|
deadly_pudding posted:Except like, here's the thing. For the people I want in office, they would have to straight-up lie to the stupid electorate to achieve that, because what the stupid electorate wants is prayer in schools, annihilating brown people, and the impossible dream of making America a major manufacturing center again. I don't think that's true. Unless there have been new crosstabs to the contrary, a large drop in previously-Democratic turnout doomed Hillary. These are not people who need to be lured with honeyed words about a steel mill in every town and not a single dollar of social services to brown people. You do not need to appeal to people who would be swayed by that to win. I emphasize that because discipline on this front is critically important in rebuilding the politics of the Democratic party. You can't sway them and you poison your core values by trying to do so. A winning electorate can be assembled without compromise on this front. We can, and have to, drag these people kicking and screaming into modernity. But not by reducing the number of people who oppose us because that will never shrink - we have decades of demographic data which inform the reality that by and large, a person's politics don't change over time. We do it by increasing the number of people doing the dragging - there are more than enough of them on the sidelines to be pulled into the cause. But we've failed to motivate them, and that's the fault of both the formal and informal Democratic apparatus. Hillary utterly failed to articulate a vision because she's not really a vision person, and the small army that is the Democratic party failed to shove one into her hands. Bernie was at the head of a faction that tried, but even his truth wasn't enough because it was STILL TOO NARROW. Fight For Fifteen, Standing Rock, every local special election and Democratic Party county leadership meeting - these are all skirmishes in the larger war in which we have no vision of how to fight it and win. I need to get off my rear end and write the OP for a "New vision for Democratic politics & rhetoric" thread.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
Xander77 posted:Can someone explain to me what "run the country like a business" actually means for people who espouse it? I'm honestly baffled - the internet gives me plenty of hot takes on how terrible of an idea that is (thanks, more than well aware) but very little from the people who actually support it. the feds have a lot of bureaucratic procedures (seniority-based promotion, use-it-or-lose-it funding, making it very hard to just lay off employees for the hell of it, the rules-bound mess that is contracting) that are terrifically cost inefficient compared to the way corporations do things, in ways that make for a lot of aggravating stories and unpleasant encounters with do-nothing clerks and general poor PR to people accustomed to the private sector's streamlined and customer-conscious image. The people responding to that line don't really get how businesses or government work and don't really care what 'efficiency' means in a business context they just want that DMV counter jockey who's blatantly loving around on the job to get fired and have a sense that the DOL could blow less of their tax money to the same effect if it was motivated to. They're probably right on the latter point, but not gonna get there by cargo-culting the corporate world. Oxxidation posted:What Americans want, always and only, is to make the people they hate suffer while feeling righteous about it. Everyone's lives will continue to degrade under Trump's presidency, but it won't matter to a majority of the electorate because they'll finally, finally have the Powers That Be supplying them with fresh scapegoats again. And nothing will matter, and nothing will change, and no one will notice or care. simply assuming your own motives are universal is a really poor predictive model for three hundred fifty million heterogenous people, and possibly why liberals continue to lose political contests they have no business losing. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:What Americans want, always and only, is to make the people they hate suffer while feeling righteous about it. Everyone's lives will continue to degrade under Trump's presidency, but it won't matter to a majority of the electorate because they'll finally, finally have the Powers That Be supplying them with fresh scapegoats again. And nothing will matter, and nothing will change, and no one will notice or care. Ah yes, this totally explains why McCain won the election in 2008 by promising to keep foreverfucking those terrorist fuckers in the middle east.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:simply assuming your own motives are universal is a really poor predictive model for three hundred fifty million heterogenous people, and possibly why liberals continue to lose political contests they have no business losing. A lot of this could be solved by talking to people. Unfortunately, some have branded anyone that doesn't think like them as racist, and thus should be entirely written off from conversation. Reminder that SJWs and safe spaces are concepts with a grain of truth underneath the hate golems the alt right has paper mached onto them over the years
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:What Americans want, always and only, is to make the people they hate suffer while feeling righteous about it. Everyone's lives will continue to degrade under Trump's presidency, but it won't matter to a majority of the electorate because they'll finally, finally have the Powers That Be supplying them with fresh scapegoats again. And nothing will matter, and nothing will change, and no one will notice or care. You're not entirely wrong! Just remember that he concludes class war is the way out. 90% of the country can be persuaded to be spiteful toward the richest 10%, with the right circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
