|
Khisanth Magus posted:I'm curious what you plan on doing for giving them a future? This is something that always comes up. People come in saying that the Democrats can't just ignore the rural poor in the rust belt, but never say what they should do. Those people have for decades and will continue to resist any and all government assistance such as infrastructure investment, which would provide a ton of jobs. They elect local representatives who campaign specifically on opposing such help. So how are you going to magically get them to vote for you, because the GOP uses complete BS lies about bringing back the factories to do it. All I'm saying is that we open up the dialogue and actually use the bully pulpit to shame the legislators that refuse the help. The point isn't to chase after hard conservatives, it's to motivate the people that sat at home or voted straight D for 30 years then magically went for trump Edit: if actually listening and talking to people as opposed to talking past or down to them doesn't work then I'll agree that those idiot poors cant be helped and they deserve their hell (which is a stance a lot of you have taken, apparently)
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:13 |
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:All I'm saying is that we open up the dialogue and actually use the bully pulpit to shame the legislators that refuse the help. The point isn't to chase after hard conservatives, it's to motivate the people that sat at home or voted straight D for 30 years then magically went for trump See while this is a great idea, I thought the problem was you can't "run against" something, in this case run against a legislator who is loving over his constituents out of some stupid ideological pledge or worse. I imagine the way to do it would be wrapping it in "This is what we want to do to help you, and this is the guy who won't let us do it" thus making it seem more like you're "for" something? EDIT: Like I'll fully admit some of my anger and disdain stems from having friends who are in this kind of position but frequently hold positions or vote against their interests because of a lot of belief in stuff that just isn't true, and also some bigotry that they just refuse to acknowledge. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
I think maybe a slogan like "Back to work" would work for "free college", because it would help lower unemployment in the long-term. It'll counter the "free" soundbite and do the Rove/Trump thing about turning weaknesses into strengths and getting out in front of what your opponent's argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Hmmm. Free college. Medicare for all. Glass stegall 2 punish the financial elite. No more wars in the Middle East. Make VA work for our veterans. Those things are all good, but the problems are: 1) Dems inevitably water down, means-test, or otherwise make things very hard for the average person to care about, understand, or support 2) bad messaging, not for lack of ideas but because they are afraid of offending Silicon Valley/Wall Street/Business services/Insurance industry/Big Law by straight up adopting a platform that reflects the truth: the current system is rigged against you, rich people have every benefit, hard work won't necessarily pay off, and to remedy all of these things government is here to protect you from the vagaries of capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:See while this is a great idea, I thought the problem was you can't "run against" something, in this case run against a legislator who is loving over his constituents out of some stupid ideological pledge or worse. I imagine the way to do it would be wrapping "This is what we want to do to help you, and this is the guy who won't let us do it" thus making it seem more like you're "for" something? You run against the status quo and actually have a plan how to help people, not run the epitome of an establishment politician that only grows a progressive gland when they find out it's politically convenient to do so 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:Those things are all good, but the problems are: Answer to both is purge the neoliberals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Feel free to keep not offering any real solution or evidence to keep me from "parroting" "hysterics" because you're not interested in actually solving the problem. Real solution? How about backing Bernie Sanders next time instead of Hillary? Letting third way bullshit die out. Support Ellison for DNC chair, etc. There isn't a single "solution" i can point to but I can tell you that Trump voters, by and large, are not racist and mysoginst. Just like Hillary supporters, by and large, do not support some of her past decisions. Both sides want to paint the other as being in love with the worst aspects of both candidates when both sides are holding their noses outside of a few vocal idiots (Trumpers and Hilbots) who actually believe their candidate was going to deliver some real change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:They elect local representatives who campaign specifically on opposing such help. So how are you going to magically get them to vote for you, because the GOP uses complete BS lies about bringing back the factories to do it. I think this sort of touches on the whole point of how media coverage on Benghazi/E-mails and FBI response of E-mails killed what would have been turnout for the Democratic party. Bunch of people harping on Clinton for not pushing policy, but the 'regular' voter sees: E-Mail investigation on News. Clinton speaks about how she thinks her policies will help people. Trump gets a soundbite on every TV network (if their network isn't covering his speech, live) where he says something like "Lyin' Hillary". The pushing of the bullshit investigation on the news helped depress turnout because saying "Hillary is a liar" is an easier sell that way. It could also be why Clinton wasn't pushing policy in her videos as much as "Trump Bad".
