|
Lightning Knight posted:Again, that was the message we heard. Millions of Americans, and not just Trump voters, didn't internalize and digest these negative messages as bad, and instead they reinforced the "Trump is a good outsider who will shake up the system, see how much the system hates him!" You're talking about huge swaths of the population not educated or engaged enough to realize that there can be good reasons to hate an outsider and that anti-establishment isn't actually categorically good. then what is the point of all the ad spending we did. if you admit that hillary's ad spending was totally ineffective, then why do we need to gather so much money, especially when the way we do it specifically blocks downticket candidates from raising as well? i think we could still manage with personal donations and a smart campaign strategy. it seems that both of those are way more vital to winning than mega donors, and mega donors prevent smart campaign strategies from being used by dems (like loving attacking donald's conman ultrawealth instead of trying to paint him as poor  )quote:"Build alternative funding" in a nation that is increasingly facing devastating wealth inequality and deepening poverty is not a simple proposition. I think that increasing the rules, allowances, and disclosure requirements around funding within the Democratic Party would be helpful without categorically shutting down all major donations and hoping that everybody chipping in a five will be enough to face down the Koch brothers. hmm, i wonder why this nation is facing devastating wealth inequality. could it be because dems have abrogated their duty to the meek and the powerless in favor of corporate $$$ that demands that the dems further abrograte their duty to the meek and the powerless? oh well, lets go shake walmart down for some more donations  the longer we keep sucking on the corporate teat,the more impossible getting away from it is gonna be
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
Probably Magic posted:The only minorities who went heavily Bernie were Native Americans. Luckily, Native American rights haven't been a major topic in the months since. Could that have had something to do with Bernie's terrible record on minorities, like when he tried to dump that nuclear waste all over a Hispanic community? Oh, wait, I guess that's just dumb idpol, ha ha, I'll show myself out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Could that have had something to do with Bernie's terrible record on minorities, like when he tried to dump that nuclear waste all over a Hispanic community? as opposed to when hillary was ok with protesters trying to defend native waterways being hosed with freezing water and attacked with attack dogs
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Could that have had something to do with Bernie's terrible record on minorities, like when he tried to dump that nuclear waste all over a Hispanic community? Let's list all the ways Hillary Clinton hosed over Middle Easterners, advocated for turning away of Latino immigrants who needed help, and treated the DAPL like something that wasn't an immediate civil rights issue. Is this a game you really want to play, bud?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Let's list all the ways Hillary Clinton hosed over Middle Easterners, advocated for turning away of Latino immigrants who needed help, and treated the DAPL like something that wasn't an immediate civil rights issue. Is this a game you really want to play, bud? Remember that one time Bernie marched for civil rights and then hosed off to Vermont and sat on his flabby white rear end for the rest of his life? Pepperidge Farms remembers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Let's list all the ways Hillary Clinton hosed over Middle Easterners, advocated for turning away of Latino immigrants who needed help, and treated the DAPL like something that wasn't an immediate civil rights issue. Is this a game you really want to play, bud? Probably Magic posted:Perez said that Bernie only appealed to young white people during the primaries, which was a lie.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
hillary authorized the dronestriking of pakistani women and children while cackling like a witch lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Again, it's very, very important to recognize that Midwestern blue collar middle/lower-middle class, predominantly older and white voters have correctly identified a problem. It's just that all of the solutions to the problem they want won't fix the problem, and often will actively make the problem worse. Yep exactly. The people we elect, either Republican or Democrat, take way too long to implement sane policies when it comes to healthcare, infrastructure, trade, education and that creates unrest for a demagogue like Trump to tap into. Let's be honest someone like Trump was 30 years in the making.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Remember that one time Bernie marched for civil rights and then hosed off to Vermont and sat on his flabby white rear end for the rest of his life? Remember when Hillary couldn't be bothered to march in the Women's March? Or even show up and talk to her supporters the night of her loss?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:hillary authorized the dronestriking of pakistani women and children while cackling like a witch lol Sorry mommy didn't bake enough cookies for you, hun. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Remember when Democrats told minorities that their communities collapsing wasn't because of crushing poverty(because they would do nothing about it) but because of guns! Oh man, what a great move that was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:then what is the point of all the ad spending we did. if you admit that hillary's ad spending was totally ineffective, then why do we need to gather so much money, especially when the way we do it specifically blocks downticket candidates from raising as well? i think we could still manage with personal donations and a smart campaign strategy. it seems that both of those are way more vital to winning than mega donors, and mega donors prevent smart campaign strategies from being used by dems (like loving attacking donald's conman ultrawealth instead of trying to paint him as poor Those ads were ineffective because of how intensely and historically disliked Hillary was as a candidate and how ineffective and incompetent her campaign were. That's not an argument that they didn't matter and don't continue to matter in other races with other candidates. I mean, the country is facing most of its problems because decades ago the right successfully utilized the funding of the super rich to completely out message and outmaneuver the New Deal coalition and we're still living in the shadow of those losses today. I think you greatly overestimate the ability of non-presidential candidates to raise small money donations, as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:If Ellison had won instead and appointed Perez as his co chair there would be people in this thread screaming about how Perez's new position was meant to undermine Ellison and would in fact have the real power and influence. And that Ellison winning was just a bone thrown to leftists to placate them. not even remotely, ellison being a bone thrown to the leftists was literally the point of trying to get him elected. "deputy" is a meaningless gesture because the chair is still not who they asked for and corporate lobbyists will continue to shape dem politics despite alienating and sometimes clashing with constituents' interests.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Remember when Hillary couldn't be bothered to march in the Women's March? Or even show up and talk to her supporters the night of her loss? Remember when Bernie got Planned Parenthood's endorsement? Oh, wait...
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Those ads were ineffective because of how intensely and historically disliked Hillary was as a candidate and how ineffective and incompetent her campaign were. That's not an argument that they didn't matter and don't continue to matter in other races with other candidates. They didn't just outmaneuver them, they got Bill Clinton to be their loving axe man.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Remember when Bernie got Planned Parenthood's endorsement? Oh, wait... So you got nothing, huh. Alright, good show, good show.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You keep pulling this outta your rear end and think it's some sort of blistering own. He was literally the first person Sanders endorsed. When was this secret meeting of the claiming to be the only real voice of the Left where they pitched other candidates and then rejected them as not enough of a compromise? Is this you confusing "he is not literally the most radical gently caress-you candidate that could be suggested" with compromise? Like if the Establishment had picked Manchin first then switched to Perez?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:So you got nothing, huh. Alright, good show, good show. I agree, we should disenfranchise minorities and women, since they didn't pick your precious St. Bernard. If only we could stop the perfidy of the non-cishet non-white non-men!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:They didn't just outmaneuver them, they got Bill Clinton to be their loving axe man. By the time Bill Clinton became President the New Deal coalition was largely dead as it was. The assertion that Bill Clinton was the death kneel for progressive politics has always been strange to me because progressive politics were killed quite dead by the utter demolition of every Democratic candidate for nearly a generation before Clinton. Edit: unless you want to argue that Bill Clinton allowed the Republican Party to flip Congress on a permanent basis, which is a reasonable premise but ignores the political and demographic shifts that had already been motion to put someone like Bill Clinton in power in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:So, none then. Got it. Sanders and Warrens outreach chair positions. Now answer my question you poo poo. Who was the first nominee that they pulled due to "establishment" objections and replaced with Ellisson as a compromise? Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
you guys point out how terrible each other's democrats are is making me hot and bothered
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Those ads were ineffective because of how intensely and historically disliked Hillary was as a candidate and how ineffective and incompetent her campaign were. That's not an argument that they didn't matter and don't continue to matter in other races with other candidates. Why can't the trickle down fundraising hillary was supposed to be doing with giant corporate donors work with small donors? Other than the dem party being shameful poo poo that no one really wants to donate to ATM because they represent no-one but the rich? And the solution is to move right and accept more corporate donors instead of using the path forward lain out for us in 2008 and 2016 and moving left? I don't think so, but you guys apparently do which is part of the reason I'm certain dems are doomed. The fact the ads were ineffective is itself an argument against their need. We can't make effective ads while chained to corporations, cause we kinda differentiate ourselves by us caring for the little guy over said corps, and they won't allow us to use that message
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Trump was able to portray himself as against big corps because he wasn't as dependent on their donations. Clinton should have been able to own the hell out of him on that argument, but that'd involve painting megacorps as the enemy, and so she stayed silent while a fascist republican laughably claimed the anticorporatist crown
