|
z0glin Warchief posted:Personally I would say that they are right that no amount of economic policy will convince (meaningful numbers of) Trump voters to vote for a Democrat. I agree with 99% of your post, except that part. Democrats can win a large amount of right-leaning voters with economic plans. There's really no such thing as a "Trump voter" because a lot of people voted for him because of jobs. Other people voted for him because they hate Hillary. Other people voted for him because they're anti-immigrant. Bernie's town hall in West Virginia was just posted and it's worth a watch: https://youtu.be/_kSusaMgYYQ These Trump voters cheer every single progressive message he puts out because they are literally dying for help. They're dying for someone to stand up for them. A New Deal Democratic Party could very easily earn their support. guidoanselmi posted:
Yes. Also, unemployment may be "low." But there's still plenty of jobless folks, not to mention the historic levels of income inequality.
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 16:29
|
|
crazy idea 
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Frijolero posted:Yes. Also, unemployment may be "low." But there's still plenty of jobless folks, not to mention the historic levels of income inequality. Also, the employment numbers hide the fact that a lot of people are underemployed and still making less than they did pre-recession.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Also, the employment numbers hide the fact that a lot of people are underemployed and still making less than they did pre-recession. I don't think you understand, America is already great
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
radialright posted:Has anyone seen this article from Vox? http://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/13/14698812/bernie-trump-corbyn-left-wing-populism. It seems quite well sourced. As a general rule of thumb I would say never trust an article that is pretending to be balanced but only quoting one side of an argument. Notice how, in the section you quoted, the centrist argument is attributed to an expert whereas the "left-wing populist" verison of the argument just gets a rather uncharitable one sentence summary from the author, who describes it as follows: Vox posted:Supporters of these leaders, they argue, are motivated by a sense of economic insecurity in an increasingly unequal world; promise them a stronger welfare state, one better equipped to address their fundamental needs, and they will flock to the left. Who is "they" here? Some angry left on this forum or twitter? Bernie Sanders? Some left-wing academic? Because to me this is a terrible and dishonest summary of the argument for left-wing populism. The author even tips their hand through the words they use. "they will flock to the left", i.e. the left are a bunch of sheep. For all the authors pretenses of neutrality the rhetorical underpinnings of his piece, i.e. who gets quoted vs. who gets summarized, and the language used to summarize them, says a lot. Even wikipedia aspires to higher standards of integrity than "they say". If you're purporting to do a rigorous take down of an argument I think you're obliged to state the argument on its own terms rather than slipping in your own rather shoddy summary.  Later in the article the author somehow manages to describe Jeremy Corbyn's time as leader of the labour party without once addressing the fact that his party has been caught up in a brutal factional war between Blairites and Corbynites, with mass resignations of front-bench MPs, coordinated attacks in the almost monolithically unfriendly press, etc. The article does mention Brexit but sort of passes over how structurally damaging the Brexit vote is to the Labour party specifically. That isn't to say that there are really good reasons to criticize Corbyn. But the article is extremely selective - to the point of dishonesty - in what it chooses to mention and what it passes over without comment. All the statistics and quotes from experts designed to make the reader think that this is a balanced and rigorous analysis disguise the fact that this author has a very specific agenda that they're pushing, even in cases where pushing that agenda requires ignoring important contrary evidence of presenting dishonest summaries of the alternative arguments. Fundamentally, what this article ignores is Sander's most powerful message wasn't free college tuition, it was that the system is rigged and Wall Street is too powerful. And you can see that technocrats really don't get this because they're constantly mocking him for bringing up Wall Street and monied interests in what to them are totally unrelated discussions. But to a lot of voters, calling out the "rigged system" resonates in a way that merely calling for redistributionist policies does not. So the article is correct in one specific way. Voters aren't going to "flock left" just because the Democrats offer more generous government programs. But since that isn't really an accurate summary of left-wing populism nor is it a very good summary of the appeal of candidates like Sanders or Warren the rest of the article falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Don't post Far Side.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
There was a Vox article posted over in the left wing media thread that seems to indicate the way to hurt Trump is to tie him to the Republican party and not the other way around: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/14/14908272/trump-greenberg-democrats-neolib In short, remind the voters that while he may talk different he still behaves like a bog standard Republican in a lot of ways. Also, you know, have a robust left wing economic and social message. Actually standing for things and being able to effectively communicate them would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Also, the employment numbers hide the fact that a lot of people are underemployed and still making less than they did pre-recession. Right, I completely agree - it'd just be a low effort criticism. I think the major issue in future labor trends is the growth of the contractor model and availability of safety net for those in and out of short- & medium-term employment. Enough Silicon Valley folks are putting together private models for such a labor program - but it's honestly not an easy problem for private industry to solve. Why fight the trend? This is one major area where government can conceivably do a better job than the private sector and take initiative to help labor & business.