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:You run against the status quo and actually have a plan how to help people, not run the epitome of an establishment politician that only grows a progressive gland when they find out it's politically convenient to do so Not really what I meant. In 2014 everyone said "Democrats lost becuase they ran against _____, and you can't win by running against things". Same with this year. But I feel like you can run against things because that's literally all I see Republicans doing. "Immigrants stole your jobs" "Gays are ruining society" "Repeal Obamacare" "Make Obama a 1-term president" "Seal the borders to protect us from the Muslim Hordes" "Welfare queens" "NAFTA bad!". So I'm asking if it's a messaging thing that I'm honestly not understanding, regardless of whether or not I think people are idiots for listening to and believing in those messages when they're lies or just pandering to hatred. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:I think this sort of touches on the whole point of how media coverage on Benghazi/E-mails and FBI response of E-mails killed what would have been turnout for the Democratic party. This is not true and continuing to posit the "media ruined her" narrative as if it's fact is willfully ignorant at this point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Answer to both is purge the neoliberals. Another acceptable answer is gently caress the Rich.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Real solution? How about backing Bernie Sanders next time instead of Hillary? Letting third way bullshit die out. Support Ellison for DNC chair, etc. I did back Sanders and I am doing what I can to contact the people who decided DNC chairmanship in my state and telling them to support Ellison (or even Perez if he's still in the running, since he's pro-labor). Admittedly my problem with Trump voters is that every single person I know that voted for Trump (not that there are many), are racist and misogynist. Or Libertarians (but I repeat myself). And they also said "well don't worry he won't do all of that bad stuff he said"...once they were done trying to sing the national anthem at me like they were trying to exorcise me of my Progressivism. So it's hard to think anybody who voted for Trump didn't know what they were getting based on my sample size, though I know on some level that's wrong. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:bad messaging, not for lack of ideas but because they are afraid of offending Silicon Valley/Wall Street/Business services/Insurance industry/Big Law by straight up adopting a platform that reflects the truth: the current system is rigged against you, rich people have every benefit, hard work won't necessarily pay off, and to remedy all of these things government is here to protect you from the vagaries of capitalism. Why are you so certain that it is out of the fear of offending Silicon Valley rather than people just not seeing the same truth that you do? Crowsbeak posted:Answer to both is purge the neoliberals. And this will get you nowhere. Sure, try and purge whatever bogeyman you've created out of office. That will still leave you slitting your wrists crying "FULL COMMUNISM NOW!" when Joe Public doesn't see things from the 'Deck is stacked against you' stance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:I did back Sanders and I am doing what I can to contact the people who decided DNC chairmanship in my state and telling them to support Ellison (or even Perez if he's still in the running, since he's pro-labor).  DONT PAY ATTENTION TO THEM. PAY ATTENTION TO THE DEMOCRATS WHO STAYED AT HOME
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:
Because I unlike you and a lot of neoliberals worked for Years with those who voted Trump or stayed out. Out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:
How about instead of interrupting and misinterpreting my answer (which was me explaining my bias problem due the idiots I know who voted Trump in response to him pointing out that "maybe they aren't all secret facists"), you answer my question about how Republicans can run against things all live-long day and Democrats can't besides a nebulous "incumbency" problem. Unless you're just in love with the sound of your own "voice" Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:
Exactly, part of why Clinton lost because she assumed she would get as many D votes as in the last two elections and decided to go after Republicans in GOP governed states. Trump voters are 25% of the population, that's it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Double post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Glazier posted:Exactly, part of why Clinton lost because she assumed she would get as many D votes as in the last two elections and decided to go after Republicans in GOP governed states. Trump voters are 25% of the population, that's it. So that's a no to the WWC?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Answer to both is purge the neoliberals. Ah, the "split the party and surrender complete control of the country to the GOP for a whole generation" option. Good choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:How about instead of interrupting and misinterpreting my answer (which was me explaining my bias problem due the idiots I know who voted Trump), you answer my question about how Republicans can run against things all live-long day and Democrats can't besides a nebulous "incumbency" problem. Unless you're just in love with the sound of your own "voice" Considering conservatism is by definition wanting to keep things the same, are you asking how the conservative party is able to run on stopping or reversing change while the liberal party cannot?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:Ah, the "split the party and surrender complete control of the country to the GOP for a whole generation" option. Good choice. Well that is what will happen if the neoliberals are allowed in the drivers seat. Thanks for agreeing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:Ah, the "split the party and surrender complete control of the country to the GOP for a whole generation" option. Good choice. We surrendered control of the country when we abandoned labor, ran away from the left, and became diet republicans
