|
I assume the reasoning is that Clinton lost because of her neoliberalism, while Biden would have won despite his neoliberalism. Which seems extremely dubious to me, but I assume that's how the argument goes.
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Biden's votes in the senate were to the right of Hillary's, he's closer to the financial industry, he wrote the 1994 crime bill. People actually like Joe Biden
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't disagree, but it seems like accepting Biden could have won means accepting neoliberalism isn't why Hillary lost. Neoliberalism is part of the cocktail of crap that led to her demise. Her various scandals, and her campaign's bizarre attitude from the get go was also a part of the problem. I mean this was her idea about trying to reach out to the Sanders/Leftists side of the party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEZLNItsqjw "Why should Bernie Sanders supporters vote for you?" "Because I have more votes, and gently caress you".
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't disagree, but it seems like accepting Biden could have won means accepting neoliberalism isn't why Hillary lost. There are dozens of factors that came together to give us Trump. Some of these factors weren't Hillary's fault like the FBI dredging up the email scandal at the last minute or the Republicans suppressing voter turnout. Lots of others though absolutely were her fault like her saying how much she admires Henry Kissinger or failing to run in Wisconsin. Yes, this also includes the fact that her neoliberal ideology is garbage. Saying that she would have won if not for the external issues is true I think. However it's also true that these things wouldn't have mattered if she weren't such a bad candidate representing such a bad party. Also, I ABSOLUTELY think neoliberalism is one of the key forces driving Democratic losses in down ticket races. You need excitement to get someone off their rear end to vote for a city dog catcher but the Democrats offer nothing but mealy mouthed technocrats with no vision and no real appetite for change or confrontation. Of COURSE they're getting their asses kicked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:People actually like Joe Biden Yes, and I think it's interesting that leftists who hate Hillary for her neoliberalism are sometimes just fine with diamond joe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Also, I ABSOLUTELY think neoliberalism is one of the key forces driving Democratic losses in down ticket races. You need excitement to get someone off their rear end to vote for a city dog catcher but the Democrats offer nothing but mealy mouthed technocrats with no vision and no real appetite for change or confrontation. Of COURSE they're getting their asses kicked. But neoliberals Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden didn't/wouldn't have a problem exciting the base?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:But neoliberals Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden didn't/wouldn't have a problem exciting the base? Well two of them can't run and all three of them failed to excite people for Hillary, so...
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Neoliberalism was a distant maybe 5th reason she lost, maybe, I am being quite generous
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Well two of them can't run and all three of them failed to excite people for Hillary, so... I guess by that metric Bernie failed too. There Doesnt seem to be any link between "neoliberalism" and being an uninspiring candidate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
botany posted:I assume the reasoning is that Clinton lost because of her neoliberalism, while Biden would have won despite his neoliberalism. Which seems extremely dubious to me, but I assume that's how the argument goes. Clinton lost because Neoliberalism has hosed the working class so hard that somebody like Donald Trump became a viable candidate. Clinton also lost because New Democrat neoliberals are generally untalented hacks who need to coast along on the coattails of actually charismatic candidates in order to win despite their incompetence. This incompetence largely stems from certain common assumptions shared by most New Democrats, e.g. that you can take the votes of large voting blocks for granted because you're the ~lesser of two evils~ or that Free Trade agreements are super good and have no downsides whatsoever. So as we can see, neoliberalism and neoliberals produce a toxic mix which led them to lose an easily winnable election where they enjoyed most every advantage to an orange clown
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Neoliberalism was a distant maybe 5th reason she lost, maybe, I am being quite generous It's responsible for them having no message for the midwest, so I'd bump that up a few notches. Anyways, it's a better idea to fix as many of the large problems that sunk Hillary, rather than search for The One True Reason. Her strategy was a bad retread of her 08 one, her politics depressed turnout and hamstrung messaging, her history and ongoing scandals alienated undecideds, and her/her campaign/her supporters her hopelessly gung-ho about ignoring any and all signs that they werent going to win.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Neoliberalism was a distant maybe 5th reason she lost, maybe, I am being quite generous I haven't even concluded it was a disadvantage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
