|
Concerned Citizen posted:
This is meaningless in like a dozen different ways, and it's really confusing what you're trying to accomplish with it. Even at it's lowest point, there's enough people with a very negative opinion about the banks such that inflating their turnout with a strong baking message could propel turnout enough to lead to a Democratic wave if even a third of those people weren't regular voters. It's not regional, and region matters - if most of that support comes from inside cities and most of the dislike comes from the country, that's a big difference than pure averages. Beyond that, questions about the industry at large are fairly irrelevant considering how deeply such questions are tied to priming - it's not something people think about every day, so any question like this is basically going to be a survey of whether their last personal experience was good, bad, or neutral, and means nothing beyond that. It's like asking people four years ago what their opinion was on "mail servers" and deciding that Hillary would be fine because people don't care about mail servers. It's missing the point - it's not about whether people care about in their regular day to day life, it's about whether there is something there you can build into a motivating issue during a campaign. And I would argue that there are a lot of people that could be activated with the right anti-bank rhetoric that might not otherwise be inclined to vote for the party. Last I checked, more than 15% of homeowners were underwater on their mortgage - there's huge potential to make this a defining issue for people like that. Like, you might be able to use research and statistics to indicate it would be a bad idea to pursue this, and maybe it is a losing issue, but it's really stupid to think that table means a thing in terms of what a campaign should pursue or what the goals of a campaign are. quote:i don't disagree when you say that we need bold policies. i was, for example, very critical of hillary's higher education plan during the primary. it was awful. and i thought bernie's (and hillary's general election) plan didn't go far enough in the kinds of reform that higher education needs. but free public tuition is easy to rally around. obama didn't run on single payer healthcare in 2008, but he did run on universal healthcare and that was easy to rally around. but i think there is a pretty severe danger on running on things you can't achieve. obama said he wanted a public option, but conservative dem senators killed it. and today, people are still mad because that one element of healthcare reform didn't make it in. leftists have been railing about it for years, perhaps even in this very thread. there was no "oh well he did the best he could." just anger that it didn't get done after promising it would. you undermine your credibility when you say "we're going to get X done" and then pass something that looks nothing like what you promised. you have to accept that when you run on things, people will take you at your word about what you will try to accomplish. I honestly didn't know Obama was ever for a public option, I asked a few people at work and despite voting for him and being upset over how the plan ended up they didn't either. Why do you assume the disappointment is related to him "failing to deliver on what he promised" instead of the fact that the plan is kind of lovely and unsustainable and offers no fallback to insure against the rising premiums we have actually experienced? I mean if anything the feeling I get talking to people is most of them believe he was against the public option and that's why it didn't happen, not that he was for it and failed. I know that's the understanding I was operating under, and hearing that he actually supported it actually improves my opinion of him. (But seriously, cite your sources as to him actually being for it, because I still only half believe you here, I certainly don't remember him campaigning on it but then, it has been almost a decade now)
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
If this election has taught us anything, it's that polling is infallible and should be the basis for policy decisions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Fiction posted:I think you just want to be right about technicalities instead of caring about how to best effect change. u realize this describes 90% of the thread right
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:gently caress me On the one hand, that MIGHT work, on the other hand...gently caress. If this is the sentiment among democrats going into 2018 I hope they lose 20 house and 5 senate seats. My own democratic congressman recently started the "blue collar caucus" the same day he publicly said he supported Pelosi for leadership.  Edit: I almost forgot the ridiculousness of her last statement of a bunch of D.C. Hacks coming home for the first time in 8 years and running for office. The Nastier Nate has issued a correction as of 20:23 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:If this election has taught us anything, it's that polling is infallible and should be the basis for policy decisions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
new kind of cat posted:please don't summon this man back from the ether. what the gently caress is your problem with lincoln chafee I will fight you  (this was an actual graphic put out by his "campaign" like c'mon how can you hate on that)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:what the gently caress is your problem with lincoln chafee I will fight you holy gently caress
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
lincoln chafee was too good for us
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
I kinda hate that ever since Clinton, Democrats have gotten onboard with the anti-nuclear power thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:u realize this describes 90% of the thread right it wasn't always about this 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:the us was in recession during 2001-2002 and banks were net +20 or higher popularity. they became unpopular after they destroyed the economy. i don't know what you're talking about re: techicalities, there aren't technicalities. this feeds into my overall point that the politics are changing constantly and the idea that you can just focus on banks forever is how you end up being left behind. If we went by your argument here, opposing the TPP didn't help Trump because in 2009 (according to Gallop) people had a significantly more positive than negative opinion on free trade. Except that if you look at the Gallup breakdowns of detailed questions, you see there's a huge amount of unhappiness that isn't visible in the general question, unhappiness that you could easily build a campaign issue around. Is there a gallup poll that actually does a more in depth breakdown of opinions on the banking industry? Because this one seems worse than useless. GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 20:25 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