emdash posted:You're not entirely wrong! Just remember that he concludes class war is the way out. 90% of the country can be persuaded to be spiteful toward the richest 10%, with the right circumstances. Which is the other half of the problem. Obama's 2008 win was in large part because the country's collective resentment finally, briefly rotated towards the people who were always stoking it, the rich and the right-wing. But you can't touch the rich. The rich are unassailable and sacrosanct, which is why the best we've gotten from government policy in the last few decades has been feeble, corporate-friendly incrementalism that holds the worst of the right's rabid social issues at bay. The United States has been engaging in this miserable game of pushme-pullyou with the one percent for over a century now, and the rich come out on top, every time. We're out of second chances, in any case. Fifty or a hundred years from now the planet starts to cook in earnest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Can someone explain to me what "run the country like a business" actually means for people who espouse it? I'm honestly baffled - the internet gives me plenty of hot takes on how terrible of an idea that is (thanks, more than well aware) but very little from the people who actually support it. "Run the country like a business" is a phrase thrown around by people who think that a country's finances work the same way as that of a business, in the sense that they think a budget deficit is a Bad Thing (because, you see, debt is bad! It's common sense!). They throw around platitudes such as "we should spend within our means" and the examples they give always revolve around a Responsible Family (Republican of course) that earns X dollars a year and must spend less than that amount in order to save money and avoid getting in trouble. These people basically possess a 5-year-old's level of understanding of money, finance and economics, and should be taken just as seriously as said 5-year-old when it comes to how to run the country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
I wonder how many people who whine about the deficit have car loans or mortgages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:A lot of this could be solved by talking to people. Unfortunately, some have branded anyone that doesn't think like them as racist, and thus should be entirely written off from conversation. SJWs and Safe Spaces don't control the democratic party you goddamn baby.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:What Americans want, always and only, is to make the people they hate suffer while feeling righteous about it. Everyone's lives will continue to degrade under Trump's presidency, but it won't matter to a majority of the electorate because they'll finally, finally have the Powers That Be supplying them with fresh scapegoats again. And nothing will matter, and nothing will change, and no one will notice or care. Well if that's what you believe than why not make a major plank for democrats be PUNISH THE FINANCIAL ELITES. Also being that I keep in touch with the people I use to work with before I realized what I wanted to do as a career. I can say those in the service industry, really really hate the financial elites. Plus they also hate prickish liberals, and there are enough liberals who will whine about bankers getting attacked so they will turn out for that to. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well if that's what you believe than why not make a major plank for democrats be PUNISH THE FINANCIAL ELITES. and that is why there is no war but the class war
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:kind of hard when they own the bulk of media signaling and the lower class scapegoats are easier to punch around Most utterly distrusted the media. More then politicians I should add. (Explains Trump.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well if that's what you believe than why not make a major plank for democrats be PUNISH THE FINANCIAL ELITES. Also being that I keep in touch with the people I use to work with before I realized what I wanted to do as a career. I can say those in the service industry, really really hate the financial elites. Plus they also hate prickish liberals, and there are enough liberals who will whine about bankers getting attacked so they will turn out for that to. It is, for the Sanders / Warren wing. It's definitely the way to go. The problem is most of the party is beholden to them. It's really hard to fund an anti-oligarchs campaign in an oligarchy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It is, for the Sanders / Warren wing. It's definitely the way to go. The problem is most of the party is beholden to them. It's really hard to fund an anti-oligarchs campaign in an oligarchy. Yeah we really need to purify the party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah we really need to purify the party. Down to which five sufficiently jacobinesque folks? We just need sufficiently militant leadership.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:We just need sufficiently militant leadership. Militant in what sense? I think you're right, but would like to see this expanded upon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
kaynorr posted:Militant in what sense? I think you're right, but would like to see this expanded upon. Leadership that will pretty much say they won't accept money from superpacs. Also we should consider creating a parallel organization to the NRA (That won't be beholden to the big gun companies) and then give up gun grabbing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:SJWs and Safe Spaces don't control the democratic party you goddamn baby. I didn't say they did?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:I didn't say they did? You're drawing a link between SJWs and Safe Spaces and the Democrat's poor electoral strategies. Which is silly because Safe Spaces and SJWs don't really have anything to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
