|
It's almost like charismatic figures can get people to go along with anything, while technocrats with negative charisma need to actually work to get elected. But hey #ItsHerTurn
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
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 The terrible candidate at the top of the ticket made Feingold lose. Since Bernie would have won, so would have Feingold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Bernie would have won Bloomberg would have won
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Fiction posted:The terrible candidate at the top of the ticket made Feingold lose. Since Bernie would have won, so would have Feingold. I remember reading (here on SA) how HRC was a great candidate because she would funnel loads of money into the down ticket races. Did the money really not help - or was this just another one of her perks like being 'electable'?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:I remember reading (here on SA) how HRC was a great candidate because she would funnel loads of money into the down ticket races. Did the money really not help - or was this just another one of her perks like being 'electable'? Actually barely any of it. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670 It really feels like her entire campaign was just one giant scam. Bernie was finger wagged over it, but he really had close to no one supporting his run who was an elected official within the DNC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Actually barely any of it. quote:And for party committees in contested states, there’s another risk: They might find themselves unable to accept cash from rich donors whose checks to the victory fund counted toward their $10,000 donation limit to the state party in question — even if that party never got to spend the cash because it was transferred to the DNC. This is incredibly blatant. I was honestly shocked at how soundly downticket dems were crushed, but it makes sense if all of their funding was laundered towards the Dnc-Hillary Victory Fund.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
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?  Just drive-bying to say I love this post Literally "If Clinton's message was really the problem with her campaign, why do I keep insisting it wasn't?" "I'm pretty sure that the fact I disagree with you is solid logical proof that you're wrong"
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Actually barely any of it. So the relationship between Clinton and the DNC was parasitic? Is there one where the suckers actively support the parasite instead of just passively being sucked dry?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes, and I think it's interesting that leftists who hate Hillary for her neoliberalism are sometimes just fine with diamond joe. Neoliberalism was not specifically why she lost the election. Not in an election where she had millions more popular votes when running against one of the only people in the country less likeable than Clinton, and a few tens of thousands in a few key states. It contributed in a big way to shaping Clinton the person into Clinton the politician, and Neoliberalism ensured she would never be able to offer a genuine populist appeal - not when establishment Democratic policy is that economics lie outside of the political realm (we can have fundamental changes to America, but not to anything relating to economics). Neoliberalism, and its manifestation in American politics as a "progressive" party that worships at the feet of Wall Street donors and declares significant changes to the economic status quo to be off the table entirely, IS why we have Republican unitary government and it why millions of Americans are going to suffer greatly under it for the next 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Actually barely any of it. This is pretty interesting, but is there a more recent article showing how this trend developed once the General Election kicked into high gear?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
cheese posted:This may come as a massive surprise to you JeffersonClay, but most voters make their decision more on feelings and emotion than they do on carefully reasoned analysis of pages of policy. Hillary is not charismatic and was not able to use charisma to overcome her faults the way Obama or even Joe Biden were able to. P much this The idea that Americans choose their presidential candidate by doing point-by-point analyses of their platforms as presented by their official websites is a big part of why Democrats lose. Some people can convince Americans that a neoliberal agenda is in their best interests. Hillary Clinton is not one of those people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
There is no difference between a high school student council election and the US Presidential Election except for how votes are counted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:So the relationship between Clinton and the DNC was parasitic? Is there one where the suckers actively support the parasite instead of just passively being sucked dry? Look up Cow birds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:There is no difference between a high school student council election and the US Presidential Election except for how votes are counted. Except for one it's the literal end of the world that the Queen Bee lost, and for the other it's the figurative end of the world that the Queen Bee lost. We'll leave it up in the air the distinction between the two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