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Why can't the trickle down fundraising hillary was supposed to be doing with giant corporate donors work with small donors? Other than the dem party being shameful poo poo that no one really wants to donate to ATM because they represent no-one but the rich? I don't think there's that much small donor money in the system, is the point. You can argue for the non-efficacy of advertisement in politics if you want, but I don't agree that 2016 was a good standard bearer for that argument because it ignores how historically disliked both candidates, but particularly Hillary, were, and how set in stone perceptions were them in the lead up to the election. Most candidates and most elections don't have that kind of dynamic. I think that progressives, if they are so inclined, should run local and state level races on the model of early Russ Feingold and avoid taking large donor money to prove that it's possible to win that way, but so long as Citizen's United stands there's no way the DNC is going to let the Republicans run the table on big money funded ads and I don't really blame them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Trump was able to portray himself as against big corps because he wasn't as dependent on their donations. Clinton should have been able to own the hell out of him on that argument, but that'd involve painting megacorps as the enemy, and so she stayed silent while a fascist republican laughably claimed the anticorporatist crown I'm sure it had nothing to do with American voters being idiots. I assume that it was also the corporate overlords that made people think Trump wasn't a gigantic homophobe who was gonna reverse every step forward by lgbt people?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
stone cold posted:I agree, we should disenfranchise minorities and women, since they didn't pick your precious St. Bernard. If only we could stop the perfidy of the non-cishet non-white non-men! i'm a woman and feel pretty disenfranchised by dems already. i've supported them my whole life and they've failed to represent me when i really needed them. what am i supposed to do? should i keep supporting people who will fail me? that's what i've done so far, that's what people keep telling me to do, when is it going to pay off? when will they change?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
stone cold posted:I agree, we should disenfranchise minorities and women, since they didn't pick your precious St. Bernard. If only we could stop the perfidy of the non-cishet non-white non-men! You're even more detached from anything related to reality than the worst of my fellow Bernie Bros ITT.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:i'm a woman and feel pretty disenfranchised by dems already. i've supported them my whole life and they've failed to represent me when i really needed them. what am i supposed to do? should i keep supporting people who will fail me? that's what i've done so far, that's what people keep telling me to do, when is it going to pay off? when will they change? Failure to.....
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:i'm a woman and feel pretty disenfranchised by dems already. i've supported them my whole life and they've failed to represent me when i really needed them. what am i supposed to do? should i keep supporting people who will fail me? that's what i've done so far, that's what people keep telling me to do, when is it going to pay off? when will they change? You keep voting Democrat because you know that third parties that presently exist aren't going anywhere soon enough to matter and the Republicans are clearly worse. You aren't disenfranchised by Democrats, you're disenfranchised by the system as a whole of which Democrats are a small part. But showing up to vote every two years for "less bad" is like the bare minimum of civic engagement required to prevent this country from self-destructing to spite minorities/the poor/whoever, so that's what you keep doing, more or less. Voting consistently Democrat doesn't reflect anything about what you believe, it's just part of the facts of life in the system we happened to be born in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:i'm a woman and feel pretty disenfranchised by dems already. i've supported them my whole life and they've failed to represent me when i really needed them. what am i supposed to do? should i keep supporting people who will fail me? that's what i've done so far, that's what people keep telling me to do, when is it going to pay off? when will they change? you have to fight local, ellison or perez shouldn't have won the dnc seat it should have been the south bend guy if the left stood a chance in 2018 or 2020. then again, the likelyhood of using airforce one to do flybys of his rich friends or try to arrange a lincoln bedroom piss party is pretty high so nothing might matter at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I don't think there's that much small donor money in the system, is the point. Basically the DNC will continue handicapping their message and progress by sucking mega donors off. How are we supposed to switch to better campaign finance laws when mega donors will donate to campaigns fighting said reforms. You need to face it, that cash is poison to our party and we will either become republicans or be destroyed by the same mega donors we're addicted to. Keeping the spigot open is a losing strategy. (Unless you're centrist in which case being republican is fine)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:i'm a woman and feel pretty disenfranchised by dems already. i've supported them my whole life and they've failed to represent me when i really needed them. what am i supposed to do? should i keep supporting people who will fail me? that's what i've done so far, that's what people keep telling me to do, when is it going to pay off? when will they change? I'm also a woman, and maybe we should turn on our fellow women who voted for the orange pig who wants us to revert to chattel, and keep agitating, instead. Politics is a constant, long, hard struggle and some people can't keep up with that constantly or it will hurt them deeply, and that's not a bad thing for people to take a break. But if your gut reaction to a group of white men getting swept in who literally see us at best as baby making machines and at worst as pussy to be grabbed is to kvetch and go whyyy should I keep supporting the group that actually sees me as a person, then go ahead and vote republican. You're the one who has to live with yourself, after all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Basically the DNC will continue handicapping their message and progress by sucking mega donors off. How are we supposed to switch to better campaign finance laws when mega donors will donate to campaigns fighting said reforms. I'm not arguing for money in politics here. I'm saying that, as we do not possess the power to unilaterally take money out of politics, the reality is that the system as it is involves money in politics and you have to engage with that. Nobody said this was going to be an easy task.