|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Why is what Democrats did or didn't do in the past even relevant? The Republicans currently hold all three branches of government. Well, their behavior in the past is a pretty good predictor of behavior in the future. Especially considering the number of people explicitly saying "We did nothing wrong. Double down"
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
Mister Fister posted:I mean, that's basically what happened with Hillary's nomination. She IS terrible. If you dig into the statistics, Hillary's declining share of these two groups is entirely due to men of color. http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls She got 94% of black women and 82% of black men. Trump got 32% of latinos but only 25% of Latinas. Maybe misogyny had something to do with this? Maybe that's what you mean when you say she was a terrible candidate?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:I disagree, blame needs to be amplified and repeated ad nauseum. Just look at what Nancy Pelosi recently said after she was re-elected minority leader again: Did you see Howard Dean and other establishment people try to defend this? The only thing they could say was "well she's raised a lot of money" and "she knows every Democrat in congress and has raised a lot of money for them". They don't care what Trump does because their donors will still give them money to put on a good show and lose, the Democrats are the Washington Generals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's all true but at this point, don't care. Blame just seems utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters now is that last inch before we go over the edge. Anyone who might help stop that slide is an ally. Why do you think Democrats are going to change their behavior in the future, especially if nobody's allowed to call out their past behavior?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you dig into the statistics, Hillary's declining share of these two groups is entirely due to men of color. It's doubtful whether an exact clone of Hillary but a man would have beaten Trump. In fact we have pretty good proxies for just that scenario, bland technocratic centrist vs populist conservative, they're called 2000 and 2004
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Aggregate congressional approval ratings are low, but people still like their senators and reps (even when they can't name them) and there is substantial evidence that legislators remain responsive to their constituents' policy preferences. would like to see this evidence, because there's been published evidence that more often than not they respond to their wealthy constituents' policy preferences, with the poor and middle class being afterthoughts Condiv fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Highronymouse is 100% right we need every ally we can get. Hillbots should be tarred and feathered, paraded through the streets, and given multiple opportunities to recant past betrayals and swear oaths of loyalty to the New Left Order. Those who do will be greeted as long lost brothers. Those who do not... well, its off to the gulag amigos
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you dig into the statistics, Hillary's declining share of these two groups is entirely due to men of color. Maybe they remember the mass incarceration of men of color that happened under her husband's watch (and her cheerleading it).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It's doubtful whether an exact clone of Hillary but a man would have beaten Trump. In fact we have pretty good proxies for just that scenario, bland technocratic centrist vs populist conservative, they're called 2000 and 2004 Why are you doubtful that misogyny played a role in reduced support for the democratic candidate among men of color, but not women of color?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Why are you doubtful that misogyny played a role in reduced support for the democratic candidate among men of color, but not women of color? Did I say I doubted that? Some napkin math tells me that a swing of 5% of the black and hispanic vote in PA would not be enough to swing the election, so what is the point of highlighting this? icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Maybe they remember the mass incarceration of men of color that happened under her husband's watch (and her cheerleading it). Yeah maybe they were worried about overincarceration in the 90's and so they voted for the guy running on "law and order" because they're idiots. Just as plausible as sexism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:She got 94% of black women and 82% of black men. Trump got 32% of latinos but only 25% of Latinas. Maybe misogyny had something to do with this? Maybe that's what you mean when you say she was a terrible candidate? This may be less misogyny in the "women can't be president" sense and more in the "the partriarchy has negative effects on men including expectations about working" which in turn influenced their responsiveness to Trumps message.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yeah maybe they were worried about overincarceration in the 90's and so they voted for the guy running on "law and order" because they're idiots. Just as plausible as sexism. Or maybe Hillary just confirmed who she is even in TYOOL 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Rsg7GdbLbk
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This may be less misogyny in the "women can't be president" sense and more in the "the partriarchy has negative effects on men including expectations about working" which in turn influenced their responsiveness to Trumps message. I think it's also machismo. Men like a candidate who presents him/herself as a "tough guy." This works for female candidates too - most early female world leaders were along the lines of Margaret Thatcher - the "Iron Lady."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Or maybe Hillary just confirmed who she is even in TYOOL 2016 Pretty appalling sexism on the part of minority men on display here
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:I disagree, blame needs to be amplified and repeated ad nauseum. Just look at what Nancy Pelosi recently said after she was re-elected minority leader again: quote:DICKERSON: Here’s my question, though, Democrats since 2008, the numbers are ghastly for Democrats. Democrats are down 10%, in the house down 19.3% and in governors 35%. The Democrats are getting clobbered at every level over multiple elections. That seems like a real crisis for the party? Democrats are a mess. Democrats are a waste.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The GOP are a handful of state legislatures away from being able to say "the Constitution is whatever we say it is" and this loving rear end in a top hat is like "this is fine, everything is fine". but.. but.. PURGES 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This may be less misogyny in the "women can't be president" sense and more in the "the partriarchy has negative effects on men including expectations about working" which in turn influenced their responsiveness to Trumps message. Yeah and maybe the patriarchy made them more responsive to the pussy grabbing part of his message.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Good lord, Pelosi's even worse than I thought. Why the gently caress is this idiot in charge still 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It's doubtful whether an exact clone of Hillary but a man would have beaten Trump. In fact we have pretty good proxies for just that scenario, bland technocratic centrist vs populist conservative, they're called 2000 and 2004 People seemed pumped about Biden.