|
Crowsbeak posted:Did I say eat the rich? I said ?"Hey you guys know how much you hate signing up for insurance we'll i'll make it go away. Oh that rear end in a top hat saying he'll be ruined, yeah he's the rear end in a top hat who made you do all the paperwork, wouldn't it be funny if you could make that poo poo head pay?". So a platform of spite and vigilante violence? Ha ha ha ha Jesus Christ.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay, so you're a terrible person. Once again, I don't think you belong in the Democratic Party. It was allegory, not a personal attack. If you're going to sell liberal ideas, you have to sell liberal ideas. Nobody votes for an opportunity to have a discussion, they want government that makes their lives better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Okay, let's say I'm an auto claims adjuster in Kenosha. I'm not really political, but the Republican running for office says he's going to lower my taxes. The Democrat on the other hand, promises to create a broad, inclusive platform that welcomes discourse and debate and that we can do that while offering a program of broadly progressive social change. From my time spent on the internet i've learned that the better answer is always the longer one, so this democrat guy is sounding pret-ty good 2 me!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:It was allegory, not a personal attack. If you're going to sell liberal ideas, you have to sell liberal ideas. Nobody votes for an opportunity to have a discussion, they want government that makes their lives better. People don't want to be represented? That's an interesting tack to take, that people actually really want an oligarchical dictatorship that gives them healthcare. Anyways, your allegory breaks down because tens of millions of people voted for Democrats and there wasn't any huge surge of Democrats shifting to vote Republican in this election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
Chelb posted:From my time spent on the internet i've learned that the better answer is always the longer one, so this democrat guy is sounding pret-ty good 2 me! Let me tell you about my time always going for the longer one.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
It is pretty cool how we should sell "liberal ideas" but that those ideas don't involve democracy. I mean, that's historically true if you consider 19th-century liberalism but most people here are professing leftism or are using it in the American sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So a platform of spite and vigilante violence? Ha ha ha ha Jesus Christ. Brainiac Five posted:It is pretty cool how we should sell "liberal ideas" but that those ideas don't involve democracy. I mean, that's historically true if you consider 19th-century liberalism but most people here are professing leftism or are using it in the American sense. Does any actual voter care about that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I realize that Mark Blyth is often cited on these forums, and for good reason, and I've watched quite a few of his lectures and read his book, and while I agree with his conclusion on Global Trumpism - a movement spurred by a reaction to loss of status and wealth in the West by the formerly (relative to history) wealthy middle class against neoliberal economics being piggybacked on by fascists and xenophobes as a powergrab, fueled by decades of propaganda against immigrants, the poor, and minorities - I actually disagree with parts of his premise, because I think he heavily buys into Great Man historical theory and the idea that the "elites" and rich and powerful are the ones who drive history and the rest of us are merely subject to their whims - in essence, that voters and citizens have no agency, and that we are where we are because some rich people in a backroom decided that's where we belong. i disagree with a lot of this. the guy is a dual political scientist and economist and not american so i think he provides a more level-headed perspective. but that doesn't matter as much. his argument was purely along the lines of economic theory in the instance i'm referencing, talk first about how in the post-new deal era the goal of government was full employment which gave more power to the working classes since they could find employment easier and demanded high wages that limited growth. the only way to grow was to perpetually raise prices which created inflation or the stagflation of the 70s. this was noticed by the people with power who then sought to implement a system that benefited the employers and creditors more. they shifted the focus of economic policy away from full employment to fighting inflation at all cost and deregulation that would allow companies to access the global market in order to combat american wages. we see this evidenced by the policies of the US and the followers of Ayn Rand like Greenspan and people like Milton Friedman. there was a massive intellectual movement of modern conservatives that began getting access to the economic controls at this time the point is, i don't think its "big man of history" so much as a movement. a general trend that involved a lot of people. it resulted in a shift in policy that is easily traceable. of course people had underlaying ideologies that could be used and adapted. we should use underlaying ideologies to institute democratic socialism. the idea is to take what works in the ocean of individual beliefs and sharpen what you can into a tool that you can use to pass effective policy. anyway, the way he lays it out is more theory and action/reaction and seems very logical to me. though i of course appreciate the criticism, no one is perfect. the guy has been right about a bunch of stuff as well. he's not my