i am the bird posted:

Yes, hemorrhaging that powerhouse voting bloc they had from 1968 to 1992 and then winning the popular vote in five of the next six presidential elections.

Y'all have a point but the hyperbole doesn't help.

Frijolero posted:

Losing TWICE to Bush W. and then doing this:



Nothing to brag about.

Nevvy Z posted:

I'm pretty sure we'll win on literally anyone who isn't hillary clinton.

I bet Weiner could pull it off...

StealthArcher posted:

You know, as someone who has said over and over that Bernie Would Have Won™, I find it interesting you left 2016 off that list.


Oh right, it's because we gained in both houses. Hillary blew the election harder than a category 5, but our House/Senate races weren't a loss in the sense of losing seats.

Nevvy Z posted:

I'm pretty sure we'll win on literally anyone who isn't hillary clinton.

I bet Weiner could pull it off...

Majorian posted:

Well, let's not risk anything though. Let's make absolutely 100% loving sure that we win, and that the presidential nominee brings a bunch of state and national legislative seats with them. Because doing the bare loving minimal hasn't worked so well for us, and the fact that die-hard Clintonistas haven't picked up on that yet is astounding.

Crowsbeak posted:

The reason why Clintonistas don't is because while they certainly don't like the right wing culture war. THeir main motivation for doing what they do is deregulated markets and low taxes which Cllinton gave them> They think its fine to occasionally throw a bone to a minority group. But overall they could care less what happens to people not them. They are creatures who only care for themselves and any actual claim to care about others is nothing more then an attempt to appear to be nothing but selfish sociopaths. Just like Hill and Bill.

Majorian posted:

This can partially explain the motivation behind wealthier Clintonistas, but not the vast majority of them, who are not rich.

7c Nickel posted:

Or maybe they actually just disagree with you on small points and aren't actually "creatures" with purely venal interests.

7c Nickel posted:

Or maybe they actually just disagree with you on small points and aren't actually "creatures" with purely venal interests.

7c Nickel posted:

Or maybe they actually just disagree with you on small points and aren't actually "creatures" with purely venal interests.

Despera posted:

This level of nuance is way beyond SA's paygrade

Majorian posted:

I think it's more just the common assumption in political science that all voters and all political figures are rational actors - that Outcome A happened because Political Group B wanted it to happen that way. But the reality is, voters and political figures aren't rational. Irrational things like ego and fear and anger and hope play way more of a role than politically-minded intellectuals often care to admit.

Despera posted:

Ah the "everyone wants what I want but are too stupid to realize it argument".

TheRat posted:

Temporarily embarrassed millionaires

Majorian posted:

Yes, that's precisely what I'm arguing. It's that poor people are stupid, not that there are costs of information, in terms of time, money, and effort, that keep voters (particularly low-income voters) from being informed during primaries.

Also, people who argue in favor of things like the Consumer Protection Agency are saying that American consumers are all stupid.

Despera posted:

Irrational actors who vote against their own interest because of fear, prejudice or ignorance sounds pretty stupid.

quote:

"My poo poo ain't selling, blame the customer" line of reasoning, the high minded low thinking staple of these boards.

Kilroy posted:

My brain works in the way most human brains work, so I can understand things like "some prominent establishment Democrats reached a compromise with the progressive wing, but in the end they could not convince the rest of their faction to go along with it because they didn't want to be seen compromising with progressives". I mean we've already got you on record saying that Perez wasn't a compromise so I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here.

It seems you think the progressive wing is composed of a single person, and the establishment wing is composed of a single person. This is a basic reasoning fail and you should probably get an MRI or something. You might have an aneurysm.

quote:

And yeah there are some bills in committee right now that probably won't pass, and some more already thrown out that definitely won't pass and which are pure red-meat sort of thing. It's more than we ever get out of finger-wagging Democrats. You're the one who brought up bills specifically so not sure what you're going on about, but I can't stop you from bringing it up in every post of mine you reply to, so have at it I guess

Ardennes posted:

To be honest if you are talking about the general voter, I think it is mostly political inertia, and the fact the most well known Democratic politicians are centrists. Sanders came out of nowhere and did very very well, but at the same time Hillary was a household name (for better or worse).

