|
He's as self declared trump voter so....
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Hillary lost because her economic messaging failed to connect with voters. That's what the data shows. The policies were popular, but the messaging didn't connect. This is what the data suggests.Her strategy was flawed because she thought it would be enough that her opponent was a serial sexual predator, so that's what she ran ads about. But why did her economic messaging, and the messaging of Democrats in general, fail to connect with these garbage underpeople? We may never know. LGD fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Dec 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
LGD posted:But why did her messaging fail to connect to these garbage underpeople? We may never know. Because she ran ads about trump being a monster instead of about her economic plan. This was, in hindsight, a tactical error because it was predicated on the assumption the Rust belt electorate was not garbage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Because she ran ads about trump being a monster instead of about her economic plan. This was, in hindsight, a tactical error because it was predicated on the assumption the Rust belt electorate was not garbage. Clearly, she was a candidate too noble and good to succeed in this fallen, sin-cursed world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Violator posted:Good point, but I don't know what you do because you can't sit around stagnating while the world passes you by. for a lot of people in the nation, they feel the world has already passed them by. i'd imagine it's the same for your friend. what's the point in trying to catch up if it seems impossible?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:Can someone fill me in how hitler went from losing the election to gaining power? Basically there were four factions in early 1930s Germany: Nazis and other far right groups, "traditional" conservatives, centrists and social democrats, and far left communists. Of these four factions, all besides the centrists/social democrats were openly hostile towards the Weimar Republic and contemptuous of parliamentary democracy. The Nazis, and to a lesser extent the Communists, made huge gains in the aftermath of the stock market crash in 1929, which destroyed Weimar Germany's fragile economic recovery. The courts, army, and other machinery of state were still dominated by the traditional conservatives, which wanted to dismantle democracy and replace it with a paternal autocrat on the same model as the old Kaiser, even though they didn't *necessarily* want Kaiser Wilhelm II back. Chancellors in the late 20s and early 30s all came from this traditional conservative pool, and were generally more interested in undermining the Reichstag (parliament), and its largest party, the Social Democrats, than they were in actually substantively attempting to solve the massive, crippling problems caused by the onset of the Depression. Anyway, the Weimar Constitution had both a President and a Legislative leader (Chancellor). As the above poster mentioned, Hindenburg, a war hero, had been serving as President since 1925 and really loving hated it (he was part of the traditional conservative faction that wanted a monarchist form of government). However, he was convinced by his allies, in particular the current Chancellor, von Bruenig, that he must stand for President in 1932 to prevent Hitler from uniting the right-wing factions and winning the election. At this point, the traditional conservatives still regarded the Nazis as dangerous populists, and correctly surmised that they were more interested in one-man dictatorial rule than "proper" monarchy. So Hindenburg ran for re-election, with the eventual support of the Social Democrats and other parties of the moderate Left, which realized he was the only way to stop Hitler. Ultimately Hitler came in second in the run-off of the 1932 presidential election, with Hindenburg winning and Communist leader Ernst Thaelmann coming in third. Hindenburg was deeply uncomfortable with having been forced to be the "standard bearer" of the Social Democrats and moderate Catholics, however, and this alienated him from von Bruenig. von Bruenig was dismissed as Chancellor and replaced by another of Hindenburg's allies, von Papen. von Papen was more willing to use the Nazis as a tool than Bruenig had been, and agreed to lift a previously existing ban on Nazis stormtroopers (the use of which had been outlawed by von Bruenig), and then called for an election in July of 1932, which he assumed that the Nazis would win, allowing him to leverage their votes to create a personal dictatorship. von Papen, an aristocrat surrounded by aristocrats, essentially believed he could dupe Hitler and his rabble into being content with playing second fiddle to, and providing the muscle for, von Papen's own autocracy. The Nazis, as expected, won the July 1932 election, becoming the largest Reichstag party. However, Hitler didn't play along with von Papen, and instead demanded the Chancellorship for himself. The Nazis then cooperated with the Communists (who sought to "heighten the contradictions" by creating a right-wing dictatorship to which they could present the only credible opposition) in bringing a motion of No Confidence against von Papen, which caused his government to collapse and triggered another election in November of 1932. Although the Nazis actually *lost* seats in this election, von Papen was still