loquacius posted:P much this Bill Clinton was loving masterful at it. The man could punch you in the dick and you'd walk away thanking him for the privilege. Pollyanna posted:There is no difference between a high school student council election and the US Presidential Election except for how votes are counted. High school never ends. Ever. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Look up Cow birds. To be fair to the warblers, their behavior is reinforced by the cowbird/cuckoo destroying the nest if the parasite egg is left to die or removed. Over the course of numerous generations it selectively encouraged traits that make the warbler unable/unwilling to kill the parasite egg. So it's not entirely a willing parasitism. Some cuckooky researchers also theorize that by supporting the egg the warblers are temporarily protected by the parasite birds before they migrate (both by said parasite birds and from other predators), so it might not be -entirely- parasitism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
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'd posit that the kinds of people who didn't turn out for Hillary are exactly the kind of people who would have been excited by a progressive candidate. And we know Democrats are much less inclined to vote at all when they're not voting for a president so if the presidential candidate at the top of your ticket isn't bringing out progressives it's an up-hill battle to get them to vote for you in spite of that. Futuresight fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
I'm pretty excited to see how accelerationism does with the after-we-hit-the-wall part of the plan. Is there a plan afterward? Last I heard about Ellison, a bunch of people were suspicious because there wasn't a big fight, which made folks think he'd been co-opted. Is that still a thing? There were some murmurings about maybe Perez with his labor ties and lack of continuing responsibilities, and some guy who just came around to womens' self-determination like a year ago but that's all but dried up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
Higsian posted:I'd posit that the kinds of people who didn't turn out for Hillary are exactly the kind of people who would have been excited by a progressive candidate. And we know Democrats are much less inclined to vote at all when they're not voting for a president. Its Democrats who need to get fired up to vote and its why Hillary lost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I'm pretty excited to see how accelerationism does with the after-we-hit-the-wall part of the plan. Is there a plan afterward? Last I heard about Ellison, a bunch of people were suspicious because there wasn't a big fight, which made folks think he'd been co-opted. Dammit, Megahitler was supposed to be the possible bad outcome after hitting the wall, not the wall itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:She sounds like a loving idiot. This is a tantrum vote. EFB by some guy I didn't read yet in the same article. Eh, there's a distinction between someone doing something wrong and dumb and them being "an idiot" in general. I think that voting for Trump was absolutely a dumb and wrong thing to do under all circumstances, but I can still understand the flawed reasoning that lead to such an action. As a not-perfect human being I also do dumb and wrong things sometimes and I'd like to think that it doesn't make me a stupid piece of trash (because otherwise literally everyone would be a stupid piece of trash). One of the big issues I see with a lot of rhetoric like this is conflating "doing/thinking a wrong/dumb thing" with "being a bad/dumb person." Making a bad decision does not make someone dumb trash, especially if their reasoning, while incorrect, is pretty easy to understand (as is the case with some non-Republican Trump voters). edit: And if I had to be honest, I think that many people just enjoy the feeling of looking down on others as being dumber than them, though obviously it's easy for them to deny this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
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. Partially beaten, but Clinton is inextricably linked with things like NAFTA, the Gramm bill, and other pieces of free trade legislation that, fairly or unfairly, have become political poison for the Dems. Her husband's administration bears a lot of the blame for these pieces of legislation, and given that she herself was advertised as a partner in his administration, it was always going to be a major black mark on her record. e: Obviously Biden's own record is not spotless in this regard, but at least he could have plausibly run on having a hand in the CFPB, Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, etc. (say what you will about how adequate or inadequate those policy items are; I'm talking entirely politically here) Majorian fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
cheese posted:If the Republican numbers from 2008, 2012 and 2016 say anything, its that X% of American's are going to 1) Show up and 2) Vote Republican. Doesn't matter if it John McCain, Mitt Romney or Donald Trump, three candidates who could not all be further from each other in terms of policies, style, experience levels, etc. 59.8m voted in 2008, 60.9m voted in 2012 and 62.9m voted in 2016. This number is not going to radically change in 2020. Yeah it's this. The strategy was based on depressing Republican turnout by broadcast what a world class scumbag Trump was. And by some metrics it was even successful. Some 60% of people agreed he was a racist, sexist buffoon. It's just that 15% of those then went on to vote for him once they were alone in the voting booth. We put too much trust in polls where Republicans pretended to be ever so worried about his behavior when they were always going to ignore it in the end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
