|
SSNeoman posted:I hate replying to you but in the event people do think this way, no this is wrong. You're being disingenuous. Yeah, they don't want to keep us at 2000, or even 1980, they want to go further. To the 1950s, maybe the 1910s if they thought they could get away with it (they totally could).
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:46 |
|
|
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. yes. this is the problem with the democratic party. they don't want the same things their constituents want. they're going to continue bleeding voters so long as they fail to make meaningful changes in things like wages, jobs, and belligerent foreign policy. they have tried and failed for over 10 years running on the platform of "not as bad as the republicans." obama may have created some beneficial waves, but they're dying in state elections and the legislature. social policy will not save the democrats so long as people are still hurting economically and embroiled in decades long nebulous global war. the worst thing is that the leadership seems to be fighting any signs of changing directions and the language surrounding economic reform is so toxic that it is preemptively disregarded as "racist." the dems may win a presidency again, but don't ever expect any meaningful policy from them unless its watered down handouts like Obamacare which should have obviously been single payer from the get go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted: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. Consider how one Sanders, Bernard ran his campaign
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Not subdominant, the dominant factor. Trump got fewer total votes than Romney did. Not true - Trump is currently at approximately 62.5 million votes to Romney's ~61 million.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:yes. this is the problem with the democratic party. they don't want the same things their constituents want. they're going to continue bleeding voters so long as they fail to make meaningful changes in things like wages, jobs, and belligerent foreign policy. Well their constituency is the donor class, so they are doing exactly what they want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
How will we pay for ads on news channels where the median viewer age is 65 and has lost what little credibility they still had this election? How will we farm up hundreds of millions of dollars to misappropriate, embezzle, and squander?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Not subdominant, the dominant factor. Trump got fewer total votes than Romney did. Thanks for those links. What was that book title in the Douglas Adams universe? "THAT JUST ABOUT WRAPS IT UP FOR GOD" or something like that. I just think back to 2014. Those were simpler times, when "7 reasons Donald Trump Won the Presidential Election" wasn't even a coherent string of words. gently caress me, I'm still in denial and having a hard time busting out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Not true - Trump is currently at approximately 62.5 million votes to Romney's ~61 million. Fair enough, votes are still being counted. The point stands though, he did not expand the republican base in any significant way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:How will we pay for ads on news channels where the median viewer age is 65 and has lost what little credibility they still had this election? Wouldn't improving Democratic turnout among working class whites over 65 in the Rust Belt have made a meaningful difference?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Not subdominant, the dominant factor. Trump got fewer total votes than Romney did. I wouldn't say dominant. There were a culmination of a lot of small factors that added up to give Trump the narrow win. For example, Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House, a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump. Trump also won 194 of the 207 counties that voted for Obama either in 2008 or 2012.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Wouldn't improving Democratic turnout among working class whites over 65 in the Rust Belt have made a meaningful difference? Probably yes, but it would not have had anything close to the effect that Obama's youth and minority GOTV did. The democrats really should not be focusing on white voters. They had a winning strategy and they abandoned it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Consider how one Sanders, Bernard ran his campaign Yeah like i'm going to look at a campaign of a man that couldn't beat Hilary Clinton in the primary and immediately bent the knee to Donald Trump after the election ended.  Seriously do you actually have a plan or are you just going to continue to be vague. What about Sanders' campaign serves as a roadmap for going forward? (edited out some unnecessary harshness) Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Yeah like i'm going to look at a campaign of a man that couldn't beat Hilary Clinton in the primary and immediately bent the knee to Donald Trump after the election ended. The fact that he would have beaten Donald Trump in the general election? Or, more realistically: not saddled with the Mount Everest-sized hubris of the Clinton campaign still working off lovely focus group lines and dealing with the litany of scandals (both real and fabricated by Republicans), Bernie would have at least won loving Michigan and Wisconsin, if not PA, OH and FL. ex post facho fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