idol, i don't care if he has some lovely opinions. i care that he's mostly right about things like economics and has been able to predict numerous modern trends. side note: i think you're misrepresenting what he said about the national front. to me he seemed to be making more of an argument about how conservatives are adopting many traditionally liberal economic policies while keeping lovely conservative social policies while liberals are doing the opposite. its not a perfect argument, i agree, but i think there's some truth in the point he's trying to make about the irony of some of the role reversals. RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:People don't want to be represented? That's an interesting tack to take, that people actually really want an oligarchical dictatorship that gives them healthcare. Explain to me how you came to the conclusion that this is what I believe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
I see we're still operating under the assumption that people who voted for trump weren't voting for herrenvolk democracy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Explain to me how you came to the conclusion that this is what I believe. You're insisting that nobody supports the idea of being represented, which is pretty loving critical to democracy, my man.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You're insisting that nobody supports the idea of being represented, which is pretty loving critical to democracy, my man. What did I say, specifically, that led you to this conclusion?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I see we're still operating under the assumption that people who voted for trump weren't voting for herrenvolk democracy. Many did. Others voted for the promise of bringing their old jobs back. Alot didn't vote at all because the Dems were running someone who wasn't in anyway believable and said what to them was a lie. America was already great. Also that she somehow deserved to be president because it was her turn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:What did I say, specifically, that led you to this conclusion? Dr. Fishopolis posted:It was allegory, not a personal attack. If you're going to sell liberal ideas, you have to sell liberal ideas. Nobody votes for an opportunity to have a discussion, they want government that makes their lives better. Now, maybe you misspoke and want to correct yourself, and that's fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Many did. Others voted for the promise of bringing their old jobs back. Alot didn't vote at all because the Dems were running someone who wasn't in anyway beleiveable and said what to them was a lie. America was already great. Also that she somehow her turn. The promise was to bring their old jobs back (which aren't ever coming back) and that we were going to do it at the expense of minorities you dolt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The promise was to bring their old jobs back (which aren't ever coming back) and that we were going to do it at the expense of minorities you dolt. I suspect if those jobs had went to Poland, or Italy they still would want them back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Ire towards the upper class is not universal. Plenty of people in the conservative base will sincerely automatically assume most rich people got that way fairly and only single out bad apples, usually a mixture of minorities, people in "bad" professions, and people in their personal line of work. There's not a systematic approach. i just disagree. i think plenty of them think that the millionaires are corrupt and its only a few good ones that are worth saving. i think you've bought too much into the "job creators" argument that holds considerably less sway nowadays. conservatives love rich people that "earned their money themselves" though obviously many didn't, but still hold plenty of ire toward the super rich. obviously we won't agree, but i think you should read some of the things conservatives say. there's plenty about corruption by the rich. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Right but it wasn't, Make America Great Again By Eating The Rich. It was Make America Great Again By Punishing Non-Whites. i think boiling trumps appeal down to "racism" is totally missing the forest for the trees. yes, that was a part of it, but there was also the appeal of "bringing the jobs back." i mean gently caress, trump jumps all over opportunities to support that idea like convincing that company not to move out of pittsburgh or where ever where he subsequently tweeted "i just saved 3000 jobs!" that has nothing to do with racism or economic advantage at the expense of minorities. there is an aspect of trump that appeals to people and has nothing to do with minorities. once again, its the fair deal thing. plenty of people think that welfare perpetuates unfairness and that good small business owners, not mega-corporations are being held down by taxes. "make america great again" is transparently a statement about getting the system back to where we can all be potential millionaires again. i think the racial aspect is important but also considerably over-blown
