|
MizPiz posted:"Let's avoid states with precarious support to trick the opposition into not campaigning there" is nth level chess poo poo that cannot be blamed on bad information. My point is that what happened is absolutely unacceptable and I want all the Clinton lackeys to be expelled from the Democratic Party, but those decisions were more rational than they would first appear. Data suggested that North Carolina and Florida were far closer than Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, so the campaign's focus on those states where each dollar spent was more likely to affect the outcome makes more sense in that context.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:29 |
|
|
But they were only rational because they ignored all information that didn't conform to their expectations
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Re: the discrepancy of polls v. the result: Sounds like when they asked people they supported clinton but just couldn't be fuckin bothered to show up for her on election day 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
maybe hillary was actually awesome and her sycophants aren't responsible for letting an incompetent fascist win the presidency? oh wait, no http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:I live in PA and I still have no idea what the gently caress happened in PA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:The really sad thing is, the only reason Bernie seems 'radical' is because of the Democrats chasing center-right votes. Bernie would best be described as 'boring' and 'garden variety' in virtually any other Western nation. We are a more conservative country. I was not looking forward to Thanksgiving because my cousin married a foreign horde from Ireland, and I was imagining him saying "You know, in Ireland our president is practically a Socialist."
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:We are a more conservative country. I was not looking forward to Thanksgiving because my cousin married a foreign horde from Ireland, and I was imagining him saying "You know, in Ireland our president is practically a Socialist." Better not look at how progressive policies poll when they aren't attached to democrats then
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Every time and uninspiring technocrat losses, the same idiot wing of the party comes out in full defeatist tone that America is just a conservative country there's nothing we can do but become more conservatives in return
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:"Best" part: This reminds me of my experience with the Howard Dean campaign. I was an under-employed recent college grad looking for something worthwhile to do with my time. At my Dad's suggestion I drove up to Burlington to volunteer but was told by staffers to go home. I asked for flyers or signs so I could stand on a street corner and hand out. The response was that I should just write a check. The experience left me so disheartened I haven't volunteered for another campaign since.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Every time and uninspiring technocrat losses, the same idiot wing of the party comes out in full defeatist tone that America is just a conservative country there's nothing we can do but become more conservatives in return See Brexit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Every time and uninspiring technocrat losses, the same idiot wing of the party comes out in full defeatist tone that America is just a conservative country there's nothing we can do but become more conservatives in return Obama was an inspiring technocrat and won big. There's not necessarily any link between technocrat and uninspiring.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Radish posted:See Brexit. Exactly, we talk just about the Democrats, but the mainstream left parties across the globe have adopted this same thought and than we're all left perplexed at why over the last decade we've seen a global resurgence in the far right and fascism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Old James posted:This reminds me of my experience with the Howard Dean campaign. I was an under-employed recent college grad looking for something worthwhile to do with my time. At my Dad's suggestion I drove up to Burlington to volunteer but was told by staffers to go home. I asked for flyers or signs so I could stand on a street corner and hand out. The response was that I should just write a check. The experience left me so disheartened I haven't volunteered for another campaign since. Before this incident were you just known as "James"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There's not necessarily any link between technocrat and uninspiring. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Obama was an inspiring technocrat and won big. There's not necessarily any link between technocrat and uninspiring. Obama didn't campaign on being a technocrat. He campaigned on broad, if vague, social goals and ran his campaign like an effective technocrat. Contrast with Gore and Clinton, who campaigned on technocratic ideas like efficiency and incrementalism and ran their campaigns, well, not very efficiently at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Exactly, we talk just about the Democrats, but the mainstream left parties across the globe have adopted this same thought and than we're all left perplexed at why over the last decade we've seen a global resurgence in the far right and fascism. Neoliberalism is inevitable! Free trade is the future! You'll just have to adju...*door on gas chamber slams shut, Made in America stenciled in bold lettering on it's frame.*