zegermans posted:She did however have the mothers of several lynching victims speak at the convention, much to the chagrin of bernouts on social media who couldn't stop asking why the DNC was honoring "that michael brown thug" Man, I can't tell if him being a troll or actually being Hillary supporter who believes the above is worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
The reason Republicans always show up to vote in basically the same numbers/percentages every year without fail is because they have far far far superior consensus building institutions than Liberals have. This is partly due to the fact that Liberal economic policy is nearly indistinguishable from right wing policy and liberals have no real identity. That's my half assed theory. I hope that it helps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:The reason Republicans always show up to vote in basically the same numbers/percentages every year without fail is because they have far far far superior consensus building institutions than Liberals have. This is partly due to the fact that Liberal economic policy is nearly indistinguishable from right wing policy and liberals have no real identity. Yeah, you see single minded voter unity because the voters have a wedge issue, and know that their issue will be acted upon at some point by the party. Democrats don't have fractured turnout because of critical thinking or intellect or any dumb superiority complex reason, its because everyone has very real doubts about if the democrat picked will actually act upon their core issue (or worse, regress from the status quo), and you can only vote for The Lesser Evil so many times before it overburdens you. To be as charitable as humanly possible to Hillary democrats, I think they've misread why Republicans win, and assume that the path to victory us unwavering sports team support and attacking anyone and everyone who tries to break ranks. With the hope that after this strategy succeeds that democrats will suddenly start supporting the leftist policies they secretly believe in their heart of hearts
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:There is no difference between a high school student council election and the US Presidential Election except for how votes are counted. It would be interesting to see what would happen if a school attempted to replicate the American presidential system. Oh, you had detention one day last year? You can't vote. The 50 student first-period math class will have three electors; the 6 student first-period shop class will have two. Okay, sure, Linda had more votes, but they weren't from the right students in the right classes, so Jake wins. Jake will now follow through on his campaign promise to eliminate school rules against taking lunch money from freshmen and giving them swirlies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
I think it's also fair to say that Obama's continuation of neoliberal policies and willingness to sacrifice fundamental progressive institutions on the altar of compromise and budget hawkery probably did not help endear the voters to the candidate that not only codified that kind of triangulation back in the 90s, but based much of her campaign around "continuing the work of Obama". His lack of prosecutions of financial crimes and the overall Goldman-Sachs-friendly financial advisors weren't much help in that regard, especially with her complete unwillingness to take the early hit about those speeches and allow that to metastasize into a larger trust issue with the public, feeding into one of her long-term biggest weaknesses in her public image. Then there were her initial comments on TPP, followed by her reversal when advocating for it had finally become inconvenient. Essentially the Dem strategy of embracing austerity in the face of overwhelming corruption and economic destruction did not strengthen their argument of being the party for the workers, and a candidate who is unable to come across as sincere made that damage all the more fatal. Domestic poo poo aside, she was also involved in the vote for invading Iraq and ran around proud about her Republican neocon endorsements and close relationship with Henry Kissinger. She was a really bad candidate for an election where the failures of institutions to protect the public interest were front-and-center.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:Did the money really not help
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Speaking of Obama, he started throwing shade at the UK Labour Party. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...MP=share_btn_tw I guess that his party has disintegrated under his very stewardship hasn't phased him