presiding over a Reichstag that did not have enough pro-government delegates to prevent another no-confidence motion from being passed. As a result, von Papen capitulated to Hitler, allowing him to assume the office of Chancellor. von Papen assumed that a combination of Hindenburg as President and various traditional conservative cabinet ministers would prevent Hitler from amassing too much power. As it turned out, Hitler used the office of Chancellor to essentially remove all safeguards on Nazi use of extrajudicial violence. Stormtroopers began a campaign of suppression against all parties outside of the government. The Reichstag Fire in February of 1933 allowed Hitler to pass various emergency decrees. This all culminated in the elections of March 1933, where the Nazis gained a large amounts of seats and were able to pass the Enabling Act shortly thereafter, which abolished the legal obstacles to Hitler creating a one-man dictatorship. The conservatives were unable to stop Hitler from doing any of these things because they assumed, to the end, that Hitler could be prevented from enacting any of his more objectionable goals (one-man dictatorship, sidelining of the aristocracy, etc.); furthermore, they had drawn themselves into a corner by ultimately being a very small part of the governing coalition relative to the much larger Nazi bloc in government. Hindenburg soon died of old age and von Papen was sidelined in 1934. the tl;dr version is that conservatives hated the social democrats more than they were afraid of Hitler, who they naively assumed that they could control; the social democrats themselves were feckless and generally unwilling to resort to the violence which characterized the Nazi, Communist, and Conservative approach to politics; the Communists were more interested in abolishing democracy than stopping the Nazis via parliamentary democracy; and Hitler was ultimately a much more canny political operator than von Papen and Hindenburg had initially believed. HannibalBarca fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Dec 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:the tl;dr version is that conservatives hated the social democrats more than they were afraid of Hitler, who they naively assumed that they could control; the social democrats themselves were feckless and generally unwilling to resort to the violence which characterized the Nazi, Communist, and Conservative approach to politics; the Communists were more interested in abolishing democracy than stopping the Nazis via parliamentary democracy; and Hitler was ultimately a much more canny political operator than von Papen and Hindenburg had initially believed. yikes that looks eerily familiar lmao
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Condiv posted:for a lot of people in the nation, they feel the world has already passed them by. i'd imagine it's the same for your friend. what's the point in trying to catch up if it seems impossible? Survival is generally considered to be its own reward among organisms but yes I can see how if one feels they need additional incentives they might easily wind up caught in an Oblomov-esque state of existential paralysis
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
LGD posted:Clearly, she was a candidate too noble and good to succeed in this fallen, sin-cursed world. So are you arguing there's no difference between Clinton and trump now? I can't tell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:more... amoral... by any objective measure  That there are people who think they have a yardstick that measures morality objectively is pretty hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So are you arguing there's no difference between Clinton and trump now? I can't tell. No, I'm mocking you for being an idiot, because your posts and opinions are so terrible that that's the natural response, I thought that was pretty obvious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Violator posted:Good point, but I don't know what you do because you can't sit around stagnating while the world passes you by. You can vote for Trump. That's what you can do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:
Anyway, it's moot as far as my actual point/question is concerned -- someone please explain why Trump's supporters are implicated by their candidate but Hillary supporters aren't implicated by theirs. If voting for Trump in light of his history makes you an rear end in a top hat, how are you not an rear end in a top hat for voting for Hillary? Keep in mind this is about their past words and deeds, and not the potential threat they pose once in office. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Dec 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:
Insanely hosed up that some people aren't moral relativists for whom ethical questions aren't just, like, your opinion, man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Mnoba posted:yikes that looks eerily familiar lmao 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Survival is generally considered to be its own reward among organisms but yes I can see how if one feels they need additional incentives they might easily wind up caught in an Oblomov-esque state of existential paralysis For a lot of people, survival is seeming harder and harder. Back to his friend 10 years removed from college, he has probably taken on debt during that time for any number of reasons (survival, making his life bearable, etc). What's he supposed to do about that while he heads back to university for four years? Let's also remember that a lot of aid is completely unavailable to people older than the typical college student because we don't want people just staying in college forever. Considering that, you can start to see how retraining can seem like a losing proposition, and that your situation is hopeless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:If the election were held in the middle of October it probably would have been that landslide. I doubt it. This is just me spitballing, but I feel like most of Trump's polling dips represented temporarily embarassed Repubs who didn't want to be associated with the latest Trump fiasco, but still intended to vote for him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:You can vote for Trump. That's what you can do. *post-election* "Why won't these brainless asshats vote for us?" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
"The New Republic posted:Though Democratic leaders and pundits are fretting about the “electability” of a candidate with a message like Sanders’s, the same realities that faced McGovern in 1972 will face any Democrat in November. Most of the factors that will determine the fate of the Democratic candidate in the general election—particularly the state of the economy and Obama’s approval ratings—are out of the nominee’s control. Moreover, little ink has been spilled and few hands have been wrung over how the relationship between economic growth and the popular vote, once the key to an incumbent party’s reelection, might be breaking down thanks to the inequality that the New Democrats have done so little to combat. While Obama’s record on job creation and economic growth is impressive, it hasn’t translated into rising wages for most Americans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
"Survival" can also probably be reasonably expanded to include "adequately fed, sheltered, and (medically) cared for." For people who live in America, you can expect to be deficient in all those categories if you don't have adequate employment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Motto posted:I doubt it. This is just me spitballing, but I feel like most of Trump's polling dips represented temporarily embarassed Repubs who didn't want to be associated with the latest Trump fiasco, but still intended to vote for him. Temporary dips can be quite meaningful if the timing is right, the margin was close enough that a fiasco like the groping tape dropping immediately before the election could definitely drive things a few points (due to depressed/motivated turn out) and swing things enough the other way to create an electoral "landslide."
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
This might apply if Clinton hadn't shifted most messaging to "Trump bad".
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Nah there's a pretty convincing argument that the shifts in polling with events like the Comey letters weren't due to people changing their voting intentions but rather due to changes in responses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Edit: Oh, they were stating the argument to prove it was dumb. My bad. MizPiz fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Dec 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:*post-election* Again, you can campaign on dragging them kicking and screaming into a changing world, or you can lie to them about being able to undo all that change. These asshats won't vote for us because we can't propose turning back the clock with a straight face.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Motto posted:I doubt it. This is just me spitballing, but I feel like most of Trump's polling dips represented temporarily embarassed Repubs who didn't want to be associated with the latest Trump fiasco, but still intended to vote for him. Very possible, which would mean that the desired landslide was never actually a real possibility. But I'm sure it would have been a Clinton win at least, even if it was only by a handful of EVs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Condiv posted:For a lot of people, survival is seeming harder and harder. Back to his friend 10 years removed from college, he has probably taken on debt during that time for any number of reasons (survival, making his life bearable, etc). What's he supposed to do about that while he heads back to university for four years? Let's also remember that a lot of aid is completely unavailable to people older than the typical college student because we don't want people just staying in college forever. Considering that, you can start to see how retraining can seem like a losing proposition, and that your situation is hopeless. I'm not advocating that guy going back to school lol But like, I was a lit student. Virtually everyone I knew in college was a lit, arts, or theater student. Tens of millions of people graduated with basically worthless degrees because every authority figure in their pre-adult life told them to, and while they're not all living it up like the radiologists and corporate lawyers they're not grubbing in the gutters for soggy half-burgers to subsist on unless there's something more than that seriously wrong with them. This is not the fundamental inequity of our economy, just one of the lesser injustices that happened to hit the comfortable middle class hardest. Don't confuse this guy's feeling he's owed a white picket fence for having studied for four years for the struggle of the oppressed. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Dec 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:Again, you can campaign on dragging them kicking and screaming into a changing world, or you can lie to them about being able to undo all that change. These asshats won't vote for us because we can't propose turning back the clock with a straight face. So if we can't convince them the change will be good for them, why do we deserve to be in power?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:So if we can't convince them the change will be good for them, why do we deserve to be in power? Then they suffer and die rinse and repeat because they will never learn.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:Again, you can campaign on dragging them kicking and screaming into a changing world, or you can lie to them about being able to undo all that change. These asshats won't vote for us because we can't propose turning back the clock with a straight face.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Greataval posted:Then they suffer and die rinse and repeat because they will never learn. Good, as long as you have finally given up on politics. Now leftist can show you how to run a successful political party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Democrat Party.jpg
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:The Nazis then cooperated with the Communists (who sought to "heighten the contradictions" by creating a right-wing dictatorship to which they could present the only credible opposition) Ladies and gnetlemen, accelerationism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Trump says problematic things and has an awful history with women. Hillary says less-problematic things and has a body count. "Clinton has a body count" is, let's call it debatable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Iraq War Droning Libya Pizzagate Do I need to continue?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
"It's the economy, stupid." Dole walked into 1996 with the strongest argument for him being that he had paid his dues and it was his turn to be President. Viewed as a strong technocrat, he had his credentials down pat so he didn't bother talking about policy much. Instead, he focused on Bill being a petulant, spoiled child. Plenty of voters didn't give a poo poo about Bill Clinton's checkered past because he delivered what they wanted: a robust economy. Dole's technocratic moral crusade against Bill Clinton was doomed to failure because while people would like to have a virtuous leader, they would much rather have an effective leader that delivers them results.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Plenty of voters didn't give a poo poo about Bill Clinton's checkered past because he delivered what they wanted: a robust economy. Dole's technocratic moral crusade against Bill Clinton was doomed to failure because while people would like to have a virtuous leader, they would much rather have an effective leader that delivers them results. Yes, and I believe this touches bigly upon why so many women were willing to vote for Trump despite his sordid history with their own gender. It's too easy to just say that his supporters simply wrote off the stories as Big Media Lies. And while I'm sure some did just that, I don't think it's an adequate explanation for the population at large. The fact of the matter is that caring about social just issues, racial issues, gender issues, and so forth is a luxury. It is a luxury that many want, but will nonetheless put behind "I am economically stable and can expect to continue to be so". There were undoubtedly many people who voted Trump despite having issues (possibly BIG issues) with his treatment of women, minorities, and god knows who else. But they were simply willing to ignore it because they believed, correctly or not, that he was their best chance at improving their economic future. Someone who is worried about how they are going to provide for themselves or their family might not want a racist for President, but if they believe that racist to be their best shot at getting back to work and regaining their dignity then any higher ideals they may have about social justice will fly straight out the window. And I'm not sure I can say that is wrong of them. Meme Poker Party fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Dec 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
It's nice to theorize about the noble intentions of trump voters, but we know that voters who picked Obama in '12 and who voted Trump in '16 were significantly more likely to express racial animosity. There's much more evidence that people voted trump because of his abhorrent views than in spite of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's nice to theorize about the noble intentions of trump voters, but we know that voters who picked Obama in '12 and who voted Trump in '16 were significantly more likely to express racial animosity. There's much more evidence that people voted trump because of his abhorrent views than in spite of them. And yet they were still able to vote for Obama. What sort of black magic did you think he cast make that happen?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
MizPiz posted:And yet they were still able to vote for Obama. What sort of black magic did you think he cast make that happen? Racism is a complicated, multifarious phenomenon, maybe? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 02:52
|
|