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Obama was an inspiring technocrat and won big. There's not necessarily any link between technocrat and uninspiring. And look at how good coat tails shrank as he sprinted to the right away from what he campaigned on, and lower Democrats sprinted to the right even faster in trying to make it look like they're not like Obama, how did that loving work out? Obama being an inspiring technocrat doesn't mean that in the end the big standard party member with no message, no vision for the future will be successful. People responded to Hope and Change, people want change and more than that they want that delivered on. You and your ilk have utterly failed to understand that and so you play helpless as if you are hostage to inevitability and you fail and refuse to learn your lesson. If you shock a mouse enough times when it goes for cheese it will learn not to go for cheese. But no matter how much you lose for the same spineless reasons you refuse to come to any conclusion that maybe what your trying to sell no one wants. gently caress I almost wish I had that amount of unearned self confidence to carry me through day to day
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Obama didn't campaign on being a technocrat. He campaigned on broad, if vague, social goals and ran his campaign like an effective technocrat. Contrast with Gore and Clinton, who campaigned on technocratic ideas like efficiency and incrementalism and ran their campaigns, well, not very efficiently at all. He didn't campaign on being a technocrat, but was a technocrat. So there's no necessary link between being a technocrat and having an uninspiring campaign. Are incrementalism and efficiency really technocratic ideas? Efficient government has been a progressive ideal for nearly a century and incrementalism is about tactics, not ideals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Are incrementalism and efficiency really technocratic ideas? Efficient government has been a progressive ideal for nearly a century and incrementalism is about tactics, not ideals. Yes, they are technocratic ideals. Core to Clintonland/centrist Democratic thinking is the idea that incremental change is all that is possible or desirable, so the best governance improves people's lives by making that incremental change as efficient as possible. It's not exactly an inspiring message, even if you're inclined to think it's a good strategy of governance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:maybe hillary was actually awesome and her sycophants aren't responsible for letting an incompetent fascist win the presidency? Those are two separate propositions. I don't know if any Democrat could have won with that particular band of sycophants at the helm. Reading that article, i sounds like they were running the campaign like some sort of large corporation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:He didn't campaign on being a technocrat, but was a technocrat. So there's no necessary link between being a technocrat and having an uninspiring campaign. Everyone except people wanting to commit fraud holds efficiency as an ideal, only technocrats believe it's more important than actually solving issues. This leads to them holding incrementalism as an ideal rather than a method. Hobologist posted:Those are two separate propositions. I don't know if any Democrat could have won with that particular band of sycophants at the helm. Reading that article, i sounds like they were running the campaign like some sort of large corporation. Makes you wonder how those sycophants even got there in the first place. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Yes, they are technocratic ideals. Core to Clintonland/centrist Democratic thinking is the idea that incremental change is all that is possible or desirable, so the best governance improves people's lives by making that incremental change as efficient as possible. Nevermind that all our largest social policies were rammed through by large majorities and picked at by reactionaries for the entirety of US history. The opposite is true however, we regress gradually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:The opposite is true however, we regress gradually. September 11 looms large here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Better not look at how progressive policies poll when they aren't attached to democrats then Or politicians or politicking or making it substantive and a policy plank. The leaning back on policies by progressives is the same type of sneering arrogance that leads to the Dems being a nowhere party. This election should teach us that its all about optics, all about imagery, all about associations (real or imagined) present in voter's mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:Those are two separate propositions. I don't know if any Democrat could have won with that particular band of sycophants at the helm. Reading that article, i sounds like they were running the campaign like some sort of large corporation. This was a point of pride in the campaign. Goddamn I was stupid to believe they could actually win.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