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:i just disagree. i think plenty of them think that the millionaires are corrupt and its only a few good ones that are worth saving. i think you've bought too much into the "job creators" argument that holds considerably less sway nowadays. Did you read what you wrote? "Corruption" is a way to avoid thinking systematically about class and instead saying it's only bad apples. gently caress's sake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:i disagree with a lot of this. the guy is a duel political scientist and economist and not american so i think he provides a more level-headed perspective. but that doesn't matter as much. Oh I've seen the video you're talking about several times, and what I'm saying is that his theory is too narrow. He presents a theory of history driven exclusively by the macroeconomic ideology of people in government bureaucracies throughout the Western world, and ignores that those people were appointed by elected officials who had to sell that policy to the masses and were, in their time, incredibly popular and enjoyed broad support. In defining the problem as merely one of macroeconomic regimes, he ignores the elephant in the room: we voted for these people. In that context, in many ways Trumpism is not just a reaction to loss of status, as he supposes, but also a reaction to trickery. People were sold on these economic ideas that were supposed to benefit them, and implicitly hurt minorities. They were sold on the Southern Strategy. But the Southern Strategy was bullshit. Neoliberalism wasn't going to make the lives of middle class white Americans better at the expense of black people, it was just going to poo poo on everyone to the benefit of stock brokers and multinational corporations. Make America Great Again isn't just about rejecting neoliberalsm, because if you look at what Trump ran on - what we voted for, or at least his supporters - it was about fulfilling the broken promise that conservatives felt they were owed. Likewise, on the flip side of this, on the left, Trumpism and reactionary populism are about fulfillment of promises we feel were reneged on - the neoliberal centrists told us they could win and protect us from Reagan, and they failed, and we can't believe in them anymore. But both right and left, these aren't macroeconomic problems - they're populist problems, movements of people from below. Bernie didn't enjoy unforeseen success because of the whims of the elite, he enjoyed it because of legitimate, unforseen popular support among a broad group of people who otherwise weren't politically engaged. But these kinds of things don't exist in Blyth's frame of history, or at least he chooses to ignore them. In his frame, there is the elites and there are other, lesser elites engaged in a rebellion of macroeconomic regimes - the people on Wall Street versus Steve Bannon and Donald Trump. The very idea of populist movements, in Blyth's frame, only exist in relation to the whims of those in power. Like I said, I think his conclusion is in broad terms, sound. I just think he leaves out huge chunks in his path to justifying why we are where we are, and that misunderstanding or ignoring those parts of history - and the reality that people and movements of people play a huge role in shaping history - is outright dangerous for a vulnerable left. With regards to the National Front, I'd have to go through the video for his quote, but he says something to the effect of "outside of their immigration policy, they're outright progressive." Which both hilariously minimizes how vile and racist these people actually are, but also ignores that fascists are liars. Donald Trump, the National Front, none of them have any intention of actually making anything better outside of the narrow group they think is deserving. They say what they need to, to get into power, but whatever "progressive" ideas they may claim to have, none of them are actually in service to a progressive goal, and I was pretty appalled that he would even tacitly legitimize them when in the past he's made it very clear that they're very, very dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Now, maybe you misspoke and want to correct yourself, and that's fine. Maybe you're misunderstanding how voting works. Generally, political parties present ideas, and people vote for the ideas that most appeal to them by selecting candidates from those parties to be their leaders. If people don't like the options, they can join the parties to introduce new ideas, or form their own parties. The vast majority, however, exercise their right to representation by choosing the ideas that are presented to them. Very few people make much effort beyond that simple choice, but that's fine because the option is there if it's needed. Now, a political party needs to sell people on its ideas. If the ideas are too vague, or unpopular, or if the opposing party convinces people against them, that party won't do very well. For a party to succeed, it needs to communicate its ideas simply and clearly, and convince a majority of people that its ideas are in their best interest. Now, let's say the parties present their big idea for the year. The first candidate gets up and says "We're the party of low taxes and strong borders. We're going to put money back in your pocket and make sure you and your kids are safe." The second candidate gets up and says "We're the party of discussion. We're going to give you a voice in our big discussion." Which one would you vote for?