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:Right, I completely agree - it'd just be a low effort criticism. I think the major issue in future labor trends is the growth of the contractor model and availability of safety net for those in and out of short- & medium-term employment. Enough Silicon Valley folks are putting together private models for such a labor program - but it's honestly not an easy problem for private industry to solve. The government is almost totally captive to lobbyists, labour has lost almost all political power, local government's scope of action has been so diminished that all they can hope to do is compete in a race to the bottom to attract investments to their regions, and the national economy is being overrun by monopolies and oligopolies. Tinkering with a few technocratic policies isn't going to solve a problem that fundamentally comes from massive power imbalances. If the same people continue to hold all the effective levers of power then you're going to have roughly the same economic trends.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Great Metal Jesus posted:There was a Vox article posted over in the left wing media thread that seems to indicate the way to hurt Trump is to tie him to the Republican party and not the other way around: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/14/14908272/trump-greenberg-democrats-neolib It almost sounds cliche but right now the Democrats don't have leadership and have a huge branding problem: can you say what Democrats are for, apart from "not Trump" and "a functional state"? Part of that is a natural result of being out of power but Trump is good at branding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
They didn't have the most coherent brand when they were in power either. What were the Democrats under Obama? What was the core message of the Hilary campaign?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Helsing posted:They didn't have the most coherent brand when they were in power either. What were the Democrats under Obama? What was the core message of the Hilary campaign? That Donald Trump is Bad. We are assured that at some point soon the remaining three americans who are unaware of this message will be reached, and as a result the finger on the drone-strike-all-who-offend-the-President button will have a D next to its name again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
I mean if I had to throw something out off the top of my head the Democratic party stands for the idea of a functional state and slow incremental change as an ideology. Which is a sad state of affairs.guidoanselmi posted:Why fight the trend? This is one major area where government can conceivably do a better job than the private sector and take initiative to help labor & business. I might be totally misreading you (and please correct me if I am) but I feel like we should fight the growth of the contractor model because it is intensely bad for workers. The instability, the uncertainty of when and where you'll be working next and for how much, the increased tax burden, lack of benefits. I have a friend who drives for Postmates and it's sounds like a soul crushing affair. Yes, I think a government program could make it more stable and less painful but that would be entrenching something that should be torn out by the roots. I feel that we need more labor protections, not less.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Helsing posted:They didn't have the most coherent brand when they were in power either. What were the Democrats under Obama? What was the core message of the Hilary campaign? If you go by the 2012 election Obama stood for being 90 percent like a Republican.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you bother reading the article it cites studies which suggest that far right populism actually accelerates when social welfare systems improve. Yes, but - as the article even admits - countries with better social welfare systems are still happier in general. Like, I'm even willing to accept the thesis that moving to the left economically and improving social welfare won't stop the far right, but we should still do it because it's a good thing that will help people. The fact that there are a bunch of ignorant leftists who believe moving to the left will solve all problems does not mean that moving to the left is actually a bad idea. z0glin Warchief posted:But...that's all. What am I supposed to take from that? That it's impossible to ever make progress because any progress you could make just makes the racists stronger? Certainly that's not what the author is probably intending to say*, but that seems to be the logical end point of his argument. I can't imagine that if "vote for me, I'll get you a better job/healthcare" won't convince a racist, "vote for me, I want racial equality" somehow will. It seems very fatalistic. Yeah, it doesn't seem like it's providing an argument against moving to the left. It's just making a (fairly reasonable) argument that moving to the left won't necessarily solve the main problems that lead to the rise of the far right. But even in the article he also acknowledges that countries with very robust welfare systems are still happier than the US, and the fact that the far right still exists in those countries is not somehow an argument against moving in that direction. It just means we need to search for extra measures that can be taken to fight the far right. edit: To be honest, the whole thing strikes me as "just asking questions" logic intended to cast doubt on something rather than provide any coherent alternative. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Especially since the alternative course of action that the Democratic party, or JeffersonClay for that matter, are counselling seems to be a direct continuation of the Hilary 2016 strategy of demonizing Trump without worrying about presenting any kind of coherent alternative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Yes, but - as the article even admits - countries with better social welfare systems are still happier in general. One issue right now is that the left is having two different arguments at the same time: "How do we win in 2018/2020?" and "What policies are the best for the country?" I think a lot of the arguments on here have people talking past one another because one person is trying to answer one question while the other is trying to answer, well, the other. Moving left is not a magic bullet. But I also don't think it would hurt, and it would certainly be nice to see a Democratic Party that stands for something. And yeah, moving left and promoting coherent left-wing economic policies isn't going to win over Trump voters. But it doesn't have to if actually having a coherent, well-communicated plan for making people's lives better can turn out people who didn't vote, or voted third-party, because they didn't think either candidate was going to make their life better. And it just might peel off a few Trump voters who, by the time 2020 rolls around, might see the consequences of what he and the GOP are doing and can see a clear alternative. Yeah, that's reactionary, but really, take the votes you can get. So yes, moving to the left economically is the right thing to do because it will help people. And even though it isn't going to magically win the election and convert huge numbers of Trump voters and kill the far right, it'd sure be nice to create an energized left that actually stands for something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Also, I think it could be argued that the US is, in some ways, more resistant to the far right actually taking extreme measures than some European countries due to how many minorities there are in our country and the much larger political and cultural footprint minorities have. It's relatively easy to gently caress over Muslims in France because they're a small percent of the population with little political/cultural influence, but it would be much harder to actually go past a certain degree of shittiness in the US. This certainly isn't to say that Republicans can't continue to make things worse for minorities by restricting voting rights or whatever, but it seems very unlikely that things will advance to the point where we're willing to pass laws at the federal level explicitly targeting minority US citizens any time soon, because there would be a massive backlash. (None of this means that we should be complacent, but it's just pointing out that the US has some potential advantages over the European countries the articles makes comparisons with when it comes to far right racism. While there's a far right big enough to get Trump elected, a significant portion of the people who voted Trump (many of whom would vote for anyone with an R next to their name) would still find explicitly racist policy unpalatable. Obviously this doesn't stop policy that is racist in practice, but it does draw a line of sorts where people aren't as willing to accept laws explicitly saying "black people can't vote" or something.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Helsing posted:
I think this is a very fair criticism of the piece. Generous welfare policies might not be helpful because they're vulnerable to the southern strategy, but vilifying Wall Street and supporting better regulations and enforcement aren't. An anti trump strategy that depicts Trump as the avatar of Wall Street greed and the failures of capitalism, coupled with credible proposals for financial and environmental regulations could work. Similarly, painting Trump as a corrupt crony capitalist who doesn't pay his fair share of taxes, coupled with proposals to increase taxes on the rich and close loopholes could be effective. Ze Pollack posted:That Donald Trump is Bad. She campaigned heavily on pluralism. She argued persuasively that diversity is a strength. You don't need to erase that to criticize her campaign; it makes you look like a poo poo. What we're discussing now suggests the strategy might have been flawed because it inflamed a racist backlash, but don't pretend it didn't happen. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:She campaigned heavily on pluralism. She argued persuasively that diversity is a strength. You don't need to erase that to criticize her campaign; it makes you look like a poo poo. What we're discussing now suggests the strategy might have been flawed because it inflamed a racist backlash, but don't pretend it didn't happen. Yes, yes, in your world the problem with Hillary Clinton's campaign was that she was insufficiently racist, and this must be corrected going forward. Meanwhile, in observable reality, it turns out Hillary Clinton's campaign, by every quantifiable metric, was about how Donald Trump was Bad. And by the numbers, she succeeded! On November 9th, the only politician in America less popular than Hillary Clinton was Donald Trump! Unfortunately, it seems that doesn't translate into votes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The government is almost totally captive to lobbyists, labour has lost almost all political power, local government's scope of action has been so diminished that all they can hope to do is compete in a race to the bottom to attract investments to their regions, and the national economy is being overrun by monopolies and oligopolies. i don't even know how this is responsive to what i wrote? Anyway, if we're going to be so cynical then what opportunities are there to change course? Having an ambitious agenda is what's going to win elections. The recent election showed that people want economic progress and will vote for hope even when there's literally no demonstrated solvency. Want to beat the guy who won? That strategy might be the way to go - promise something crazy in the party platform and, unlike him, try to get it done. As much as I'm advocating something naive - the point is to develop a part of a platform that is responsive to major issues in society in a bold way that the other side can't compete with politically. No amount of tax cuts will employ as many Americans as some good ol' Keynesian government spending while allowing the market dictate where those jobs need to go as far as economic sector. I don't think this is flawless as-is but I think something bold along these lines is needed. Speaking of, there are lobbyists who would be for and against this in a way that would produce some strange bedfellows.