kaynorr posted:Militant in what sense? I think you're right, but would like to see this expanded upon. In the sense that Bernie was or Elizabeth Warren is. No bullshit, put bankers in jail, I WILL FIGHT FOR YOU. No more nice polite Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Leadership that will pretty much say they won't accept money from superpacs. Also we should consider creating a parallel organization to the NRA (That won't be beholden to the big gun companies) and then give up gun grabbing. I like this idea. I've been thinking lately that the party system is inherently exploitative. It stacks the deck for the politicians in the party because the goal is to elect party members in order to enact party policy. This then means that every policy and ideal is subservient to winning elections. Making organisations that specifically avoid being political parties does seem like the best way to avoid that. Concentrate entirely on pushing your agenda and never compromise on principles to get someone elected because that's not your job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
What do people think of this article? The Dangerous Myth That Hillary Clinton Ignored the Working Class
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:What do people think of this article? The writer seems to think that detailed policy proposals are an adequate substitute for an easily explainable core economic message.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:What do people think of this article? The way forward is to motivate the millions of Obama voters who stayed home (and some of the 100m+ voting age Americans who didn't vote) to turn out by offering a clear, strong and digestible platform of economic populism (15 minimum wage, nationwide family leave, medicare for all, affordable college, taxes on the rich to pay for infrastructure) with candidates who look like America (instead of old white people). Barry Convex posted:The writer seems to think that detailed policy proposals are an adequate substitute for an easily explainable core economic message. cheese fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:What do people think of this article? While the author is correct in that the nuts-and-bolts policy platform of the Hillary campaign was a much more solid and coherent one, it gets too concerned in scoring cheap points (counting the number of times Hillary said "Jobs" in a speech) or parsing meaningless data (Hillary won the majority of the "Economy" issue voters, but this ignores the fact that Trump successfully comingled economic and white identity issues, such as immigration, to an unprecedented degree) and fails to grapple with the idea that Hillary ultimately lost on the decisive margins in the Rust Belt because she was not a plausible messenger for her message -- and that goes for both the white working class, who either stayed home or switched to Trump, and the working class among PoCs, the turnout of which fell disastrously compared to 2012.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:The writer seems to think that detailed policy proposals are an adequate substitute for an easily explainable core economic message. Yep. When you try to think about what the average voter is voting for you should never look at policy. Concentrate on the very surface message and public impression. It doesn't matter what the politician plans, it matters what the populace thinks the politician plans. Clinton did not feel like the champion of the downtrodden the article is trying to paint her as. Was she? Doesn't matter. That's not how she was perceived. EDIT: Policy is very useful for informing people who then help form the narrative (journalists, activists, etc), but it's the narrative that comes out of policy that matters. Futuresight fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Clinton is within a million of Obama's 2012 win (or less, California is still counting apparently), it's just that 90,000 of them is the only number you need to beat 2m difference in popular vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:What do people think of this article? http://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/hillary-clinton-wrong/306676/ Yeah she didn't say so in her ads. She kept saying Trump was wrong for being an rear end in a top hat but after the 200th ad people already know that and they want to know what she was going to do and she never made that her main point. For instance family leave should be. AMERICANS SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING UP THEIR KIDS. Sickleave, AMERICANS SHOULDN"T HAVE TO WORK SICK. Vacation, DON"T YOU ALL DESERVE A FEW DAYS OFF, PAID? Fighting wallstreet? THE FINANCIAL ELITE HAVE BEEN SCREWING YOU, THEY HAVE BEEN TAKING HANDOUTS FROM YOU THE TAXPAYER, TIME TO TAKE IT BACK! Financial Elite can also be a form of reverse dog whistle. We kneow it means get out the guillotine, those who havn't heard the call fo radicalismjust hear make the fuckers pay. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Why should anyone believe a word that comes out of her mouth? It's easier to believe a charlatan like Trump when Hillary has been sidling up to Wall Street and foreign money men for a decade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I feel like every American politics thread needs a PSA at the top of every page for the next eight years: Globalization is not inherently bad. In fact, it is quite good in the long-run in general! Where it becomes bad is when the top 10%/1% use it as a weapon to divide international labor along 20th century political boundaries and concepts, thereby capturing more and more of the share of returns on GDP as free trade agreements create room for worker exploitation by companies (see: the "free trade zones" AKA sweatshop zones opened up in Mexico by NAFTA, etc). That's why people feel cheated by Globalization and condescended to by "the tide lifts all boats" ivory tower elitist economists; resulting in, very unfortunately, lashing out blindly by attacking it as "globalism" (ie hate on the Chinese or Indian H1B visa workers instead of tackling the heart of the issue).