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:With regards to the National Front, I'd have to go through the video for his quote, but he says something to the effect of "outside of their immigration policy, they're outright progressive." Which both hilariously minimizes how vile and racist these people actually are, but also ignores that fascists are liars. Donald Trump, the National Front, none of them have any intention of actually making anything better outside of the narrow group they think is deserving. They say what they need to, to get into power, but whatever "progressive" ideas they may claim to have, none of them are actually in service to a progressive goal, and I was pretty appalled that he would even tacitly legitimize them when in the past he's made it very clear that they're very, very dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Maybe you're misunderstanding how voting works. I would find the motherfucker who created the rigged scenario and have a personal, frank, and thorough discussion with him about not doing that anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I've seen the video as well and while your recollection is correct, what he's getting at is more the fact that that particular lie would be something the fascists would elevate in their platform. I don't think he's trying to sell the National Front as "progressive racists" or whatever, but pointing out that it's telling that an economic agenda like that would be on their platform - regardless of their sincerity in putting it there - and that they'd gain traction either because of it, or if nothing else in spite of it. That's all. Maybe. I'm not claiming that Blyth is racist, I just think that in choosing to frame his point as such, he opened the door to legitimizing "well the National Front isn't that bad. These are the people who want to enact Muslim bans and suicide bomb the euro so they can crash the European economy, which will lead to untold amounts of suffering when the rest of the world economy goes with it. Basically, I think he should've been clearer that they were benefiting from pretending to care, not insinuating that they're actually nice people, virulent racism aside.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Oh I've seen the video you're talking about several times, and what I'm saying is that his theory is too narrow. He presents a theory of history driven exclusively by the macroeconomic ideology of people in government bureaucracies throughout the Western world, and ignores that those people were appointed by elected officials who had to sell that policy to the masses and were, in their time, incredibly popular and enjoyed broad support. In defining the problem as merely one of macroeconomic regimes, he ignores the elephant in the room: we voted for these people. cool, thanks for all this. definitely interesting to read and i think i can see where you're coming from. i'm not disagreeing with your post, but i just want to say that holding what was true before 2008 and maybe even 9/11 as relevant today, to me, seems tenuous. what i mean by that is, when modern america was ascendant it seemed really appealing to voters to take the restraints off because we seemed invincible. this is why i think people like reagan, and clinton found so much success. the economy was moving fast and people saw no reason to further weigh the car down with safety features so we took them off in order to go faster. but then we hit some bumps and had no way to regain control and crashed in 2008; a crash that has left us with numerous lingering injuries despite our brain telling us we still want to go fast. weird analogy i know. but what i'm saying is, i guess i understand why people supported these obviously destructive policies when they did. safety and restriction is lame. people wanted to go fast (make money) and saw no reason to be fearful because we were the greatest nation in the world. nowadays i think that perception is changing rapidly and people are looking for help from anyone that will offer it, dubiously or not. i guess what i'm saying here is that maybe voters are for the most part inherently reactive. the world and economy is too complex to comprehend so we rely on what others tell us to make "informed" decisions. the last 17 years has been incredibly interesting for watching how voters and public opinion can be manipulated (though obviously its been happening for, well, forever). i think the public is a combination of informed people trying to make good long term decisions but also just as many if not more people who just act reactively. populist movements are held up with the highest esteem, they're also very rare and rarely successful. anyway, i'm out of steam and going to bed. thanks for the cool and interesting posts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I would find the motherfucker who created the rigged scenario and have a personal, frank, and thorough discussion with him about not doing that anymore. You know you could actually answer him. Rather then pretending to be edgy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Maybe. I'm not claiming that Blyth is racist, I just think that in choosing to frame his point as such, he opened the door to legitimizing "well the National Front isn't that bad. These are the people who want to enact Muslim bans and suicide bomb the euro so they can crash the European economy, which will lead to untold amounts of suffering when the rest of the world economy goes with it. Basically, I think he should've been clearer that they were benefiting from pretending to care, not insinuating that they're actually nice people, virulent racism aside. The thing is at some point we have to address why these movements are popular if we hope to defeat them, and when you do that parts of the discussion are going to sound a lot like you're trying to legitimize them, if you take the remarks out of context.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:You know you could actually answer him. Rather then pretending to be edgy. Talking with people is "edgy" to you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Talking with people is "edgy" to you? Refusing to answer a question fallowed up by saying you'd punch them for asking it is pretending to be edgy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Refusing to answer a question fallowed up by saying you'd punch them for asking it is pretending to be edgy. Whoa, whoa, whoa, where the gently caress did I say I'd punch anyone? Anyways, when did you stop beating your girlfr- oh, that one doesn't work for you, does it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Whoa, whoa, whoa, where the gently caress did I say I'd punch anyone? Anyways, when did you stop beating your girlfr- oh, that one doesn't work for you, does it? Your point that I do not have a girlfriend? Are you going to perhaps explain why you cannot answer a simple question? I mean if it makes your position looks foolish just admit it. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:weird analogy i know. but what i'm saying is, i guess i understand why people supported these obviously destructive policies when they did. safety and restriction is lame. people wanted to go fast (make money) and saw no reason to be fearful because we were the greatest nation in the world. I mean, that was always the problem with boom-bust cycles and the management thereof. People don't want the bust, but they don't want us to do anything about the boom either. They think we want to stagnate the economy, rather than create a managed, stable climb and equity for the people at the bottom. This is where that "loss of status" part is really important, and one thing I think the left needs to focus on, which seems to be generally agreed on, is that middle class people are terrified above all else of becoming lower class. And neoliberalism has convinced them that the left wants to take away from them to give to the undeserving poor, rather than taking away from the rich to give equality to everyone. Kilroy posted:Fair enough. For what it's worth when I watched that it didn't even occur to me that he might be trying to paint them in a sympathetic light - I immediately interpreted the remark in the way I described. I am fine with understanding why Trump won, and I don't really think understanding how Trump won is that complicated with a working knowledge of American history. I just think we should be careful of crossing into gleeful gloating about how great it is that, say, Hillary Clinton lost. While it may feel good to get the upper hand over the centrists, it's not Hillary Clinton who is going to live through hell for the next four years, it's minorities and the poor. We have to square the circle of making nice with Midwestern white middle class blue collar workers while making it clear to those that are marginalized by the decisions of Midwestern white middle class blue collar workers that we aren't going to abandon them because it's convenient. Which is to say, while neoliberal centrism hasn't been great for minority communities, we have to present a credible alternative that they can believe will be. That wasn't there for Bernie, but I think that it is there for, say, Keith Ellison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Whoa, whoa, whoa, where the gently caress did I say I'd punch anyone? Anyways, when did you stop beating your girlfr- oh, that one doesn't work for you, does it? The same post where you explained how you know it is wrong to beat people and steal their money. Seriously though Yuuka, The only thing that smells weak, is your odd unwillingness to back up your claims. Because you seem rather confidant, until you are asked to make a proof, then you to clam up and try to change the subject. I'm sure you understand why you are right, so why don't you just take a deep breath and explain it to us, so we can understand? This dispute isn't going to resolve until we understand exactly what we are trying to get across to each other. thechosenone fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 09:35
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I am fine with understanding why Trump won, and I don't really think understanding how Trump won is that complicated with a working knowledge of American history. I just think we should be careful of crossing into gleeful gloating about how great it is that, say, Hillary Clinton lost. While it may feel good to get the upper hand over the centrists, it's not Hillary Clinton who is going to live through hell for the next four years, it's minorities and the poor. We have to square the circle of making nice with Midwestern white middle class blue collar workers while making it clear to those that are marginalized by the decisions of Midwestern white middle class blue collar workers that we aren't going to abandon them because it's convenient. I agree with this. But my hope is that people would stop taking not getting their way as a slight against them. It doesn't fill me with confidence of the people that throw a temper tantrum, because they believe the party is loving them over every single time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 10:30
|
|
|
There's a bunch of infighting across the water at /r/politics (yes, I know) because of this article, and it's amazing to see some of the neolib shills come out swinging for the True Destiny of moving the Democrats rightwards. A sample of the insanity:quote:Pelosi, Schumer, et al, all pander WAY too much to millennial progressives and fail to defend the majority of the Democratic party who are moderates against the attack dogs on the left who weaken and thin out the ranks of the party's elected officials. We really needed those Blue Dog Dems in the last election, not more coastal progressives, who aren't ever going to get elected from white blue collar rual counties in Ohio and Pennsylvania anyways. quote:The problem is that the future votes of millennials aren't worth what they are today. All voter blocks trend more conservative as they get older and their issues, outlooks and financial circumstances change. All the Very Serious Moderates doomsaying that moving leftwards will destroy the party and drive away voters are really amazing. What the gently caress are the moderates gonna do? Vote for the Republicans? Republican voters are a