|
JeffersonClay posted:No that's not the point at all. If centrism is what turned voters off, and pure progressivism is what will motivate them again, you'd expect the progressive candidate to do better than the centrist candidate in a given state or district, but we don't actually see that anywhere. It's not that Bernie hurt her, it's that centrism didn't hurt Clinton, and indeed it may have given her an advantage. I don't think there is enough data to make a judgment. But I don't agree that because Hillary Clinton lost, that it means that people are waiting for a huge shift leftward.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:its not about progresivism or centrists actually. Its about if the policies appeal to the basic self interest of voters. FOr that is why people choose to vote. Hillary had at one point boosted TPP, which frankly wouldn't have been bad for the most part in concerns to manufacturing. However to people in the midwest still remembering the damage done in the 80s and 90s by trade policies it was not something they could back. Meanwhile the orange rear end in a top hat offers to bring their jobs back. Many didn't believe him, but also couldn't vote for someone who had supported more trade policies that were not in her interest. (Didn't help that Kaine was saying she really supported it either). Meanswhile the people in these towns and cities all over the Midwest were being told by orange asshoel he wanted America to be great again. Some thought that would mean better lives. others knew he couldn't or being great wouldn't help them. But then HRC said everything was great and they knew that was a lie. So they either vote fro Trump or stay home. Trump played to their self interest and won. The damage done in manufacturing was in the 2000s 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
By earlier trade policy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
The United States didn't drop to second place in manufacturing until just recently. That shows jobs being lost, not factories. Automation has as much, if not more, to do with it than trade policy does. Replacing manufacturing jobs is also not even close to the best way to rehabilitate the US economy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I don't think there is enough data to make a judgment. But I don't agree that because Hillary Clinton lost, that it means that people are waiting for a huge shift leftward. Yeah, honestly I think the people who are saying "in order to win elections we need someone who is far more left-leaning" are probably wrong*, but I don't bother arguing the point since ultimately they're still pushing for roughly the same sort of change I want. So I mostly consider all the "purge centrists from the Democratic Party" stuff a useful sort of energy to harness, since it's not like that's actually going to happen regardless. I only draw the line at people who say they won't vote Democrat in swing states (or potential swing states) on the basis of the candidate not being left-leaning enough, since that's the only way this sort of mindset can actually cause problems. *Though I would argue that ultimately how left/right-leaning a politician's platform is does not determine their electoral success, and that their success more strongly influenced by a bunch of other factors unrelated to their platform. So I don't think that a more left-leaning platform would necessarily hurt or harm a candidate, since there are other things that matter more in terms of winning elections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:By earlier trade policy. The early 2000s recession, itself caused by an earlier recession in the EU, killed 3m manufacturing jobs, followed by bleeding another 2m during the '08 recession (the two sharp drops). The first recession caused probably by the introduction of the Euro, and the second because of the financial system melting down. Neither due to trade. Meanwhile, manufacturing itself grew 35% 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The damage done in manufacturing was in the 2000s Which was done by earlier trade policy. Also Whisky telling people convinced their job is in china, or in Mexico because evil NAFTA or WTO that you want a even bigger trade agreement doesn't make them want to vote for you. It makes those that had jobs in factories despair and those in the remaining factories mad. So best not to encourage such feelings. blackguy32 posted:I don't think there is enough data to make a judgment. But I don't agree that because Hillary Clinton lost, that it means that people are waiting for a huge shift leftward. Its not about leftword or rightword. Its about appealing to a persons basic wants and then appealing to ideals. If they want their job protected. Then make it clear their job will be protected. If they want better pay. promise better pay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Which was done by earlier trade policy. Also Whisky telling people convinced their job is in china, or in Mexico because evil NAFTA or WTO that you want a even bigger trade agreement doesn't make them want to vote for you. It makes those that had jobs in factories despair and those in the remaining factories mad. So best not to encourage such feelings. Again, the job losses were due to external recessions, and I think it might be worthwhile examining why people are convinced that their job is in China or Mexico (we don't even have a trade deal with China!)