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Considering conservatism is by definition wanting to keep things the same, are you asking how the conservative party is able to run on stopping or reversing change while the liberal party cannot? So you're saying you can't run "This is how things are now and they loving suck and we need to change it", you can only go "They want to change things and we can't let them" or "They changed things and it sucks so let's rewind about 50 years". I really do not believe this for a moment. It has to be a messaging thing. A change is by its very nature, going against something, in this case the status quo. To act like Obamacare (for example) is now the status quo because it's existed for less than a decade just doesn't make sense to me. Wage stagnation, Climate Change and other stuff that's been happening for 20+ years feel more of a status quo thing to me because of how long they've been a problem, but perhaps I'm looking at it in too much of a long-term situation. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:Those things are all good, but the problems are: The worst part about is that they do it even on hypothetical programs they have no chance of passing anyway What the hell is the point of advocating for policy you probably can't pass, and already compromising the thing down to a "sober realistic bill" beforehand? It should be pretty obvious by now but winners talk about what they want not what they think they're going to get when it comes to the presidency. One could be forgiven for assuming the Democratic party doesn't give a poo poo about ending the war on drugs or ending our sucking off of Israel, or cracking down on Wall Street and overzealous police. For all the huffing and puffing about BLM re:Sanders, HRC gave a borderline Republican assessment of policing in America at the end override367 fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
comingafteryouall posted:Hmmm it might be the fact that he takes tons of money from wall street that would keep him from changing his positions. Kind of like Obama or Clinton. It's a good thing the people went with the more anti-Wall Street candidate in the end. Oh wait, they didn't. After all the deregulation, more Wall Street money is going to be on Trump's side than the Dem candidate. It wasn't this time because of how unstable Trump seemed. Once they have millions more, they won't care as much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:We surrendered control of the country when we abandoned labor, ran away from the left, and became diet republicans Was that before or after Carter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Spacebump posted:It's a good thing the people went with the more anti-Wall Street candidate in the end. Oh wait, they didn't. After all the deregulation, more Wall Street money is going to be on Trump's side than the Dem candidate. It wasn't this time because of how unstable Trump seemed. Once they have millions more, they won't care as much. No you see Trump said "I don't pay my taxes like all good rich people because accountants" and that's refreshingly honest and he'll totally change the rules you guys he's just nominating a Goldman Sachs banker to the Treasury cause of course a guy like that understands money 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:We surrendered control of the country when we abandoned labor, ran away from the left, and became diet republicans I remember campaigning against Walker during the recall and having to pay out of pocket for everything from yard signs to clipboards and even having to pay to rent a sign to carry while collecting signatures because the local DNC had zero national support It's amazing that average Wisconsin Democrat has gotten icy towards the party establishment
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:So you're saying you can't run "This is how things are now and they loving suck and we need to change it", you can only go "They want to change things and we can't let them" or "They changed things and it sucks so let's rewind about 50 years". I really do not believe this for a moment. It has to be a messaging thing. A change is by its very nature, going against something, in this case the status quo. To act like Obamacare (for example) is now the status quo because it's existed for less than a decade just doesn't make sense to me. Wage stagnation, Climate Change and other stuff that's been happening for 20+ years feel more of a status quo thing to me because of how long they've been a problem, but perhaps I'm looking at it in too much of a long-term situation. We're basically in agreement, you just think that the democratic leadership wants to be progessive but can't whereas I think that they honestly don't give a poo poo about anyone else besides their donors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:I think this sort of touches on the whole point of how media coverage on Benghazi/E-mails and FBI response of E-mails killed what would have been turnout for the Democratic party. If scandal actually affected turnout, we would not have President-Elect Trump. Scandal wasn't the problem, it was Hillary's complete inability to deflect it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:We're basically in agreement, you just think that the democratic leadership wants to be progessive but can't whereas I think that they honestly don't give a poo poo about anyone else besides their donors. Too bad you need money to get elected, unless you can just leverage "I had a reality TV show and i'm a loud rear end in a top hat" into an assload of free press. If you want the DNC leadership to change and honestly think about the people and you have a way to do it that doesn't involve ceding control of the government to the GOP for the next 20 years I'm all ears. Ellison's a good start but him being in charge of the DNC won't mean much if there isn't a party anymore because we successfully purged all the "neoliberals" and can't win anything now as a result.