It's about playing politics! The Right knows this, that's why the repealed Obamacare 200 times because eventually it would stick! Give these liberals a taste of their own drat advice. If you want to be employed (elected) you have to sell yourself. And that's the problem Liberals don't want to play politics, they don't want to actually make the sausage of state. Appeal to the voters, and they'll like you. They don't want to hold their fellow party members that go rogue accountable. That's one less boogeyman they could use to explain why changing anything an wasn't actually possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:September 11 looms large here. Ack, the egg's on my face here. Yeah I was laser focused on internal issues, as a Japanese internment camp survivor shakes his head sadly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:But they were only rational because they ignored all information that didn't conform to their expectations I agree. In future elections, what variables do we prioritize in developing an effective campaign apparatus with limited campaign funds? Are the "lessons learned" from this election applicable to future ones? In other words, is Trump sui generis?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:I agree. In future elections, what variables do we prioritize in developing an effective campaign apparatus with limited campaign funds? Are the "lessons learned" from this election applicable to future ones? In other words, is Trump sui generis? Off the top of my head: 1) Nominate a presidential candidate that people are actually excited about, rather than one of the most disliked people in the last quarter century 2) Upend the clown car that is the DNC, Washington liberal political bubble, and various dem state chieftiens 3) The primary being used as effective cudgel to push state and local candidates people can actually believe in 4) Work in knitting back in the under 50,000 income working class families that have been the bulwart of the Dem party since FDR (Hillary still won them, but by about 20 points less than Obama. Even levels, we wouldn't be here). 5) Part and parcel of number 4, vigirously push minority and women voices and causes 6) Work on a donor/media bubble that reinforces the top 5. EDIT: 7) Throw out anything and anyone that smacks of the politics of the last decade and a half.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:maybe hillary was actually awesome and her sycophants aren't responsible for letting an incompetent fascist win the presidency? If I were the media or part of the DNC machine, I tool would flood all of the news with bullshit about Comey, or sexism, racism, electoral college, russia, anything to try to bury what actually happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
And yet none of those things are bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
And none of them are the main reason she lost, which is that she ran one of the most breathtakingly incompetent campaigns in history predicated almost entirely on a data model that had been proven wrong twice earlier in the year, along with her campaigns overwhelming hubris. Hillary literally spent more time with Lena Dunham than the UAW. Think about that. ex post facho fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Off the top of my head: So, aside from Bernie and Warren, who's left then? Because everyone else skews as a neoliberal, technocratic, Clinton/Obama protege- except maybe that guy that tried to challenge Pelosi's leadership two weeks ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
When was the data model proven wrong? I'm assuming you mean Michigan and Wisconsin? Why would those two states not being won by Clinton during the primaries be indicative of a faulty model, especially when Clinton won Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (not to mention Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona) but also lost those in the general?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:My point is that what happened is absolutely unacceptable and I want all the Clinton lackeys to be expelled from the Democratic Party, but those decisions were more rational than they would first appear. Data suggested that North Carolina and Florida were far closer than Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, so the campaign's focus on those states where each dollar spent was more likely to affect the outcome makes more sense in that context. Maybe the democrats lost the election because they didn't ideologically purge enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:And yet none of those things are bullshit. none of those things matter as much as hillary's idiocy sabotaging her own election prospects. that she and her surrogates keep harping on about them means they will not learn the fundamental lessons they need to to ever win an election again trump was an easy candidate to beat for the dems. hillary couldn't beat him because she was a gigantic idiot supported by a sea of her favorite idiots Condiv fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Maybe the democrats lost the election because they didn't ideologically purge enough. Unironically this. The neoliberal technocrats that sold America out to Republican ideals for the last thirty years should've been burned alive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:This was a point of pride in the campaign. It's okay, we bought into the big lie because we had to. Looking back on these things and performing honest self assessment is a skill in short supply.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Unironically this. The neoliberal technocrats that sold America out to Republican ideals for the last thirty years should've been burned alive. Of course they should. Doesn't mean it'll ever allow you to win anything again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:29 |
|
|
Condiv posted:none of those things matter as much as hillary's idiocy sabotaging her own election prospects. that she and her surrogates keep harping on about them means they will not learn the fundamental lessons they need to to ever win an election again Did Clinton lose because she was an idiot or because she was a centrist (not that those are mutually exclusive)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 22:37
|
|