If you want to lose elections, "hope we can peddle bad policies with a new Biden/Bill/Obama charismatic figure" is a good way to achieve that. On the bright side, it will be so long between popular democrat presidents that you wont have to worry about unfulfilled promised and reassurances popping up!JeffersonClay posted:I haven't even concluded it was a disadvantage. Quick, write an example of messaging that appeals to midwestern voters that manages to still be neoliberal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I haven't even concluded it was a disadvantage. Yes, I'm sure her campaigning on the message of "America is already great" resonated extraordinarily well with rust belt voters who feel existentially hosed by the system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Clinton lost because Neoliberalism has hosed the working class so hard that somebody like Donald Trump became a viable candidate. Clinton also lost because New Democrat neoliberals are generally untalented hacks who need to coast along on the coattails of actually charismatic candidates in order to win despite their incompetence. This incompetence largely stems from certain common assumptions shared by most New Democrats, e.g. that you can take the votes of large voting blocks for granted because you're the ~lesser of two evils~ or that Free Trade agreements are super good and have no downsides whatsoever. 1)Donald trump advocated a whole lot of neoliberal policy. 2) "neoliberal" joe biden's "neoliberalism" would apparently not have produced this toxic mixture. Ditto for Obama and Bill. I don't see any link between the policies and the campaign strategy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Quick, write an example of messaging that appeals to midwestern voters that manages to still be neoliberal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
500 pages in and Abuela neoliberals like JeffersonClay can't determine what went wrong with their candidate but are ready to poo poo on every other alternative?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:1)Donald trump advocated a whole lot of neoliberal policy. No, he openly repudiated Free Trade, i.e. the core tenet of neoliberalism, on the campaign trail, which carried him the Rust Belt states and thus led to his victory. We've been over this before. Multiple times. It's not my fault that you're super invested in not getting it. JeffersonClay posted:2) "neoliberal" joe biden's "neoliberalism" would apparently not have produced this toxic mixture. Ditto for Obama and Bill. I don't see any link between the policies and the campaign strategy. Cerebral Bore posted:New Democrat neoliberals are generally untalented hacks who need to coast along on the coattails of actually charismatic candidates in order to win despite their incompetence. At least pretend that you're able to read, mate. This is getting pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Take Hillary's economic policies and message them better. So in other words, act more like Joe Biden?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Who's the alternative Im making GBS threads on? If 500 pages haven't convinced me hillary's problem was neoliberalism maybe it's because neoliberalism wasn't the problem?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Take Hillary's economic policies and message them better. "Take the stances that dont appeal to tge midwest and Message harder" is not an answer. I'm not asking for a guaranteed example, I just want you to provide one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Who's the alternative Im making GBS threads on? If 500 pages haven't convinced me hillary's problem was neoliberalism maybe it's because neoliberalism wasn't the problem? Alternatively, you're not against neoliberalism? There's not a silver bullet argument that can persuade someone from something they favor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Who's the alternative Im making GBS threads on? If 500 pages haven't convinced me hillary's problem was neoliberalism maybe it's because neoliberalism wasn't the problem? I'm not wrong, everyone else is wrong!
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
His sole response has been to "execute a better campaign". If after spending 8 years believing the Abuela is the most qualified candidate ever with the campaign equivalent of the Death Star, that's what he thinks now? What a copout.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Who's the alternative Im making GBS threads on? If 500 pages haven't convinced me hillary's problem was neoliberalism maybe it's because neoliberalism wasn't the problem? So you've pretty much ignored the fact that the only parts of Trump's debate performances that had any sort of resonance in the mainstream media and elsewhere were when he slammed Hillary's wishy-washy statements on NAFTA and TPP? Of course, there are many reasons why Hillary lost, both internal and external. But the fact that you not only think there is ZERO correlation between Hillary's neoliberalism and her loss in rust belt states, but that her stances actually HELPED her in these places that she absolutely needed to win, is loving insane. Do you believe that anything Hillary did contributed to her loss, or do you maintain it is all the fault of phishing and Comet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:No, he openly repudiated Free Trade, i.e. the core tenet of neoliberalism, on the campaign trail, which carried him the Rust Belt states and thus led to his victory. We've been over this before. Multiple times. It's not my fault that you're super invested in not getting it. quote:At least pretend that you're able to read, mate. This is getting pathetic. Neurolimal posted:"Take the stances that dont appeal to tge midwest and Message harder" is not an answer. I'm not asking for a guaranteed example, I just want you to provide one. Hillary's economic policies were popular when tested with the electorate. Messaging was the problem. Neurolimal posted:Alternatively, you're not against neoliberalism?. Its not a useful description of policy (or campaign strategy, or charisma, or whatever you're claiming it means this page)
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Pretty easy short term prediction to make - Trump and Ross kill TPP. Happy to mark another incorrect prediction by neoliberals like JeffersonClay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Free trade isn't any more a core component of neoliberalism than gutting regulations or lowering taxes, sorry. Repeating yourself ad nauseum does not make it so. Are you kidding me? Free trade is the most classical tenant of economic liberalism, neoliberalism included. You can't brush free trade aside because those others policies are also generally favored by neoliberals, when it is THE issue that connects it to older state economic liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Hillary's economic policies were popular when tested with the electorate. Messaging was the problem. was this testing done by the same peeps who predicted a landslide victory for her campaign?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