I mean do you think this trend will continue until people are happy with banks again?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Lincoln Chafee is currently measuring every roadway in America with a meter stick so he can be prepared when the Stars Are Right https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU5aTiJEGGk
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:lincoln chafee was too good for us https://twitter.com/lincolnchafee/status/643942826317885440  I have so much Chafee material you don't even know
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:what the gently caress is your problem with lincoln chafee I will fight you beauty
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Fiction posted:it wasn't always about this the thread or the Democrat party? Heyooooo
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:This is meaningless in like a dozen different ways, and it's really confusing what you're trying to accomplish with it. Even at it's lowest point, there's enough people with a very negative opinion about the banks such that inflating their turnout with a strong baking message could propel turnout enough to lead to a Democratic wave if even a third of those people weren't regular voters. It's not regional, and region matters - if most of that support comes from inside cities and most of the dislike comes from the country, that's a big difference than pure averages. Beyond that, questions about the industry at large are fairly irrelevant considering how deeply such questions are tied to priming - it's not something people think about every day, so any question like this is basically going to be a survey of whether their last personal experience was good, bad, or neutral, and means nothing beyond that. It's like asking people four years ago what their opinion was on "mail servers" and deciding that Hillary would be fine because people don't care about mail servers. It's missing the point - it's not about whether people care about in their regular day to day life, it's about whether there is something there you can build into a motivating issue during a campaign. And I would argue that there are a lot of people that could be activated with the right anti-bank rhetoric that might not otherwise be inclined to vote for the party. Last I checked, more than 15% of homeowners were underwater on their mortgage - there's huge potential to make this a defining issue for people like that. ok, well the point i'm making here is that the zeitgeist of the left changes often, as does the public's. i would say that in the same page i linked, you'll find that big pharma is a much easier target than banking at basically any point. and you're saying, well if we inflate turnout from the 25% who are against banks maybe we'll win - but that takes an enormous amount of expensive research to determine, and it changes quickly. 1. can we inflate turnout there? if they already turnout at very high rates, that's a problem for your thesis 2. how many of them are libertarians/paulites and will never vote for us? 3. does that motivate them to vote right now? i think most people would probably agree that running on bank reform in 2004 wouldn't win a lot of votes if everyone really wants to talk about the iraq war. i'm not saying that anti-bank messages will always fail, or that it will absolutely fail in the future. it was a good part of bernie's platform because it was part of his overall cohesive message. but i am saying that it's not necessarily the message that will mobilize people in 2018 or 2020. that might be medicare, or a war, or anything else that could happen as a result of trump's hardcore right-wing agenda. quote:I honestly didn't know Obama was ever for a public option, I asked a few people at work and despite voting for him and being upset over how the plan ended up they didn't either. Why do you assume the disappointment is related to him "failing to deliver on what he promised" instead of the fact that the plan is kind of lovely and unsustainable and offers no fallback to insure against the rising premiums we have actually experienced? there's quite a bit of controversy over obama and the public option's ultimate fate. a lot of people blame him for it sinking, but there's no doubt he supported it during his campaign. a lot of people confuse it with the insurance mandate, which he specifically campaigned on his health plan not having. https://thinkprogress.org/flashback...b6e0#.mogycxsnk (with bonus Weiner Quote)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:gently caress me This is the same sort of coastal idiocy that insists on touching the gun control topic every time possible and then wonders why their purple state Senators get voted out Serf posted:I kinda hate that ever since Clinton, Democrats have gotten onboard with the anti-nuclear power thing. Its not just that, its their complete and utter hatred of the coal/oil/gas industry. Look, I get it, the companies are hilariously evil but they keep a whole bunch of people employed with good jobs(you know, a thing we're not exactly making a ton of lately) so maybe try not villainizing literally everyone from CEO to roughneck/miner. Proud Christian Mom has issued a correction as of 20:36 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Like, ConcernedCitizen, do you actually understand that Trump would not have won if he hadn't (eventually) campaigned on a position (getting rid of abortion) that only 20% of the population actually supports? Like, it is literally a +60 swing in the other direction, towards legal abortion, in terms of public opinion. But the 'average public opinion' does not loving matter. From a strategic perspective, all that matters is who you can turn on where and what it will cost you in people it turns off. I'd argue there are very few people who would be unwilling to support the Dems if they proposed major banking regulations, even if the party offered them exactly what they wanted on other issues, and most of those would be in states and cities the Dems would still own quite easily. You are right though, pharmaceutical overhaul is another similar issue we might have good luck building off of. Heck, maybe we should strive to do both! Adopting really strong stances isn't actually that expensive, and if you adopt a lot of them then you can use whichever one is most appropriate for the regions you are targeting as your preference. Especially if they can all be packaged together into some larger coherent theme. GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 20:36 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Serf posted:I kinda hate that ever since Clinton, Democrats have gotten onboard with the anti-nuclear power thing. china shipping cheap photovoltaics to everyone lit a fire on US coal/oil's rear end though, justice happens sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:the only people that are proponents of nuclear power are in europe because fossil fuel interests own a chokehold everywhere else (and are also responsible for undermining solar-, hydro-, and geo-power) Yeah, I know that big fossil is pretty much why we don't have a comprehensive nuclear program, but it still sucks. Maybe with public opinion on global warming finally shifting we can start building like some breeder reactors and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:what the gently caress is your problem with lincoln chafee I will fight you Friendship ended with BARACK Now HILLARY is my best friend
