|
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. Voted for the patriot act, iraq war, and pretty much all of the bad policy we've seen over the past 20 years.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
Yes what's wrong with the interim DNC? Losing horrifically post-Trump is cool, good, and ol' school Democratin so it is good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
The DNC chair does not control the party. Neither does the minority leader in the House, but as a figurehead at least they have a bigger impact on the party and the party direction specifically. The fact that we've got the same leadership for the last 12 years there despite losing terribly for most of those years, does not bode well for the immediate future. Basically even if Keith Ellison or some other Progressive is elected to the chairmanship, he's going to be fighting a status quo which loses elections but is defended and emboldened by other people in the party leadership like Nancy Pelosi. It's looking more and more like Ellison is just some bone the establishment plans to throw to the Progressives, who once elected they'll do everything possible to undermine before kicking him out with a "well we didn't win both houses of Congress in 2018, back to DWS I guess 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted: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. She lost to a crazy demagogue, that proves she's a terrible candidate. Here's an explanation: The 2008 recession hurt male dominated jobs more than female dominated jobs, and in key rustbelt states (i.e. the ones she needed to win), those male dominated jobs haven't come back. Hillary Clinton ignored those states while Trump promised manufacturing jobs to come back (not that i expect them to). If you were a black man in one of those states and your job was outsourced or replaced with automation, you might be a little miffed that Hillary doesn't give a gently caress about you and that might explain why black turnout was depressed and some might have even gone for Trump when they went heavily for Obama before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Maybe we could set up a Oujia board in Lenin's tomb to run the DNC?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted: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 20:25
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted: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. Your counter-theory is explicitly that minority men identify with and like people who commit sexual assault, so I genuinely don't know why anyone would care what you find "compelling." In general you demonstrate a narrow-mindedness and lack of empathy that, imo, makes you fundamentally incapable of successfully addressing the core question of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Voted for the patriot act, iraq war, and pretty much all of the bad policy we've seen over the past 20 years. Pelosi did not vote for the Iraq War.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Pelosi owns hard..marble kitchen counter tops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:Pelosi did not vote for the Iraq War. ok replace that with no child left behind then, or any number of the horrible bills shes voted for
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Maybe we could set up a Oujia board in Lenin's tomb to run the DNC?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Maybe we could set up a Oujia board in Lenin's tomb to run the DNC? Better than just waiting out the natural course of democrats and republicans switching every other presidency which is what Nancy is suggesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Better than just waiting out the natural course of democrats and republicans switching every other presidency which is what Nancy is suggesting. Probably would happen even if you got the ghost of Karl Marx in charge of the Democrats. People aren't logical voters. Most are either strongly attached to one party or another, or tend to blame whoever is in power for how hosed their life currently is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Maybe we could set up a Oujia board in Lenin's tomb to run the DNC? would probably be more capable of winning elections than the current leadership
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Probably would happen even if you got the ghost of Karl Marx in charge of the Democrats. Past results do not guarantee future performance. Lets not minimize the depths of the democratic party's incompetence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted: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. If a male clone of Hillary had won (which i don't think would have happened, but you're insisting here so OK) and thereby prevented the evisceration of abortion rights, are you saying women would be worse off, because he won because of sexism? If that were the choice it seems to me insane ot suggest Hillary should have run instead of her clone. I don't actually think that was the choice, but this is what I mean when I talk about liberal purity politics Liberals would literally rather lose and have much worse aggregate outcomes, in order to preserve their own personal moral purity icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Past results do not guarantee future performance. Lets not minimize the depths of the democratic party's incompetence. I'm pretty sure that if the Democratic Party ever reached your required level of Purity it would have exactly one voter: you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I'm pretty sure that if the Democratic Party ever reached your required level of Purity it would have exactly one voter: you. Hmm, didn't i say i was fine with Nancy Pelosi until she said what she said last page? Sounds like i am open to compromise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I'm pretty sure that if the Democratic Party ever reached your required level of Purity it would have exactly one voter: you. Believe it or not there exists more than one person who doesn't want to vote for corporatists any more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