* Great Metal Jesus posted:I mean if I had to throw something out off the top of my head the Democratic party stands for the idea of a functional state and slow incremental change as an ideology. Which is a sad state of affairs. Yup, and they won't win many votes that way when the state isn't functioning in the eyes of most people. quote:I might be totally misreading you (and please correct me if I am) but I feel like we should fight the growth of the contractor model because it is intensely bad for workers. The instability, the uncertainty of when and where you'll be working next and for how much, the increased tax burden, lack of benefits. I have a friend who drives for Postmates and it's sounds like a soul crushing affair. You're right insofar as the existing models are bad for workers as far as lack of a safety net and employer relations. Many of the harms can be mitigated by having the government as the employer and the opportunities for labor coming from a general pool of private/public works where employee/employers can be matchmade, searched, whatever. The general notion isn't far from technocratic idealism wherein people can switch between vocations based on their passions (I'm sure this goes back a long ways, but at least to something like "Looking Backward"), so there is a major benefit to workers. Also Re: friend. So right now the Silicon Valley push is toward no-skill service positions because it's so much more challenging (read broad scope, complexity, investment, risk...the stuff private investment is adverse to) to develop, market, and operate similar products toward skill-based labor. *The major issue is implementation. The technical aspects are trivial but the policies on how contracts are made and their terms may vary on sector and position to try to keep as many groups on-board as possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
I don't believe the DNC will attack Wall Street no matter how politically beneficial it obviously is. Evidence: The last eight years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Yes, yes, in your world the problem with Hillary Clinton's campaign was that she was insufficiently racist, and this must be corrected going forward. If you're too dense to understand how attacking trump for his personal racism, sexism and islamophobia was part of an argument for pluralism and in defense of diversity I don't know what to tell you. She campaigned on pluralism. It wasn't enough. It might even have backfired. But it happened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:Yup, and they won't win many votes that way when the state isn't functioning in the eyes of most people. We're in agreement there. As for the rest of your post, you've given me something to think about. Ze Pollack posted:Yes, yes, in your world the problem with Hillary Clinton's campaign was that she was insufficiently racist, and this must be corrected going forward. I feel like I have a chrome extension on the makes JC's posts appear totally different to me than anyone else because this is not the reading I got at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Great Metal Jesus posted:I feel like I have a chrome extension on the makes JC's posts appear totally different to me than anyone else because this is not the reading I got at all. Willful misreading is the last refuge of the shitposter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Great Metal Jesus posted:We're in agreement there. As for the rest of your post, you've given me something to think about. The sole weakness JC's been able to come up with for the Clinton campaign, and its novel strategy of "run on nothing but Trump Bad," was that it was too pluralistic, and as a result caused a backlash of white resentment. He has been very, very careful to explain that the problem was not with basing a political campaign on calling Donald Trump Bad (as that is the extent of his current Anti-Trump strategy) but in calling him Bad in a way that made racists angry. That he refuses to add two and two together on what, precisely, this theory means Hillary's winning strategy would have been, is the source of JC's eternal centrist charm. Who needs the Philly city center to vote, we got suburban republicans to win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
JC do you think it's a possibility Democrats wouldn't attack Wall Street through Trump even if they though it would win them elections?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you're too dense to understand how attacking trump for his personal racism, sexism and islamophobia was part of an argument for pluralism and in defense of diversity I don't know what to tell you. She campaigned on pluralism. It wasn't enough. It might even have backfired. But it happened. What material policies did Hillary Clinton campaign on in favor of pluralism and defense of diversity, JeffersonClay. I regret to inform you "Donald Trump Is Bad" does not constitute a policy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton did not run on pluralism. She gave vague platitudes to the concept of "working together" but aggressively avoided advocating for anything concrete. What was her plan to create a more inclusive society exactly? Put dirty cops in jail? Shut down the prison industrial complex? Give Reparations to the descendants of slaves? Of course not. She had no plan, even on her "strong" topics like race and gender.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
In my analysis of the election Hillary's most fatal flaw was that she never even tried to tell a story about life under her administration, whereas Trump sold nothing but a story of how life would be under his administration. Even all the strategic errors and smug arrogance that hobbled her campaign would not have mattered if she had made even a token effort to try and tell a story. People connect to stories and think in stories and in my experience humans often choose their leader based on what sort of story they want to live in and not what sort of leader is the most nuanced choice given the circumstances. Setting aside the issue of Comey's treason and how much influence it may have had on the election; in my view Hillary's campaign failed because when the populace needed a proper narrative to latch onto she offered them a link to spreadsheets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Willful misreading is the last refuge of the shitposter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:In my analysis of the election Hillary's most fatal flaw was that she never even tried to tell a story about life under her administration, whereas Trump sold nothing but a story of how life would be under his administration. Even all the strategic errors and smug arrogance that hobbled her campaign would not have mattered if she had made even a token effort to try and tell a story. I agree with this. Trump is a lot of things but he's a better storyteller than Hillary. Or, well, better at trying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