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:I have so much Chafee material you don't even know Fully several kilometers' worth!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:If we went by your argument here, opposing the TPP didn't help Trump because in 2009 (according to Gallop) people had a significantly more positive than negative opinion on free trade. it probably did not help him overall, but might have helped with a certain segment of the electorate he needed to win the electoral college. quote:Except that if you look at the Gallup breakdowns of detailed questions, you see there's a huge amount of unhappiness that isn't visible in the general question, unhappiness that you could easily build a campaign issue around. i agree - polls are not destiny and they only capture a small idea of the overall mood of the electorate. they are windows into public opinion. but the point is that, historically, people have not seen banks as demons. overwhelmingly they have seen them either positively or neutral. opinion can shift rapidly, and it will shift again. it would be a mistake to get sucked into talking about what you want people to care about rather than what they actually care about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
if it weren't for coal/oil being petulant manchildren who decided not to coopt the future by owning stakes in renewables like european companies did, nuclear would be great as a backup generation method for hilariously unreliable solar and wind. mirror-turbine solar, hydropower and geothermal are much more stable but they're tragically geographically limited
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Fiction posted:So you agree then that when the banks destroy the economy again which is probably an inevitability that it will be good to run against them? The banks aren't going to destroy the economy, Trump starting a trade war will. How will running against banks help then?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
I can't believe I forgot to post this last week: okay chafeetime is over
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:The banks aren't going to destroy the economy, 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:the only people that are proponents of nuclear power are in europe because fossil fuel interests own a chokehold everywhere else (and are also responsible for undermining solar-, hydro-, and geo-power) You're not wrong but it still sucks that the party that should be all for it is, at best, cool to it and at worst outright hostile and spreading lies about it. Fulchrum posted:The banks aren't going to destroy the economy, Trump starting a trade war will. How will running against banks help then? I mean, both can do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
If we want a scapegoat we can blame the pundit class. The Ezra Kleins, the Amanda Marcottes. They attacked the left and deliberately misled the pantsuit nation types. If anyone is the architect of the collapse of the democratic party that can safely be thrown under the bus, it's basically Vox and the Very Serious People.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I mean, both can do it. You can't destroy an economy that Trump has already smashed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Like, ConcernedCitizen, do you actually understand that Trump would not have won if he hadn't (eventually) campaigned on a position (getting rid of abortion) that only 20% of the population actually supports? i mean i agree with you, so i don't really know why you're so angry about it. i only made a point to that one guy that opinions shift and we shouldn't be wedded to anti-bank stuff because it might not be relevant in 4 years, not that no one cares about anti-bank rhetoric ever or that it can't be a plank in an effective message.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
i see neoliberals are also willing to put the 2008 financial crisis that got us halfway into this mess into the memory hole corporate welfare capitalism cannot fail, it can only be failed
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:The banks aren't going to destroy the economy, Trump starting a trade war will. How will running against banks help then? They certainly will not help when they continue wrongly foreclosing on homes, gobbling up privatized capital, and generally loving things up for everyone. Running against the banks in that environment by tying them to Trump and his cronies will be trivial, and it'll be the right thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Serf posted:I kinda hate that ever since Clinton, Democrats have gotten onboard with the anti-nuclear power thing. Anti-nuclear power has been a consistent thing in the USA since Three-Mile Island. Where a nuclear reactor literally melted down, and all the safety precautions worked like they were supposed to and so the impact was one of the reactors had to be rebuilt and some environmental impact. ate shit on live tv has issued a correction as of 20:46 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You can't destroy an economy that Trump has already smashed. boy are you in for a bad surprise! Concerned Citizen posted:i mean i agree with you, so i don't really know why you're so angry about it. glyph.txt
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:sure, if the banks destroy the economy again it's a good idea to run against them. why would i disagree with that? It's not a question of if, but when. Also a plurality are against the banks. So I think it's a net plus to go against them and not be a schill for Goldman Sachs. Crowsbeak has issued a correction as of 20:48 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
we're going to be in a trade war with china then the banks are going to have another bubble pop and we won't have any money/the will to bail them out this time. Trump will be forced to nationalize them and end up being a better President than Obama.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:okay chafeetime is over It will never be over Fulchrum posted:The banks aren't going to destroy the economy, Trump starting a trade war will. How will running against banks help then? Did you just sleep through the last decade maybe? Hey, you know what the difference is between the fallout of a trade war and the fallout of a banking collapse is to the average worker? Absolutely nothing. gently caress the banks, and maybe its time for a trade war to evaporate a few fortunes. Free trade increases wealth, but that wealth isnt evenly distributed and the poor keep getting hosed harder as is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
comingafteryouall posted:we're going to be in a trade war with china then the banks are going to have another bubble pop and we won't have any money/the will to bail them out this time. Trump will be forced to nationalize them and end up being a better President than Obama. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:49
|
|