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Its not about leftword or rightword. Its about appealing to a persons basic wants and then appealing to ideals. If they want their job protected. Then make it clear their job will be protected. If they want better pay. promise better pay. You can't really do this if you are just promising lies. You can't protect jobs that aren't there anymore. I mean, my great grandfather may have been the best lighthouse operator out there, but things and times do change. I do think a lot of people are being unrealistic about their job prospects. I however, do think we should give support to people that would help them reenter the workforce in a direction that the economy is shifting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Again, the job losses were due to external recessions, and I think it might be worthwhile examining why people are convinced that their job is in China or Mexico (we don't even have a trade deal with China!) It couldn't be that some unscrupulous politicians in our party have sold displaced manufacturing workers a bunch of hokum about ending NAFTA and bringing those jobs back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
2 sets of logic that baffle me, and I'm earnestly looking for someone to explain to me what I'm missing. Based on reading and participating in this thread, I don't believe either of these are strawmen. First - two of the main strengths I've seen brought up for Ellison is that he's a favorite of a portion of the progressives who are gaining steam, and that he's demonstrated an ability to activate the grassroots in order to defeat a handpicked establishment opponent in a primary. The last few pages also show a desire to primary out establishment centrists. Why would you (so fervently) want such a great resource for that tactic in a role where he is forced to maintain neutrality? Second - The Hillary wing (or neoliberal, centrist, establishment, etc) has failed in the last election(s) and need to be replaced by messengers who promote an ideology with broader geographical appeal, specifically in the Rust Belt. How does this mesh with Hillary's running markedly ahead of Feingold, despite the latter's populist campaign going against a multimillionaire tea partier? How does that fit with Portman in Ohio, among the least populist senators, easily outpacing Trump? I'm in favor of (race-concious) populist messaging, but I've not seen any indication it'll cure what ails the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
I can't speak to Portman, but Feingold can be explained by Wisconsin hurtling rapidly towards being a garbage Republican state. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Again, the job losses were due to external recessions, and I think it might be worthwhile examining why people are convinced that their job is in China or Mexico (we don't even have a trade deal with China!) Well I bet if you run ads telling them that it was the recessions fault for years they may start to believe you. Or they may just dig in their heels. Maybe its best to remember though that those people staying home was what lost you the election. blackguy32 posted:You can't really do this if you are just promising lies. You can't protect jobs that aren't there anymore. I mean, my great grandfather may have been the best lighthouse operator out there, but things and times do change. I do think a lot of people are being unrealistic about their job prospects. I however, do think we should give support to people that would help them reenter the workforce in a direction that the economy is shifting. True. Tax robots and the countries that have huge automation and have the taxes go to the workers who will lose their jobs to the workers. Or else promise a Butlerian Jihad. Paracaidas posted:2 sets of logic that baffle me, and I'm earnestly looking for someone to explain to me what I'm missing. Based on reading and participating in this thread, I don't believe either of these are strawmen. 2. I would say Strickland being a bigger idiot then Portman allowed him to win. Feingold I think suffered from being on the defensive over Obamacare being unpopular there and he had to defend voting for it. Frankly the dems need to flush out their leadership in Wisconsin and rebuild. I think they can do it. But it will mean not continuing to run the same people. Which I think may have hurt in the senate race. It probably should not have been the same guy running for his old chair. But then Wisconsin dems need to decide how they define themselves in a state with corrupt republicans. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Feingold got barely any assistance from the DNC (thanks Debbie! Great job!), Johnson was an incumbent, and a whole lot of goddamn loving retards expected Hillary to be President so voted for a Republican Congress to "balance" the government. I know multiple people here in Wisconsin who went straight from two-time Obama voters to Trump, it's not at all uncommon. Wisconsin is still salvageable but Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I get what you're trying to say here, but this is a dumb argument. "Well can you think of a specific person who can win? No? Then you can't criticize this person!" On the the other hand, if you focus too hard on getting people out and not hard enough on who you're going to put in their place, you get a disaster like the Walker recall...or, for that matter, the 2016 presidential election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:On the the other hand, if you focus too hard on getting people out and not hard enough on who you're going to put in their place, you get a disaster like the Walker recall...or, for that matter, the 2016 presidential election. I will litigate the Walker recall until my dying breath. The 2011 labor protests were met with total silence from the DNC and Obama. No support at all, none whatsoever. It was left entirely up to the state Democratic party to arrange everything themselves, and there's a massive talent drain there because of smart young liberals wanting to move to the Twin Cities / Chicago instead, which are literally just across the border. The WI Dems decided to just re-run Barrett and didn't anticipate at all the amount of people who voted Barrett the first time but voted against the recall because "we can't recall a governor over political disagreement!" Things are getting a little bit better because Madison and Milwaukee have been growing very strongly in the past half-decade but still. The utter lack of support from Obama in 2011 was a huge reason I voted third party in 2012 (for the presidential, obviously I voted in support of Baldwin and Pocan).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:2 sets of logic that baffle me, and I'm earnestly looking for someone to explain to me what I'm missing. Based on reading and participating in this thread, I don't believe either of these are strawmen. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/opinion/move-left-democrats.html quote:Mrs. Clinton came closer to winning Texas than she did Iowa. She fared better in Arizona, Georgia and Florida than she did in the traditional battleground state of Ohio. The electoral action for Democrats may have once been in the Rust Belt, but it’s now moving west and south.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Oh lol. What do you know the democrats spend a disproportionate amount of money in the south and nearly win some states. While they spend no money on the mid west and lose states they havn't lost in generations. The Dems have a future here if they actually try to win us rather then take us for granted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:The utter lack of support from Obama in 2011 was a huge reason I voted third party in 2012 (for the presidential, obviously I voted in support of Baldwin and Pocan). Obama's approval rating was in the low 40's in 2011. Staying away, and thus denying walker the ability to make the election about the unpopular president, was probably the right decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Obama's approval rating was in the low 40's in 2011. Staying away, and thus denying walker the ability to make the election about the unpopular president, was probably the right decision. Remember it was the right decision to do nothing for the Unions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The early 2000s recession, itself caused by an earlier recession in the EU, killed 3m manufacturing jobs, followed by bleeding another 2m during the '08 recession (the two sharp drops). The first recession caused probably by the introduction of the Euro, and the second because of the financial system melting down. Neither due to trade. So the jobs that can't be automated go overseas when the economy dips? And the trade deals have nothing to do with this? Crowsbeak posted:Remember it was the right decision to do nothing for the Unions. Just stay the course, everything is going pragmatically. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Remember it was the right decision to do nothing for the Unions. The point is Obama showing up and making it all about him would have hurt the unions because Obama was at his most unpopular in the 2nd half of 2011.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:So the jobs that can't be automated go overseas when the economy dips? And the trade deals have nothing to do with this? We just straight up lost both jobs and production during recessions, then never added jobs back during recoveries as firms increased per worker productivity instead of hiring
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The point is Obama showing up and making it all about him would have hurt the unions because Obama was at his most unpopular in the 2nd half of 2011. But the dnc didn't show any support either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:
Of all the loving things to get on to him about...