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I'm not arguing for money in politics here. I'm saying that, as we do not possess the power to unilaterally take money out of politics, the reality is that the system as it is involves money in politics and you have to engage with that. and i'm saying the reality of the system is that you're wrong. if we don't stop today, we'll have trouble stopping tomorrow, and even more trouble next year, and so on and so on until the money is cut off by people that are ideologically to the right of our party mission. its a trap that we dont get out of by continuing to give into it. the earlier we close the spigot the less pronounced the damage when we stop. if we wait we are only making things worse for us we already passed the danger point with corporate fundraising, in that our candidate was not able to beat back an extreme-right wing ceo on his anticorporatist credentials. Condiv fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Which column do you think is Clinton and which is Bernie? I like the part where old people vote for the worst candidate. Lightning Knight posted:I'm not arguing for money in politics here. I'm saying that, as we do not possess the power to unilaterally take money out of politics, the reality is that the system as it is involves money in politics and you have to engage with that. The reality is that the Democrats have little or no influence in government at the moment and there is little they can do to oppose Trump, but keep going after those Berniecrats. Maybe you will get something out of it. Lightning Knight posted:Those ads were ineffective because of how intensely and historically disliked Hillary was as a candidate and how ineffective and incompetent her campaign were. That's not an argument that they didn't matter and don't continue to matter in other races with other candidates. Hillary outspent Trump by at least one order of magnitude. The only issue with messaging is that she was giving bad messaging to the wrong people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
I can't bring myself to look: exactly how big of a meltdown are the Bernie-only types having right now? For what it's worth, I wanted Ellison, but Perez is a good choice, too. I'm worried that the "Ellison or bust" people are going to be a loving nightmare for the Democrats in 2018, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and i'm saying the reality of the system is that you're wrong. if we don't stop today, we'll have trouble stopping tomorrow, and even more trouble next year, and so on and so on until the money is cut off by people that are ideologically to the right of our party mission. I don't think you can reasonably demonstrate that in general, ads are so ineffective that we could suffice buying consistently, substantially less ads than the opposition party. Dead Cosmonaut posted:The reality is that the Democrats have little or no influence in government at the moment and there is little they can do to oppose Trump, but keep going after those Berniecrats. Maybe you will get something out of it. Your presumption of being the one true progressive against everyone who disagrees with you being centrist neoliberal shills continues to be adorable. Hillary didn't outspend Trump by nearly as much as the direct campaign expenditures show if you account for free advertising for Trump. Harrow posted:I can't bring myself to look: exactly how big of a meltdown are the Bernie-only types having right now? I don't think D&D is representative of the general political landscape, most people don't know that there's even a DNC chair election happening and disaffected bernouts both aren't statistically significant nor represent the major groups we need to win back to account for lost states in 2016. 2018 is likely to be a nightmare regardless because it's just a poo poo election map for the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Remember that one time Bernie marched for civil rights and then hosed off to Vermont and sat on his flabby white rear end for the rest of his life?  if you think this is what really happened.If you want party unity, making poo poo up about Sanders is not the way to go about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Because rural Pennsylvania isn't going to vote for us anyway, you rear end in a top hat. They also aren't numerically significant. Good luck in 2020. I’m sure you have your head on straight and it won’t be a disaster for the Dems. I kind of want Trump to stick around for 8 years now because every second he spends in office destroys your credibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
All of the people complaining about the Ellison or Bust people as potentially ruining the party also said that the Tea Party was going to keep the Republican Party from winning and start a hundred year DNC reign. The idea that solidarity is the only way to success is demonstrably false. The trick, though, is taking advantage of the momentum, wherever it is, as opposed to oppressively curating it. As it is, the GOP tried to have it both ways, and managed to do so. The DNC can't even do that much right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 03:09
|
|