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 specifically now are we on a cliff? There have been candidates like Trump before. To me this is just another part of a downward spiral. The Boomers are deep into the existential crisis of late capitalism. And while the Republicans have unchecked control over the government, the only way they get out of this is if Trump somehow turns the party away from privatizing medicare and social security. This would be my two cents on Democrats coming out strong in 2020. 1. Get engaged locally and start filling the state legislatures. If the Democrats refuse to do a purge from within, we can do a purge from without. 2. Start winning governor races. If you want the gerrymandering to stop, that's a good place to start. 3. Make sure to have good House/Senate candidates on the table for 2020, in particular the Midwest. 4. And lastly, run someone from the military wing for the WH. Attack Trump on starting poo poo with Iran, which he will do. Offer an olive branch to the supporters that fell to the other side for the return to something normalcy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
As an outsider I know my opinion might not mean much, but quite honestly the main reason I see for Hillary's loss was her not campaigning enough in various states, and not efficiently enough. Coupled with some properly timed "scandals" and great campaigning by Trump, that's what eventually got him the win. I don't think ideology mattered all that much, because let's face it, if it did he'd have been kicked out of the race before it even began. He was just the better and more enthusiastic entertainer. It didn't matter that he's a complete shithead that either doesn't know or care about any of the rules of leading.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
LGD posted:Your counter-theory is explicitly that minority men identify with and like people who commit sexual assault, so I genuinely don't know why anyone would care what you find "compelling." Yes my counter theory is that small proportions of minority men have sexist attitudes. Sexism is real. Sexism played a role in what happened this election cycle. Mister Fister posted:She lost to a crazy demagogue, that proves she's a terrible candidate. "male dominated jobs" still isn't explanative, unless you think that no women of color were affected by rust belt job losses, and that no women of color had a spouse or family member whose job was affected. Trump was a crazy demagogue, but the assumption that made him a pushover is clearly wrong--that's what the Clinton campaign thought too. If appeals to racism and sexism actually work, which you strangely dismiss without evidence, demagoguery might have been an advantage this cycle. Clinton spent most of her effort pointing out how bad trump sucked because of his terrible racism and sexism, and a lot of people didn't give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:If a male clone of Hillary had won (which i don't think would have happened, but you're insisting here so OK) and thereby prevented the evisceration of abortion rights, are you saying women would be worse off, because he won because of sexism? If that were the choice it seems to me insane ot suggest Hillary should have run instead of her clone. I don't actually think that was the choice, but this is what I mean when I talk about liberal purity politics If a male Hillary clone would have won, and you claim Hillary lost because she was a terrible candidate, you're claiming she was a terrible candidate because she was a woman.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If a male Hillary clone would have won, and you claim Hillary lost because she was a terrible candidate, you're claiming she was a terrible candidate because she was a woman. lol if you're intellectually capable of making these sorts of bizarre leaps man this sexism stuff really gets you riled up, doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes my counter theory is that small proportions of minority men have sexist attitudes. Sexism is real. Sexism played a role in what happened this election cycle.  Male dominated jobs were CERTAINLY more affected in those states (and others too). Women have a higher percentage of college degrees and female dominated jobs (i.e. nursing) are less prone to being automated or outsourced. And you pointed out part of the problem: Clinton spent more time pointing out how bad Trump is rather than what she would do to better the lives of everyone else, which is why she's a god awful candidate. That's another reason why turnout was depressed in those key states.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If a male Hillary clone would have won, and you claim Hillary lost because she was a terrible candidate, you're claiming she was a terrible candidate because she was a woman. quote:Liberals would literally rather lose and have much worse aggregate outcomes, in order to preserve their own personal moral purity I think they prefer to be called leftists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:lol if you're intellectually capable of making these sorts of bizarre leaps He doesn't actually care about the sexism angle, he was so invested in Hillary winning/her inevitability that he has a hard time coping with it. I mean **I'm** still shocked about the loss, but for someone like him, i can't even imagine what it's like. Hillary can't fail, she can only be failed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:man this sexism stuff really gets you riled up, doesn't it? Yikes Mister Fister posted:
You're missing the point. Women affected by rust belt job losses was not zero, particularly when you consider spouses and family. Yet we saw zero movement away from democrats among women of color. Something else is happening here, and sexism is a valid conjecture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yikes But not nearly as much as men, which is the point. How are you not getting this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Clinton lost because of decades of the hate-on from the Right Wing, and Benghazi/E-Mails. Those were the primary drivers of the low turnout. The continued reporting of what turned out to be a non-scandal as if it were still relevant kept voters away. Comey's letter put the nail in the coffin. Voter disenfranchisement also played a key, as well, but not as much. I believe if her campaign was focused on winning as many areas they could, and if they pushed a message about policy specifically showing how it would help people - it would have gone a long way towards counteracting the media damage. Calls for purges of whatever this thread imagines to be Neoliberals isn't going to help. The platform she ran on wasn't a problem for Joe Public. It was their mistrust of Clinton, however misguided it was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:But not nearly as much as men, which is the point. Women were affected by rust belt job losses. Maybe not as much as men. Yet all the losses in the POC vote were among men. If "jobs" were the explanation, we'd expect to see movement among female POC also. But we don't. Therefore the explanation can't be as simple as jobs, and the obvious explanation for that wide discrepancy--sexism-- must be part of the story. Mister Fister posted:He doesn't actually care about the sexism angle, he was so invested in Hillary winning/her inevitability that he has a hard time coping with it. I mean **I'm** still shocked about the loss, but for someone like him, i can't even imagine what it's like. Anyone claiming sexism affected the election must be making excuses for Hillary and neoliberalism--a Berniebro.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
The fact that the usual suspects are crawling out of the rocks they slithered under after Clinton got shellacked means that I can safely tune out of politics until the revolution happens  Trumps campaign and the reaction to him getting elected are waking up two very angry beasts on both sides of the aisle and if he just starts loving everyone over while Pelosi and shumer shrug and smile, theres only one venue for the people's rage at that point
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Women were affected by rust belt job losses. Maybe not as much as men. Yet all the losses in the POC vote were among men. If "jobs" were the explanation, we'd expect to see movement among female POC also. But we don't. Therefore the explanation can't be as simple as jobs, and the obvious explanation for that wide discrepancy--sexism-- must be part of the story. Outsourcing/automation hurt men in rust belt states much more than women, but for some reason you're arguing like it's even remotely the same. Women have won the highest offices around the world in wealthy countries and poor countries, but for some reason, you think a sizable number of black and hispanic dudes hate women so much they'd rather go for Trump. Hmmm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Outsourcing/automation hurt men in rust belt states much more than women, but for some reason you're arguing like it's even remotely the same. He isn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Blaming minorities and squabbling about tone? Enjoy turning off another generation from voting, fuckos
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:The fact that the usual suspects are crawling out of the rocks they slithered under after Clinton got shellacked means that I can safely tune out of politics until the revolution happens No, don't, everyone has to stay tuned in to make the revolution actually happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Blaming minorities and squabbling about tone? Enjoy turning off another generation from voting, fuckos But then I don't have to confront the system and try to reform it! MizPiz posted:No, don't, everyone has to stay tuned in to make the revolution actually happen. Yes! Get involved please, even if it's just calling your Senator/Congressperson.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Blaming minorities and squabbling about tone? Enjoy turning off another generation from voting, fuckos Who blamed minorities? Stop making poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Who blamed minorities? Stop making poo poo up. oh boy here comes a five-page nuh-uh yuh-huh session on whether saying the misogyny of black men impacted the vote is "blaming" them, and also are black men really a minority, truly, I mean it's not like they're an oppressed class like Hillary Clinton
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If a male Hillary clone would have won, and you claim Hillary lost because she was a terrible candidate, you're claiming she was a terrible candidate because she was a woman. Well no actually I said twice I don't think she lost because she was a woman, that's you that keeps insisting that, and implicitly then that she was a terrible candidate b/c she's a woman. I think she was a terrible candidate for other reasons
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:52
|
|