radialright posted:Has anyone seen this article from Vox? http://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/13/14698812/bernie-trump-corbyn-left-wing-populism. It seems quite well sourced. No, it the gently caress is not. Probably the worst offense is presenting Corbyn's favorability numbers as an indictment of the very concept of far-left politics. The center-right Tony Blair faction of his own party tried to ratfuck him out of his own leadership seat, and completely failed to do so because the only thing less popular than a socialist grandpa is a bunch of rich, doughy centrists. So, of course, that tanked Corbyn's numbers because now he's facing public ridicule from both the center-right and the far right, and the lovely tabloid political media in the UK loves nothing more than a good catfight. This all started in May of last year, when the Tories' polling lead over labour was 2 whole points. Keep in mind the entire narrative for the leadrship coup was that Corbyn couldn't lead Labour to a victory in a general election. Guess what the Tory lead was in July? 16 points Blairite centrists torpedoed the labour party out of spite. The article completely, amazingly fails to mention any of this, and can't be taken at all seriously as a result. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:No, it the gently caress is not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
We saw hints of that already back in the primary with Bloomberg's threat to spoil the entire race if Bernie won. E: and then Hillary gave him a speaking slot at her convention. Holy poo poo was she loving bad at politics! I know I'm beating a dead horse but I just now realized how terrible an idea that was. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah and it's infuriating when we get posters on here pointing to Britain's Labour party as some kind of cautionary tale for what happens when you go hard left - it's a cautionary tale all right, but not of the sort they'd like you to think: it shows that the Blairites over there and the centrists in the DNC over here would rather have the Tories / GOP rule forever than allow any meaningful move to the left within their party. I don't think there's any cooperation or negotiation to be had with them, if the posters here are any indication of where that faction's collective head is at (i.e. very, very far up its own rear end in a top hat). To be fair, I think so far the DNC centrists have not shown anything close to the absolute hysterical idiocy that the Blairites did. I guess we'll see what happens when leftists start leading the party, but I don't think it's yet fair to paint them with the same brush.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:No, it the gently caress is not.  but the Russians hacking and releasing the podesta emails and constant attacks from the left had no meaningful impact on the campaign. Kilroy posted:Says the guy who looks at Britain's Labour party, then at America's Democratic party, draws a few lines, pulls some specious logic out of his rear end, and announces (to the surprise of absolutely no one) that the correct course for the Democratic party is to tack to the center. Again. 1). That's not what "willfuly misreading" means here. 2). You are willfully misreading my posts if you think I want democrats to move toward the center. Ze Pollack posted:What material policies did Hillary Clinton campaign on in favor of pluralism and defense of diversity, JeffersonClay. Comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship. Ending racial profiling. And a bunch of others. This actually happened. But these aren't just policy issues-- they're cultural issues as well. And Clinton made a strong case that having a racist sexist islamophobe as the head of state would be incompatible with a culture that respected those values. A lot of her anti-trump advertising was framed around what kids would think, learn, and emulate with a racist president, and that was contrasted with the positive symbolism of electing a woman who would vigorously defend cultural values of diversity. That's what "Stronger Together" was about. You can't promote diversity with policy alone. The Kingfish posted:We saw hints of that already back in the primary with Bloomberg's threat to spoil the entire race if Bernie won. Yes you've identified a significant drawback of abandoning the center-- there's always a 3rd party centrist waiting in the wings to poach those votes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
I've never said that, but thanks for implicitly agreeing with my post! Prester Jane posted:In my analysis of the election Hillary's most fatal flaw was that she never even tried to tell a story about life under her administration, whereas Trump sold nothing but a story of how life would be under his administration. Even all the strategic errors and smug arrogance that hobbled her campaign would not have mattered if she had made even a token effort to try and tell a story. This is the only correct answer. I know people tell you you're a good poster, but hey, prester, yknow what? You're a good poster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:2). You are willfully misreading my posts if you think I want democrats to move toward the center. There is literally no other way to read your posts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I've never said that, but thanks for implicitly agreeing with my post! Its weird how Corbyn's failures are all because of backstabing moderates and the media, and anyone suggesting they're related to policy is a no good hack, but Clinton's failures are all her own, and anybody suggesting other factors can explain the loss is a no good hack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 23:38
|
|