Which policies were tested and found popular? Did people react more positively to $12 min wage than they did with $15? quote:Its not a useful description of policy (or campaign strategy, or charisma, or whatever you're claiming it means this page) 1. That's not a denial of what I said 2. My description of neoliberalism has remained consistent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Are you kidding me? Free trade is the most classical tenant of economic liberalism, neoliberalism included. You can't brush free trade aside because those others policies are also generally favored by neoliberals, when it is THE issue that connects it to older state economic liberalism. Uhhh... Gonna have to ask for a source on this one. Free trade as I understand it was very much something pioneered by Clinton in the 90s. There had been trade deals before, sure, but that was when the idea of outsourcing being inherently good first really became a thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Are you kidding me? Free trade is the most classical tenant of economic liberalism, neoliberalism included. You can't brush free trade aside because those others policies are also generally favored by neoliberals, when it is THE issue that connects it to older state economic liberalism. Neurolimal posted:Which policies were tested and found popular? Did people react more positively to $12 min wage than they did with $15? quote:1. That's not a denial of what I said 2. My description of neoliberalism has remained consistent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Do you think this has more or less to do with popular figures from both parties opposing $15? quote:Ok tell me what neoliberalism means to you then. Are there significant portions of Hillary's economic policies that were not neoliberal and thus they cannot serve as a proxy for neoliberalism? Neoliberalism is a combination of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism favoring no or intentionally retarded growth of workers rights and policies that do not favor the elite class. It is usually defined by others by its free trade policies, which exploit workers locally and abroad in favor of cheaper products and exporting western culture. Sometimes faithfulness to dogma can result in someone who is fiscally liberal but still supports free trade, be it due to a misunderstanding of free trade or partisan adherence to party platforms; it is up to the reader as to whether they are neoliberals. There were minor aspects of Hillary's economic policies which were liberal, but either existed as a compromise ($12 min. Wage) or intentionally targeted a group that needed it least or were closest to the ruling class (debt refinancing for phone app developers starting a company). They would be acceptable with some alterations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
I like how the Bernie Would have Won crowd kinda looks at the ground and shuffles their feet at the Feingold losing worse than Clinton in WI. It's like when you bring up Stalin to tankies - except the super crazy tankies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
zegermans posted:I like how the Bernie Would have Won crowd kinda looks at the ground and shuffles their feet at the Feingold losing worse than Clinton in WI. It's like when you bring up Stalin to tankies - except the super crazy tankies. What does a democrat losing to an incumbent have to do with the general election?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:What does a democrat losing to an incumbent have to do with the general election? Sweet summer child, you're not even trying. It was an upset pure and simple, incumbent meant nothing. It was very instructive about how Bernwald Sundars would have done
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Sweet summer child, you're not even trying. It was an upset pure and simple, incumbent meant nothing. It was very instructive about how Bernwald Sundars would have done I mean, if your strategy for returning Hillary's honor is to bring up dudes who started collecting corporate donations and was gerrymandered by Scott Walker (and then had files relating to it destroyed), then I think you're in for an uphill battle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
zegermans posted:I like how the Bernie Would have Won crowd kinda looks at the ground and shuffles their feet at the Feingold losing worse than Clinton in WI. It's like when you bring up Stalin to tankies - except the super crazy tankies. I just can't take anything you say seriously with that report in your probation, I don't see how they are related at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Ok tell me what neoliberalism means to you then. Are there significant portions of Hillary's economic policies that were not neoliberal and thus they cannot serve as a proxy for neoliberalism? "Neoliberalism" or "Third way liberalism" is kind of a squishy term that's defined more by intent and demographic appeal than by a specific creed. It's used to describe the shift from New Deal FDR economics to a much more nebulous and conservative philosophy first pushed by Bill Clinton in the 90's. A simple way to describe it is "A conservative economic idea set pushed with liberal rhetoric designed to peel away Republican voters/donors without alienating the base". It tends to include things like a willingness to privatize public programs, using business and the free market to solve problems, deficit hawkishness, imperialistic foreign policy, and a belief in the inherent good of Globalization or "economic liberalization" (yes this was an actual talking point in the 90s). EDIT: Oh my god that probation. EDIT 2: I guess it's also worth mentioning that Neoliberals are also sometimes pretty liberal on social issues (because their donors don't loose money from social justice causes) so they often have that as a redeeming quality. Though they are also somewhat notorious for merely paying these issues lip service and doing little in the way of actually fighting for reform. In Bill Clinton's case he was often outright counterproductive when social progress would have been electorally inconvenient (See: DOMA, the crime bill, etc). readingatwork fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
botany posted:I assume the reasoning is that Clinton lost because of her neoliberalism, while Biden would have won despite his neoliberalism. Which seems extremely dubious to me, but I assume that's how the argument goes. Clinton is the symbolic embodiment of neoliberalism. Biden is the symbolic embodiment of Firebirds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 03:11
|
|