CheeseSpawn posted:I wouldn't say dominant. There were a culmination of a lot of small factors that added up to give Trump the narrow win. For example, Democrats stayed home, Republicans didn't, counties flipped. That shouldn't be surprising and doesn't contradict my point at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Fair enough, votes are still being counted. The point stands though, he did not expand the republican base in any significant way. he got more minorities than romney and more votes which is amazing considering he was so despised. my question is why are democrats so eager to find out why trump won and discredit his base when they should really be asking why they lost and how hillary managed to shed millions of democratic voters? how can the democrats get more voters is the only thing that matters Glazier posted:Well their constituency is the donor class, so they are doing exactly what they want. this election has served to demonstrate how ironic it is that democrats lol at republicans for voting against their interests when they're being played by their leadership just as hard
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Are Trump supporters complaining about him naming Wall St insiders to Treasury and Commerce? You know, like how they complained about Hillary's alleged ties to Wall St?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:The fact that he would have beaten Donald Trump in the general election? Nice of you to grace us with a visit from the Mirror Universe. Tell me, does Donald Trump have a goatee? Since the general election was not (and probably never will be) between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, it is impossible for that to be a fact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Flash reminder that we're going from 3x Bronze Star, 2x Purple Heart, 4 Star General Eric Shineski as VA secretary to probably Palin Shammypants fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
I wonder if the democrats can snag working class white voters by explicitly and repeatedly promising to get them more money and expanded public services
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:my question is why are democrats so eager to find out why trump won and discredit his base when they should really be asking why they lost and how hillary managed to shed millions of democratic voters? Because people are generally incapable of blaming themselves for anything. Dale Carnegie wrote a book in the 30's that you should probably read. Democrats have more voters, they just don't vote because Democrats don't know how to appeal to Democrats. Sanders was a vision for how this can change, his coalition is the hope for the future of the party. He wasn't the right candidate, but he had the right idea. Saying Sanders would have won is sort of the wrong point. Warren would have won, and that's the kind of person we need next.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:I wonder if the democrats can snag working class white voters by explicitly and repeatedly promising to get them more money and expanded public services more money yes, but public services no. people don't want handouts. valid or not, they see government handouts as a bad thing. what they want is opportunity. they want jobs, wages, and a meaningful place in society. i know it seems impossible under the current paradigm, but we need to collectively be searching for ways to make those things happen. neoliberal globalization is not the inevitable future. there has to be another way and we all should be focusing on how to make that happen. no, i don't have the magical solution. but just because one somethingawful forums poster doesn't have the answer doesn't mean its not out there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
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 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" It's about doing. "Vote for us and we'll repeal Obamacare" is an inherently more powerful message than "vote for us because our opponents will repeal Obamacare", because the former is about promising to do something and take action, while the latter is just a promise not to do what the opposition would. The Republicans promised "we'll make everything better by repealing all the things the Dems did", while the best the Dems could offer was "we'll stop the Republicans from making things worse". Notice that this, too, is somewhat of an incumbency problem - the challenger party can use the easy copout message about repealing everything the incumbent did, while the incumbent party has to push new policies and defend their failure to live up to previous campaign messaging. This was another factor in 2008, actually. Obama was able to campaign on no-brainers like ending the Iraq War and rolling back Republican deregulation, while McCain couldn't do a full 180 on Bush policies and had to stake out a middle ground that pleased no one - and also had to defend himself from radicals mad that Bush increased government spending and didn't overturn Roe v Wade. mdemone posted:Okay but I thought the breakdowns had determined that Dem turnout, or lack thereof, was at least a subdominant factor? Turnout is something a lot of people were drawn to right away, but it's definitely been exaggerated by people jumping to conclusions using questionable or downright shoddy readings of the statistics. Turnout is definitely down from 2008, which is a cause for concern...but 2008 had the highest voter turnout (as a percentage of the population) in an entire generation and broke a number of state turnout records, so using it as a baseline is a little suspect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
My only thing with Warren is I would like the Dems not to have another baby boomer as our nominee.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