lost loving cause at this point. There's really no reason to bother trying to recruit them back over. They can come over on their own but our energies are better directed elsewhere. The Democrats have the popular vote advantage (and it continues to grow), and there were 92 million people who didn't vote in November. Move leftwards, have economic and social policies that will directly help and protect people instead of endless elite/corporation dicksucking. You'll draw up a much bigger base than struggling over the "centrists". Bernie got such enthusiastic support so quickly because he was talking directly about poo poo that would directly and immediately benefit people who then became his supporters. If the Democrats can run candidates like these, and curb their Clintonian impulses from bringing the might of 25+ years of backroom deals and political insiderism to crush voter enthusiasm, then they will have a wave election in 2018. Millions of people tuned out from politics in 2016 because one side is "gently caress you, more money for us" and the other side is "have some platitudes and a Voice that we will immediately disregard in favor of our corporate donors". Change the message to "we care about you, and here's a clear, concise and understandable explanation of what we're going to do to improve your lives immediately and noticeably" and the Democrats will dig deep into that 90+ million people who didn't bother to vote. Or we can embrace the most sacred wisdom of Her Majesty and keep on triangulating towards the "center" that the fascists are dragging rightwards as fast as possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
That is the kind of stuff that I always see thrown around as a given. I think there are people that just won't vote period. Even when you lower all the barriers and make it easy as gently caress, they just forget about it or don't bother. Now, while I don't think Ellison being elected signals nihilism as the article states. I don't think that it is as simple as moving to the left to gather more voters, because I do think that some moderates will either stay at home or actually will vote for Republicans. But in the end, I don't think Perez getting elected means what a lot of people think it means.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:That is the kind of stuff that I always see thrown around as a given. I think there are people that just won't vote period. Even when you lower all the barriers and make it easy as gently caress, they just forget about it or don't bother. Yeah, absolutely. But there's a good chunk of that 90+ million that are easily recoverable if the Democrats stop playing the loser's game of trying to politically triangulate. Drop the inauthenticity and go straight for "This is what the problem is and this is how we will help you!" like Bernie did. blackguy32 posted:But in the end, I don't think Perez getting elected means what a lot of people think it means. I think Perez will be fine but it'd be a huge enthusiasm blow to the base, much like Clinton winning the primary was. The DNC absolutely and completely need to abandon the strategy that Wasserman-Schulz and Kaine were pushing, it's just so thoroughly and relentlessly ineffective. There needs to be a massive buildup from the ground up for the Democrats to recover and move the party forward. State legislatures, governorships, Congressional representatives. That's what will give the Democrats a strong position to recover the Senate and Presidency in 2020. And it needs to start as soon as possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Yeah, absolutely. But there's a good chunk of that 90+ million that are easily recoverable if the Democrats stop playing the loser's game of trying to politically triangulate. Drop the inauthenticity and go straight for "This is what the problem is and this is how we will help you!" like Bernie did. But that is the thing though. There were plenty of people that were enthusiastic about Clinton. I was one of them. And while I don't mind Ellison winning, where does it stop? What will be the next hangup that people perceive to be a slight against them? I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think it is going to be a bit more difficult than people are making it out to be and I think the issue is far more complex than go left and hope we pick up more Millenial voters while hopefully retaining most of the voters we have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:But that is the thing though. There were plenty of people that were enthusiastic about Clinton. I was one of them. And while I don't mind Ellison winning, where does it stop? What will be the next hangup that people perceive to be a slight against them? It's possible and even likely that there are people who will be dissatisfied no matter what. But after the drubbing of that election, a symbolic gesture to the Bernie wing seems at least appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Nm wrong thread sorry
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
blackguy32 posted:But in the end, I don't think Perez getting elected means what a lot of people think it means. Perez is the canary in the coal mine. For years the party has told progressives and the left to sit down and shut up about their major proposals because it was too risky and could lead to 1,000 years of republican darkness. We are now in year zero of that thanks to the risk averse strategy so the national party needs to send a signal that they're willing to finally listen to us and that signal, for better or worse, is Ellison ideally the DNC would unconditionally surrender to us and go drown themselves en Masse in the Potomac but I'm willing to compromise
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 18:42
|
|