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Okay but I thought the breakdowns had determined that Dem turnout, or lack thereof, was at least a subdominant factor? I've seriously been avoiding everything but this thread since shortly after the election, so that's an honest question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:We're basically in agreement, you just think that the democratic leadership wants to be progessive but can't whereas I think that they honestly don't give a poo poo about anyone else besides their donors. I believe Democratic leadership finally got the point that neoliberal centrism doesn't work. They literally adopted Bernie's platform wholesale as their own, but their candidate failed to campaign on it. We have a good shot at either Keith Ellison or Ilyse Hogue as DNC chair, but even if we end up with Dean again, the platform is more progressive than it has been in 30 years. The question is now if they can sell it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Facts, scandals and corruption only effect Democrats. Republicans will never be held accountable for anything they do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:We're basically in agreement, you just think that the democratic leadership wants to be progessive but can't whereas I think that they honestly don't give a poo poo about anyone else besides their donors. Unless you can leverage "I had a reality TV show and i'm a loud rear end in a top hat look at me!" into free TV time you're not getting elected without some sort of financial backing. Purging the "neoliberals" isn't going to help in the short-term either, but putting more progessives in to counter them (assuming there are even enough) would help. But that's not enough. There needs to be more tangible plans and ideas. There's a big difference between (metaphor time) calling out Donna Brazile about what a shitshow everything was because you're understandably pissed off, and then actually staying around to say "and here's how we're going to fix it" instead of walking out because you got your "and everyone stood up and clapped" moment. Dr. Fishopolis posted:I believe Democratic leadership finally got the point that neoliberal centrism doesn't work. They literally adopted Bernie's platform wholesale as their own, but their candidate failed to campaign on it. We have a good shot at either Keith Ellison or Ilyse Hogue as DNC chair, but even if we end up with Dean again, the platform is more progressive than it has been in 30 years. The question is now if they can sell it. I would like to think they could but I have a feeling that people will just go "oh it's not authentic enough". Talmonis posted:Facts, scandals and corruption only effect Democrats. Republicans will never be held accountable for anything they do. Also this. How can you shame a party that literally does not have shame and never suffers repercussions for their actions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Considering conservatism is by definition wanting to keep things the same, are you asking how the conservative party is able to run on stopping or reversing change while the liberal party cannot? I hate replying to you but in the event people do think this way, no this is wrong. You're being disingenuous. The Republican party do want change, they want to change society into a hyper-capitalist state with 1950s morality and a locked in voter base. That's not my sarcasm (mostly) that's their platform. They do not want things to be the same, they don't even want regression to where socialist ideas were simply not there. They want a world where capitalism is glorified while socialist ideas are demonized. I guess you can call it neo-regressivism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Trump's really raiding the poo poo out of Goldman Sachs right now with appointments. This is concerning for a variety of reasons but also him nominating Welber Ross is loving atrocious pick for Secretary of Commerce. Like the prisoners have been given the keys to the prison at this point and I can't foresee us having another financial crisis because of these appointments. Remember the fable of the snake. He is drawing them close to him. Would you want to be shackled to Trump and his whims for four years? What effect might that have on your institution? Drawn in with a promise of profits, at ground zero for the whip saw. This is our only hope.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Okay but I thought the breakdowns had determined that Dem turnout, or lack thereof, was at least a subdominant factor? Not subdominant, the dominant factor. Trump got fewer total votes than Romney did. https://news.vice.com/story/hillary-clinton-lost-because-white-democrats-in-key-states-didnt-bother-to-vote http://www.npr.org/2016/11/12/501848636/7-reasons-donald-trump-won-the-presidential-election
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:13 |
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Also this. How can you shame a party that literally does not have shame and never suffers repercussions for their actions? Which is exactly why the pitch has to come from new voices. Even if Dean is chair, I hope to poo poo he finds some new, charismatic mouthpieces. Nobody wants to listen to the old guard anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:41
|
|