else can. mugrim has issued a correction as of 21:34 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
mugrim posted:This is the primary disconnect between HRC's campaign and tons of people. Yes, and these are flaws in the system that can and would have been addressed. The solution is not "there was a flaw. TEAR IT ALL DOWN AND START OVER FROM NOTHING!", that is insane. You refine what is capable, you don't just throw it out and hope really really hard that the perfect system crashes through the roof into your living room.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Literally none of these things are true. Trump did better for latino voters than romney, and young voters have swung away from her. In fact, the younger hispanics and blacks and people in general were, the worse they did for Clinton compared to their older members. 538's analysis is just not very good on this front as county-level analysis is too broad. latinos often live in dense urban districts and so it can be misleading. as latino decisions notes: https://twitter.com/LatinoDecisions/status/803671266511073280 precinct-level analysis also shows latinos voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates. latinos are not all the same and you may have varying results in states like florida where they are more hispanic, but in general the evidence does not back the idea that latinos voted for trump outside of the exit polls which have just not been very good at polling latinos basically ever. (very high non-participation rate among democratic leaners) trump's % with young people didn't increase from 2012 at all. hillary's dropped, but they went to 3rd parties which likely indicates disenchantment with hillary as a candidate rather than the party's candidates.  quote:There was an article just a few pages ago showing that the swing in new young voters happened away from Clinton in a pretty profound way. Groups that were normally dem strongholds, their younger members were either not voting or voting for republicans than prior. That's not to say they became red, they were still blue, but we're talking major drops. well it seems clear that they aren't voting republican. as your own article notes: quote:But an August survey of young voters by GenForward found that 60 percent of black Americans aged 18 to 30 supported Clinton — or about 30 percentage points less than African-Americans at large.2 Fourteen percent of black millennials said they would not vote, 5 percent said they would vote for the Green or Libertarian candidates, and 2 percent planned to vote for Trump. the survey literally has green/libertarian outperforming trump among young black voters. so while it's true to say that hillary failed to capture young voters (and this seriously contributed to her loss), it's not right to say that this indicates anything other than an aberration due to her unique flaws and a brutal primary campaign. in fact, they voted republican at a lower rate than black voters overall. the gop is not winning these voters, and actually they are farther to the left than their parents who tend to be conservative democrats. in other words, the strongest democratic groups remain strong for democrats in general. but the bottom has fallen out among white voters. that is why hillary narrowed the margins in minority-heavy states but saw dramatic plunges in the whitest states in the country. Optimus Subprime posted:It me, the liberal who still believes demographics are fate. demographics aren't fate - they change. but this election has shown that demographic/partisan trends were reinforced this election, rather than deviated from.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
The Nastier Nate posted:In Clinton's defense, universities are money pit black holes who do dumb poo poo like pay for this. Your average university's spending priorities usually goes: You're right, I'm glad she milked 250k per gig from public institutions, I can't imagine why anyone would think she was a selfish and uniquely awful person who doesn't really care about the public.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Optimus Subprime posted:It me, the liberal who still believes demographics are fate. Turns out we believed it too hard and now literally every white person is a Republican.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Yes, and these are flaws in the system that can and would have been addressed. Explain how and when? Sorry dude, businesses in the American economy are expected to increase by 3+% a year. There's no loving way to get this down through dumb bureaucratic tweaks. We've seen what happens when medicine is a business, it will squeeze blood from a stone. Trump will get a bill going killing several portions of it, all that work will be undone, and the reality is depending on what he kills off people could end off better. I've been and know tons of people who have been super loving poor before, shorting a hospital for payment is far far preferable to taking a 250 dollar pay hit month to month. Give them a fake name and get the gently caress out. And if he gets rid of the mandate, rates will rise faaaaast and it'll hit terminal velocity pretty quick. quote:The solution is not "there was a flaw. TEAR IT ALL DOWN AND START OVER FROM NOTHING!", that is insane. You refine what is capable, you don't just throw it out and hope really really hard that the perfect system crashes through the roof into your living room. Well, you don't refine poo poo because your candidate was such a piece of human garbage she lost to a reality television star because she was far more concerned about how she was going to win her second election than how she'd win her first. Any plan that relies on democrats having control of the government for 16+ years as they tweak and refine is far more ludicrous than single payer or subsidized care. Obama basically wasted an amazing shot at doing it before all the lovely collateral damage happened, but we'll get another chance pretty soon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
who gives a poo poo about single payer it's literally not going to happen for decades. even if we managed to get 60 votes in senate and a house majority for it, scotus would kill it. there's no second shot coming up. no amount of electoral success in 2018 and 2020 will fix it. it's gone. time to move on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
It's literally going to be the only sustainable solution soon. You thought premiums were going up under Obamacare, hahahaha, under TrumpCare we're likely going to see formerly 50 dollar premiums jump to 1200