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Teriyaki Koinku posted:Globalization is not inherently bad. In fact, it is quite good in the long-run in general! I wasn't arguing the merits of globalization, I just want people to recognize that "globalism" is a loaded racist term. Again, seriously, trying to seriously discuss globalization but calling it globalism is like trying to seriously discuss astronomy but calling it astrology. It's not a convenient shorthand that lets you skip a few letters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I wasn't arguing the merits of globalization, I just want people to recognize that "globalism" is a loaded racist term. ...Yes? That's what I was saying? 'Globalism' comes from racist paranoid types who inherently fear the UN as an NWO plot and Operation 24 or whatever to come take our guns. Also, brown/non-white people etc etc. That people coming together over time as a single human race as a generational shift is something to be feared, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:What do people think of this article? It's spot on. quote:So, the country is wobbling between two extremely different futures: pluralist social democracy on the one hand, and white nativist protectionism on the other. The election’s bizarre schism, with Clinton winning the popular vote and Trump winning the electoral college, is a sign of how razor-thin the margin between those dramatically opposed futures is. We thought trump's racism and sexism were so beyond the pale he couldn't possibly win, and we were wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Teriyaki Koinku posted:...Yes? That's what I was saying? When I posted about it originally Ice Phisherman was misusing the terms in one of his big effort posts and people used to routinely do it in USPOL. It's just really annoying because a) I don't like trying to figure out of the person is a racist shitbag or just a clueless idiot and b) leftists and liberals shouldn't be adopting the buzzwords and memes of fascists. It's the same dumb poo poo as when "progressives" act like "safe spaces and SJWs" are a meaningful, common issue and not just an alt-right boogeyman that don't hurt anyone insofar as they exist at all. They're either clueless or they're not as progressive as they're claiming to be and happy to buy into the propaganda of the right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Teriyaki Koinku posted:...Yes? That's what I was saying? It is if you don't want to go from "The U.S. is the only superpower and can direct the course" to "Just one of many equal partners whose opinions counts too, even if they're dumb". I'd say that most 25+ years old people in the U.S. still remember what the world looked like after their country won the Cold War, and everything looked like it was going to be peachy-keen until 9/11 happened. Then no place in America is safe again, because what use are nukes and the Army against a couple of airliners piloted by radicals from a country in the middle of a sandhole? America went from feeling invincible to feeling very vulnerable, not only on physical dangers like terrorism, but also seeing how globalization meant that their economy was vulnerable too. So it's not so much being against the human race coming together, but that when that happens we are all lead by the right people: whoever shares your personal values/national identity/football team, and not the ones who don't. Lightning Knight posted:It's the same dumb poo poo as when "progressives" act like "safe spaces and SJWs" are a meaningful, common issue and not just an alt-right boogeyman that don't hurt anyone insofar as they exist at all. They're either clueless or they're not as progressive as they're claiming to be and happy to buy into the propaganda of the right. Social Justice and safe spaces are great, but the way they've been used... eh, it could be better. It doesn't help that they've become rallying points for assholes on both sides to try and put down each other, and try to "win" like there's some sort of contest and if you don't, then darkness will swept the land and the Four Horsemen will ride all over the world. When in truth, that's only going to happen during Trump's Inauguration Day. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Kal-L posted:Social Justice and safe spaces are great, but the way they've been used... eh, it could be better. It doesn't help that they've become rallying points for assholes on both sides to try and put down each other, and try to "win" like there's some sort of contest and if you don't, then darkness will swept the land and the Four Horsemen will ride all over the world. When in truth, that's only going to happen during Trump's Inauguration Day. 15 year olds on Tumblr aren't representative of any actual political ideologies that matter and safe spaces in reality aren't anything like what stupid alt-right assholes claim they are. Their entire crusade against "political correctness" is a rhetorical play to delegitimize racial and gender issues and dismiss leftism as useless college students whining and the fact that we're buying it whatsoever is pathetic because it means it's working. We thought the conservatives lost the culture war when all they did was repackage it as "your right to be a prick" instead of in religious regressivism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's spot on. Well because as it turns neoliberal, you have to be believable in your promises you'll help. Your golden girl wasn't. Being that she had been your ideal neoliberal for decades. Plus the whole being the wife of one of the orchestrators of NAFTA didn't help in the places where it was seen as the straw the broke the camels back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:15 year olds on Tumblr aren't representative of any actual political ideologies that matter and safe spaces in reality aren't anything like what stupid alt-right assholes claim they are. Their entire crusade against "political correctness" is a rhetorical play to delegitimize racial and gender issues and dismiss leftism as useless college students whining and the fact that we're buying it whatsoever is pathetic because it means it's working. You know the whole dodge whenever Clinton supporters got checked for chanting "gently caress white people" during the election was "lol something awful isn't emblematic of the whole campaign", so forgive me if I'm a little cautious of the same stuff happening wrt safe spaces as liberals are trying to circle the wagons and resume the exclusionary circlejerk they had before the election
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:What Americans want, always and only, is to make the people they hate suffer while feeling righteous about it. Everyone's lives will continue to degrade under Trump's presidency, but it won't matter to a majority of the electorate because they'll finally, finally have the Powers That Be supplying them with fresh scapegoats again. And nothing will matter, and nothing will change, and no one will notice or care. Lol if you care about feeling righteous
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
kaynorr posted:I don't think that's true. Unless there have been new crosstabs to the contrary, a large drop in previously-Democratic turnout doomed Hillary. These are not people who need to be lured with honeyed words about a steel mill in every town and not a single dollar of social services to brown people. You do not need to appeal to people who would be swayed by that to win. Mmm dem tears... Edit:sorry, i mistook this for the liberal tears thread OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 05:16
|
|