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
How many manufacturing jobs would you say Americans lost due to NAFTA?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:We just straight up lost both jobs and production during recessions, then never added jobs back during recoveries as firms increased per worker productivity instead of hiring I mean, you might say that, given our trade balance over this time, we replaced domestic growth with foreign imports, but the big changes in our trade balance coincided with flat employment, not job loss
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies!SKULL.GIF posted:Feingold got barely any assistance from the DNC (thanks Debbie! Great job!), Johnson was an incumbent, and a whole lot of goddamn loving retards expected Hillary to be President so voted for a Republican Congress to "balance" the government. I know multiple people here in Wisconsin who went straight from two-time Obama voters to Trump, it's not at all uncommon. Crowsbeak posted:1. He will take that experience of greassroots organizing nation wide. So will his grassroots playbook work to elect the sort of Dems you've been railing against thus far? Enough to overcome aggressively negative gerrymandering (his victories have come in a seat cynically drawn for almost certain victory-so his first dem primary was the only competitive race he won)? If the idea is that it's just the tactics that are wrong, I understand it more. But if you believe more progressive/populist/nonestamblishment candidates are needed, DNC chair can't help them win their primaries and I'm back to being confused. Again, if there's a latent thirst for populism that's being turned off by the supposed neoliberalism of the establishment, I'd have expected stronger performances against Portman (a Washington insider and trade lobbyist) and by the populist, well liked Feingold. Not necessarily victories, but at least outrunning a (as you say) mostly - absent Hillary. That, along with the primary, is still leaving me skeptical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:How many manufacturing jobs would you say Americans lost due to NAFTA? This isn't the right question because most of those jobs aren't realistically coming back. Low-skill, low-training manufacturing jobs are increasingly being replaced by fewer high-skill, high-training jobs in addition to automation. Obsessing over the manufacturing sector is also not a reasonable way to fix the American demand crisis, and represents a fixation on the past more than a reasonable policy position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Thanks for the replies! Well if you're "Skeptical" then lets hear your answers. How do you save the democrats. I mean if we're all full of poo poo as you claim. Tell us your answer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:How many manufacturing jobs would you say Americans lost due to NAFTA? Approximately net zero, since you ask. Edit: also LK focused on the better issues
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
A populist upstart just won the presidency for the first time in almost two centuries and people are skeptical that Americans are feeling populist?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Approximately net zero, since you ask. So what was its effect?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:So what was its effect? Through a whole lot of factors better left to another thread, unionized manufacturing jobs switched places with service industry jobs that pay about 4/5ths as much. NAFTA (arguably) didn't really cost any jobs overall, but it absolutely devastated an entire class of relatively high wage earners. Because this was largely seen as Clinton's fault, it also had the effect of driving the rust belt red as a beet
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Through a whole lot of factors better left to another thread, unionized manufacturing jobs switched places with service industry jobs that pay about 4/5ths as much. NAFTA (arguably) didn't really cost any jobs overall, but it absolutely devastated an entire class of relatively high wage earners.  I was admittedly engaging in more than a little economics sleight of hand by sneaking the NET zero in there.  Otoh it's really super relevant that free trade is good for everybody if coupled with a robust social safety net (lol good luck).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:So what was its effect? HFCS
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
That's more Nixon really, but now we get to export it and make everyone else fat too. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This isn't the right question because most of those jobs aren't realistically coming back. Low-skill, low-training manufacturing jobs are increasingly being replaced by fewer high-skill, high-training jobs in addition to automation. And the people who want those jobs DO NOT CARE about the reality, so let's just promise them we'll bring their jobs back too. Don't you see that the game is "trick the rubes" not "design the perfect platform that will get rational people to vote for us?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Through a whole lot of factors better left to another thread, unionized manufacturing jobs switched places with service industry jobs that pay about 4/5ths as much. NAFTA (arguably) didn't really cost any jobs overall, but it absolutely devastated an entire class of relatively high wage earners. NAFTA also had negative effects on the Mexican agricultural sector, in part because we cheated the rules by continuing manipulation of agricultural goods prices in the US. The interesting thing about NAFTA and the switch between manufacturing and service jobs is the implicit assumption that service work must by necessity be lovely. There is a massive degree of cultural posturing in this equation, as (former) manufacturing workers stick their noses up at service workers and not only declare that such jobs are not worthwhile as they are, but that service workers actively do not deserve better and deserve to stay as they are. Service work, however, cannot be outsourced, and improving the conditions and pay of service workers would go a huge way towards improving the economy. Force wages up via minimum wage to get people out of working multiple low-skill jobs to make ends' meet, and reduce the work week allowance so companies have to hire more people to do the same work. quote:And the people who want those jobs DO NOT CARE about the reality, so let's just promise them we'll bring their jobs back too. This is tantamount to accepting a permanently Republican Rust Belt, because people here will not accept such lies from the Democrats so easily and you and I both know it. Lying to them is at best an extreme short-term solution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This is tantamount to accepting a permanently Republican Rust Belt, because people here will not accept such lies from the Democrats so easily and you and I both know it. You have a lot more faith in the Rust Belt than I do, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 03:04
|
|