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Speaking of Obama, he started throwing shade at the UK Labour Party. Milquetoast centrism cannot fail, it can only be failed. On the other hand Labour is a good example of why the neoliberals need to be shut out of power pronto, because mere moments after they elected an actual left-wing leader the neoliberal wing of Labour started trying to sabotage their own party as hard as they could.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Milquetoast centrism cannot fail, it can only be failed. The late 70s/early 80s hosed previously left-ish parties so badly that they adopted a lightweight rendition of the right wing platforms pushed by reaganites/thatcherites out of a tragic misreading of the tea/coca leaves and an unquenchable lust for power. Bill Clinton and the DLC crawled out of that ooze, and people like Milliband represent the type of politician who made their career under the center-right paradigm after the fall of the USSR. If this decade portends some kind of realignment where the old labor-affiliated left comes surging back hand in hand with social/civil progressivism then here's to hoping the rest of the civilized world salts the poisoned earth that sprouted the craven technocrats who eroded civil institutions so drastically that Putin was able to kick off isolationist revolts in a half dozen first world countries. Hell, if we make it through without reverting to bottlecaps and pet cockroaches as currency.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The late 70s/early 80s hosed previously left-ish parties so badly that they adopted a lightweight rendition of the right wing platforms pushed by reaganites/thatcherites out of a tragic misreading of the tea/coca leaves and an unquenchable lust for power. Bill Clinton and the DLC crawled out of that ooze, and people like Milliband represent the type of politician who made their career under the center-right paradigm after the fall of the USSR. If this decade portends some kind of realignment where the old labor-affiliated left comes surging back hand in hand with social/civil progressivism then here's to hoping the rest of the civilized world salts the poisoned earth that sprouted the craven technocrats who eroded civil institutions so drastically that Putin was able to kick off isolationist revolts in a half dozen first world countries. Hell, if we make it through without reverting to bottlecaps and pet cockroaches as currency. a good fauxton post? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Speaking of Obama, he started throwing shade at the UK Labour Party. if you think the party wasn't already disintegrating long before Obama came to power.e: Also, leftists need to co-opt Obama. Yes, he's a centrist neoliberal. Doesn't matter. He's the most popular politician in the country, and he probably doesn't want his legacy to end this way. Get him to back Sanders et al. as the future of the party. He will do it if they ask nicely enough. Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:e: Also, leftists need to co-opt Obama. Yes, he's a centrist neoliberal. Doesn't matter. He's the most popular politician in the country, and he probably doesn't want his legacy to end this way. Get him to back Sanders et al. as the future of the party. He will do it if they ask nicely enough. Yeah, right. Leaving the typical political preferences of New Democrats aside, endorsing the Progressive wing of the party basically means that Obama would have to admit that he has been doing it all wrong for the the past eight years, and that's not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Obama is still butt hurt that Sanders considered a primary run in 2012 lmao do you think he would ever endorse him over the corporatist wing of the party?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Yeah, right. Leaving the typical political preferences of New Democrats aside, endorsing the Progressive wing of the party basically means that Obama would have to admit that he has been doing it all wrong for the the past eight years, and that's not going to happen. Hasn't stopped Republicans from deifying Reagan. His actual policies don't matter, just the image. And after a month of PE Trump, presenting the image of a dignified, respectful Obama will be like offering manna from heaven for prospective dem candidates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Yeah, right. Leaving the typical political preferences of New Democrats aside, endorsing the Progressive wing of the party basically means that Obama would have to admit that he has been doing it all wrong for the the past eight years, and that's not going to happen. OAquinas posted:Hasn't stopped Republicans from deifying Reagan. His actual policies don't matter, just the image. Exactly. Obama can still play the "This is what I was ACTUALLY trying to do, but Republicans kept loving everything up" card, and people will believe it. He'll go along with it, because he knows it's the only way to salvage his legacy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Hasn't stopped Republicans from deifying Reagan. His actual policies don't matter, just the image. It kinda helps that Reagan is dead, and thus could safely be used as the American Lenin. Majorian posted:Exactly. Obama can still play the "This is what I was ACTUALLY trying to do, but Republicans kept loving everything up" card, and people will believe it. He'll go along with it, because he knows it's the only way to salvage his legacy. He won't go along with it, because New Democrats would rather have the Republicans in power than the left.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:He won't go along with it, because New Democrats would rather have the Republicans in power than the left. I don't think that's true of Obama. I think his primary motivating force is ego. He liked being Cool President, and he wants people to remember his term and his political legacy positively. That's more important to him than ideology or loyalty to the New Dems, who I don't think he personally likes all that much anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 18:36
|
|