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yeah and maybe the patriarchy made them more responsive to the pussy grabbing part of his message. Boy you sure are going out of your way to blame minority men here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yeah and maybe the patriarchy made them more responsive to the pussy grabbing part of his message. Oh for sure. Though white women were less put off by that then I would have hoped.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Good lord, Pelosi's even worse than I thought. Why the gently caress is this idiot in charge still Wha'd she do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Good lord, Pelosi's even worse than I thought. Why the gently caress is this idiot in charge still I'd like to hope that the party was still pretty shell shocked after getting totally decimated to really put up a reasonable alternative. If she's still in This Is Fine mode in a a few months and no one in the party cares then it's time to really start freaking out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Like literally the host is asking her "ah, but your party has been getting its rear end kicked up and down the ballot for the last eight years and are now locked out of government completely across the board, are you concerned about this at all?" and her response is "ah no, you see that was inevitable, because..." I mean I guess she's not wrong. With her leading the party, defeat is inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Good lord, Pelosi's even worse than I thought. Why the gently caress is this idiot in charge still The only person that ran against her was Joe Lieberman 2.0, would you have preferred that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Or maybe Hillary just confirmed who she is even in TYOOL 2016 This isn't responsive. There's no reason why someone who thought Hillary secretly wanted to lock up men of color would vote for trump-- he ran on locking up men of color. You need to explain why they would stop voting democrat and start voting trump, and this doesn't do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Oh for sure. Though white women were less put off by that then I would have hoped. It seemed hypocritical when Bill Clinton was cut from the same cloth, and it wasn't really relevant if you didn't think you were likely to meet him in person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:This isn't responsive. There's no reason why someone who thought Hillary secretly wanted to lock up men of color would vote for trump-- he ran on locking up men of color. You need to explain why they would stop voting democrat and start voting trump, and this doesn't do it. This may surprise you, but there are reasons that don't have anything to do with misogyny. I think the real issue is that you can't see Hillary as being as terrible a candidate that the rest of us see. The other explanation is that because Hillary is such an uninspiring candidate, there was a depression of turnout that otherwise might have increased the black turnout for a better democratic nominee (and yes, even another female one) vs Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'd like to hope that the party was still pretty shell shocked after getting totally decimated to really put up a reasonable alternative. If she's still in This Is Fine mode in a a few months and no one in the party cares then it's time to really start freaking out. zegermans posted:The only person that ran against her was Joe Lieberman 2.0, would you have preferred that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The GOP are a handful of state legislatures away from being able to say "the Constitution is whatever we say it is" and this loving rear end in a top hat is like "this is fine, everything is fine". I just want to scream "people I know are going to die because of you" at her and all those other wastes of skin over and over until I pass out from lack of breath and sheer rage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Pelosi herself should have resigned; you have no business leading a party after suffering defeat after defeat like this. The fact that she ran, that no one seemed to have a problem with her running, and that she in fact won handily, speaks to a disease in the Democratic leadership that is likely not curable. She's not the DNC chair. What's wrong with her specifically? She seems to be reasonably leftist, keeps her caucus voting correctly, and does a superb job gumming up congress as much as the house is capable of being gummed up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:This may surprise you, but there are reasons that don't have anything to do with misogyny. I think the real issue is that you can't see Hillary as being as terrible a candidate that the rest of us see. Ya know, she didn't do bad. I know that it is futile to hold much stock in the popular vote, due to it having no legal standing, but if she was really Poison In The Form Of Woman, as you seem to think, then why would she have got more votes than Trump?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:
Yeah I agree with this. The fact that after 2014 beating the DNC was like "oh well no one will have to lose a job over this, it's not like holding onto government matters" was a preview of 2016.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
zegermans posted:She's not the DNC chair. What's wrong with her specifically? She seems to be reasonably leftist, keeps her caucus voting correctly, and does a superb job gumming up congress as much as the house is capable of being gummed up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
zegermans posted:She's not the DNC chair. What's wrong with her specifically? She seems to be reasonably leftist, keeps her caucus voting correctly, and does a superb job gumming up congress as much as the house is capable of being gummed up. Establishment! Woorgh, rargh! Drain the swamp (in a leftist manner of course.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
zegermans posted:She's not the DNC chair. What's wrong with her specifically? She seems to be reasonably leftist, keeps her caucus voting correctly, and does a superb job gumming up congress as much as the house is capable of being gummed up. I mean, i didn't have a problem with her until she basically said she wanted to stay the course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:This may surprise you, but there are reasons that don't have anything to do with misogyny. I think the real issue is that you can't see Hillary as being as terrible a candidate that the rest of us see. You have thus far failed to offer a competing theory to explain why men of color, but not women of color, would stop voting for democrats and start voting for Trump. If she was an inspiring candidate for women but not for men, sexism seems like a valid explanation. Sexism exists. Blaming women who are hurt by sexism is lovely. That's exactly what you're doing when you claim clinton's lackluster performance with men of color proves she was a terrible candidate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:
Yeah I agree with this. The fact that after 2014 beating the DNC was like "oh well no one will have to lose a job over this, it's not like holding onto government matters" was a preview of 2016.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Ya know, she didn't do bad. I know that it is futile to hold much stock in the popular vote, due to it having no legal standing, but if she was really Poison In The Form Of Woman, as you seem to think, then why would she have got more votes than Trump? If this was versus a generic republican, yeah she didn't do too bad, but against a crazy demagogue like Trump, it's incredibly embarrassing that she didn't be Trump by double digits. Even scraping by would have been embarrassing. The fact that she lost in key states where people are suffering economically should be a wakeup call.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:18
|
|