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:It's literally going to be the only sustainable solution soon. You thought premiums were going up under Obamacare, hahahaha, under TrumpCare we're likely going to see formerly 50 dollar premiums jump to 1200 hahahaha this some real retarded poo poo, $1200 lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:It's literally going to be the only sustainable solution soon. You thought premiums were going up under Obamacare, hahahaha, under TrumpCare we're likely going to see formerly 50 dollar premiums jump to 1200 yes i guess i will qualify my statement and say that if, and only if, the entire healthcare industry collapses, taking down the entire republican party with it, then single payer is viable. and i think at that point arguing about who supports single payer and who doesn't among progressives is pointless since there would be no status quo to try and improve, so the default for center/center-left position would be government-run.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Snatch Duster posted:hahahaha gee bee ess
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Snatch Duster posted:hahahaha If Trump successfully keeps "can't deny for pre-existing conditions" but manages to lose the individual mandate, then yeah it'll get pretty fuckin crazy pretty fast
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Snatch Duster posted:hahahaha Out, out, out!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Snatch Duster posted:hahahaha It's the $50 figure that's laughably unrealistic more so than the $1200
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Diseased conservative brain: Wow Trump won, healthcare is probably real cheap now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
I don't understand the health care debate. We give free health care, with an independent set of government doctors and facilities, both for military and (some) veterans. Moral argument aside (i.e., those groups deserve it more or whatever), what prevents the same being done for civilians? We have the money. It's really jarring to go from being encouraged to see medical over the least little thing in the name of preventive care to seeing fellow civilians afraid to go to the doctor when they have clear injuries or illnesses. What the actual gently caress is this, and why do we allow it? The civilian way of life ought to be as good as or better than the service members who defend them, or else what are we defending?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Health care premiums are going to drop like a rock due to removal of the state line prohibition and everyone setting up shop in Delware. Then when their insurance turns out to be total poo poo that doesn't cover anything, they'll blame government regulations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Nietzschean posted:I don't understand the health care debate. We give free health care, with an independent set of government doctors and facilities, both for military and (some) veterans. Moral argument aside (i.e., those groups deserve it more or whatever), what prevents the same being done for civilians? We have the money. It's really jarring to go from being encouraged to see medical over the least little thing in the name of preventive care to seeing fellow civilians afraid to go to the doctor when they have clear injuries or illnesses. What the actual gently caress is this, and why do we allow it? The civilian way of life ought to be as good as or better than the service members who defend them, or else what are we defending? You're assuming that Americans are logical and sane in terms of politics. I would have thought Trump winning would have disabused you of that notion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You're assuming that Americans are logical and sane in terms of politics. I would have thought Trump winning would have disabused you of that notion. your posts do a better job of proving this than trump winning did
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Americans are sane but it turns out when wealthy elites do everything they can to suppress political motion towards good health care and your party cozies up to them, you become the bad guys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Ah yes, remember those massive demonstrations in 2009 and 2010 where angry crowds held signs saying "get the government into my healthcare" and "Obama is a small government capitalist"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Health care premiums are going to drop like a rock due to removal of the state line prohibition and everyone setting up shop in Delware. Then when their insurance turns out to be total poo poo that doesn't cover anything, they'll blame government regulations. That's what I'm factoring in, no matter how you slice it, poo poo will skyrocket, it's just a matter of whether it's on the Peter or the Paul side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
from an election perspective - and one thing that brought me unending agony from hfa - i think the biggest messaging issue is that democrats do not tend to talk about the big issues. republicans are easy to figure out - every single position links back to the fundamental ideology of small government and freedom. everything drills back to "government is the reason you haven't succeeded. republicans will bring our economy back." should we tax more? no, less government. should we regulate wall street? no, less government. democrats, by contrast, tend to talk about individual issues as if they existed in a vacuum - raise the minimum wage, protect the environment. in effect, republicans routinely make big arguments and democrats talk about small arguments. and while the public often agrees with democrats on those small arguments, the gop wins the war. bernie sanders, to his credit, talked big ideas. his message that the system was rigged by special interests from top to bottom, and that government could solve that issue and make a more equitable society, was a compelling one. i think progressives fall into the trap again if they think, well democrats just need to embrace singlepayer and $15/h minimum wage to succeed. i don't think there's any sort of litmus test necessary and i don't think that's why bernie sanders was successful - we just need to actually put together and promote a fundamental vision for the country in the same way bernie did, if not the exact same message he put forward. hillary totally failed to do that, i think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
The return of Friedman units regarding events within the Trump administration is going to make the next four years daunting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:25
|
|