For those more involved in politics, they are basically that Rockefeller Republicans had go to somewhere after the southern strategy. There are plenty of centrist democrats that more "temporarily embarrassed" millionaires, they legitimately have money. Maybe they are only "upper middle class" and their family's wealth is in real estate and 401ks, but they are people who the current economic order is in their best interests. They come from the top 10-20% of the population who still live very comfortable lives and genuinely don't want higher taxes much less a "political revolution."

They may be well educated and "well-meaning" are vaguely would like some social progress but generally believe (or want to believe) that all the system needs is just a few tweaks. Granted, for them, it is fairly logical. They aren't starving, and probably won't starve (the super rich still need doctors and accountants) but see the outright bigotry of the GOP as unacceptable.

I know this because I basically grew up around them.

The problem is a system that generally is working of them is not working for much of the rest of the population. However, that population can't unite because of a multitude of racial/social/religious divisions and both parties can play off that divide.

Crowsbeak posted:

The reason why Clintonistas don't is because while they certainly don't like the right wing culture war. THeir main motivation for doing what they do is deregulated markets and low taxes which Cllinton gave them> They think its fine to occasionally throw a bone to a minority group. But overall they could care less what happens to people not them. They are creatures who only care for themselves and any actual claim to care about others is nothing more then an attempt to appear to be nothing but selfish sociopaths. Just like Hill and Bill.

Crowsbeak posted:

I think this could change if the left take heart that we nearly beat Perez, and that the dems are complaining about us bugging them/ But we need to keep being a bug for the next 12 years to make the party a pure party of the people. Also we have to ensure that the bottom falls out when the GOP is in charge. Of course I also would say that even if we take over the party we're going to perhaps have to learn about the second ammendment.

Fulchrum posted:

Kilroy posted:

While I'd rather you get permabanned somehow between now and then, part of me hopes you're still posting on Nov 7 2018. I suspect calling you out for the establishment rear end-kissing POS you are and screaming "I told you so" into your ears until the shockwaves have atomized your brains, will provide a nice distraction after GOP gains in the House and Senate.

Fulchrum posted:

So the plan is to continue splitting the party, while we tell you doing that will lead to losses, then get smug when there are losses.

You know, at least ISIS fighters occasionally try to suicide bomb the loving opposition when dying for their ideology. They blow up a lot of innocent moderate Muslims in their insane ideology, but at least occasionally they try to attack the west.

Fulchrum posted:

So the plan is to continue splitting the party, while we tell you doing that will lead to losses, then get smug when there are losses.

You know, at least ISIS fighters occasionally try to suicide bomb the loving opposition when dying for their ideology. They blow up a lot of innocent moderate Muslims in their insane ideology, but at least occasionally they try to attack the west.

Fulchrum posted:

Also, I'll take this as your smug rear end knowing you're dead wrong about Ellisson meeting any definition of a compromise or the Republicans doing more for their base than the dems do, but being incapable of ever admitting error.

Mnoba posted:

well good thing ellison didn't win the dnc chair cause maybe he would have tried that

Kilroy posted:

I have voted this thread '1', for it is poo poo.

Kilroy posted:

Take it for whatever the gently caress you like, I'm done with you.

Fulchrum posted:

So the plan is to continue splitting the party

Majorian posted:

It's quite literally people like you who are doing that, actually. You are driving voters out of the party.

Fulchrum posted:

You mean those people who started one of the most respected and generous charities in the world?

Oh wait, but they did political things. WORSE THAN HITLER!

i am the bird posted:

I am in no way bragging about Dem election results but saying they "hemorrhaged voters" is a loving lie. Democrats routinely get more votes for the presidency and for congress.

DNC leadership sucks because they've done nothing to cultivate voters or candidates outside of major cities, and that failure to organize has led to massive state-level advantages for Republicans. You know who else is terrible in that regard? Lefty organizers.