I'm late to the party but the fact that we have to relitigate the fact that Obama is a lovely rear end neoliberal president with people like Angry Ed every 20 pages is a sign that the DNC wing hasn't learnt anything. How do you defend Obamas retarded Grand Bargain where he preemptively offered a slew of massive entitlement cuts on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in an effort to look bipartisan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Nice of you to grace us with a visit from the Mirror Universe. Tell me, does Donald Trump have a goatee? You asked for a roadmap, Bernie's campaign epitomized how the Democrats need to run future campaigns to win. They need to focus more on tackling economic disparity (which will be even worse in 2018 and 2020), true healthcare reform (single payer), reducing the cost of higher education, hammering Republicans on voter suppression, expanding earned benefit programs and promotion of long-term national investment in the sciences and infrastructure. shrike82 posted:I'm late to the party but the fact that we have to relitigate the fact that Obama is a lovely rear end neoliberal president with people like Angry Ed every 20 pages is a sign that the DNC wing hasn't learnt anything. Also this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Neo liberalism is a juicy yummy drug that I'm having trouble dealing with. Hillary lost. It's fine. This is a long process. There are people who can help you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:My only thing with Warren is I would like the Dems not to have another baby boomer as our nominee. I don't even care how old she is, she's the only person in this entire fuckshow of an election who managed to repeatedly shut down trump on twitter. If she didn't hate Clinton so much she should have been running her social media.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
enough of the counterfactuals, its literally and categorically impossible to learn by examining the past and wondering what COULD have been. We need to blindly grope towards the future without ever, ever turning around to look backwards
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
If this thread is anything to go by, I look forward to GOP dominance of this country until everyone who isn't a millionaire dies, starving, in the streets. Or until the Purge is implemented.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
If this thread is anything to go by, that will only be true because Democrats refuse to embrace and offer a true alternative to Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:If this thread is anything to go by, that will only be true because Democrats refuse to embrace and offer a true alternative to Republicans. Well, given that the apparent belief that the way to do that is to just dump the entire moderate part of the party, which will doom the remaining party to losing every election forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Yes, the only two choices we have are Republican-lite or literal Purges. gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Tell me, what is the "moderate part" of the Democratic party? If you're referring to dumping the parts that continue to roll over on things like a living wage, single payer, sane immigration policy, and climate change policy then yeah, sorry, moderates raus
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:enough of the counterfactuals, its literally and categorically impossible to learn by examining the past and wondering what COULD have been. We need to blindly grope towards the future without ever, ever turning around to look backwards well, i mean, the democrats have been getting hammered since clinton and the third way. how many times have we controlled the legislature and had a sitting president in the last 25 years?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:If this thread is anything to go by, I look forward to GOP dominance of this country until everyone who isn't a millionaire dies, starving, in the streets. Or until the Purge is implemented. Can I have a suit of power armor? Feels Good
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Yes, the only two choices we have are Republican-lite or literal Purges. People like you want to completely alienate 1/4-1/3 of the democrat voters who are moderates and don't want FULL COMMUNISM NOW, but who also don't agree with the GOP. Hint: The Democrats cannot win an election if they lose 1/4 of their current voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Not true - Trump is currently at approximately 62.5 million votes to Romney's ~61 million. Trump is closing in on Bush's 2004 voting tally if he hasn't passed it already. Which means he might in fact be the high bar for Republican vote totals; just like Obama is for Democrats. Khisanth Magus posted:People like you want to completely alienate 1/4-1/3 of the democrat voters who are moderates and don't want FULL COMMUNISM NOW, but who also don't agree with the GOP. People like that forget one of my favorite LBJ quotes. quote:It's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in. Whatever the differences between the disparate factions of the Democratic caucus are, it's better for them to stay in the party. Going third party for a quarter of the current party population is going to do nothing but ensure more Republican victories. Republicans learned that in 1912, Democrats haven't. Party Plane Jones fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
We shouldn't purge the moderates, we should give them multiple opportunities to reform themselves and adopt objectively ethical positions regarding wealth and wealth redistribution. and THEN purge the scum
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Yes, we have two choices - Republican-lite or FULL COMMUNISM. Keep on offering choices like these and we'll keep on losing elections.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:46 |
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:People like you want to completely alienate 1/4-1/3 of the democrat voters who are moderates and don't want FULL COMMUNISM NOW, but who also don't agree with the GOP. The Democrats aren't winning elections now  Obama was a backlash against the incompetence of W., Democrats have been losing where it counts (local and state elections) for the last 25 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:19
|
|