|
Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
33 | 6.38% |
| No |
|
343 | 66.34% |
| Keith Ellison |
|
54 | 10.44% |
| Pete Buttigieg |
|
71 | 13.73% |
| Jehmu Green |
|
16 | 3.09% |
| Total: | 416 votes | ||
|
TyrantWD posted:The fact that someone like Feingold lost, and by a larger amount than Hillary lost by in Wisconsin shows you how far right/left the country really is. Anyone who thinks Democrats lost because the party was too centrist, and a true liberal would have cleaned house needs to look at the Wisconsin senate race and see how nonsense that idea is.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I thought the narrative was Clinton lost because her squishy centrism didn't motivate enough democrats to turn out to vote. Is it too much of a logical leap to conclude that the democrats who stayed home because centrism sucks must hold leftist views? I don't see how you can present a coherent alternative without veering deep into no true leftist territory. Not everyone who stayed home because her campaign was uninspiring centrist garbage was a leftist because her campaign can have been multi-facetedly awful. If she had run a centrist campaign on centrist principles with conviction instead of trying to waffle between her base and "moderate" Republicans, she probably would have won because voters who were otherwise uninspired might have seen her as someone who would fight for them on her terms. Conversely, if she had run the same campaign structure but her speeches had had any form whatsoever of a populist tone and if she had actually owned up the the garbage about emails/speeches, she might have actually inspired young voters like Obama did. But she did neither. She triangulated herself and the whole party directly into the trash and now we have party leaders saying that people don't want change from that strategy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Only insofar as "government should do something for the people it represents" is a leftist view. The majority of the Trump Bad argument was about pluralism. He was bad because he was a racist sexist islamophobe, and electing a president like that would be harmful to a pluralistic society. So if you're suggesting she should have focused less on Trump's bigotry and more on her economic plan, you're also suggesting she overemphasized pluralism. I remember explaining this to you, apparently without success.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Why do I have a feeling "their membership" in the thread title refers solely to the threads author.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The majority of the Trump Bad argument was about pluralism. He was bad because he was a racist sexist islamophobe, and electing a president like that would be harmful to a pluralistic society. So if you're suggesting she should have focused less on Trump's bigotry and more on her economic plan, you're also suggesting she overemphasized pluralism. I remember explaining this to you, apparently without success. They're not mutually exclusive, dipshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Not everyone who stayed home because her campaign was uninspiring centrist garbage was a leftist because her campaign can have been multi-facetedly awful. If you're a democrat, and you think centrism is uninspiring garbage, how can you be anything but a leftist? if you're suggesting it wasn't really about centrism but rather failings with her campaign strategy, I agree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I thought the narrative was Clinton lost because her squishy centrism didn't motivate enough democrats to turn out to vote. Is it too much of a logical leap to conclude that the democrats who stayed home because centrism sucks must hold leftist views? I don't see how you can present a coherent alternative without veering deep into no true leftist territory. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:most voters don't identify as "Democrat", "Republican", "Leftist", "Centrist" etc Much like how everyone thinks they're middle class most voters think of themselves as independents (because most voters are morons)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:They're not mutually exclusive, dipshit. "how much a campaign focuses on an issue" only adds up to 100%; spending more time on economics necessarily means less time on pluralism
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:"how much a campaign focuses on an issue" only adds up to 100%; spending more time on economics necessarily means less time on pluralism Or you could not spend most of your campaign repeating that Donald Trump is Bad when most of America already agrees and instead spend some of that time discussing both the economy and minority issues that don't have to do with Donald Trump being Bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Ellison doesn't actually care who you hate more. He's telling you to quit making GBS threads on democrats and focus on the existential threat to the country. But you never actually cared about his vision for the party. While the people who think Hillary is worse than Trump or is some uber-corrupt cackling evil person are dumb (the people in these threads I'm talking about should be obvious), I don't think it's unreasonable to focus a lot of effort on criticizing Democrats during our current situation. Basically, the mindset among many leftists is that this is a very good time to influence the party to move in the direction they want. Taking advantage of a disaster, so to speak. People, including many Democrats, are generally displeased with the Democratic Party right now, so it's a good opportunity to say "the status quo is bad and we need to make some drastic changes." Even if you don't agree that it would be good for the party to move to the left, surely you can at least understand why people who do want that to happen would want to take advantage of this situation? They're also afraid that if we just ignore any sort of introspection and focus entirely on Trump that nothing will really change within the party and the same mistakes will be repeated. Also, I feel like BI NOW GAY LATER and a few other posters are looking at some of the really dumb leftist posters in threads like this and feel that any opinion they hold must inherently be wrong because the person holding it is dumb. This isn't necessarily a conscious thing; it's more that there's this general feeling of "I don't like this dumb guy, and have a gut feeling all their conclusions must be wrong because the logic they use to reach those conclusions is flawed." As a result, they automatically assume from the beginning that any positions these people hold are probably false and then seek out an explanation for why they're false. I feel like this sort of thought process begins from a logical place ("you should be skeptical of the things a person who is demonstrably irrational believes") but then takes it too far and instead forms a strong bias against anything such people say (a "Hitler liked dogs, therefore dogs are bad" situation). The reason I'm addressing these posters instead of the aforementioned dumb leftist posters is because 1. even if they sometimes have dumb reasons, the latter generally want the same things I want politically and 2. dumb leftists have very little power in our political system, so it doesn't make sense to focus much effort on them (while dumb "centrist/mainstream" Democrats do hold the most power within the party). Regarding the above latter point, there isn't really any risk of actual Democratic politicians suddenly talking about how Clinton is worse than Trump or purging the party of non-leftists or whatever, so it seems unusual to be so emotionally invested in fighting the people who believe those things. On the other hand, the actions/beliefs of status quo Democrats actually do matter, so it makes sense to be emotionally invested in attacking them (if you disagree with them). I think it would be useful for the people invested in attacking dumber leftists to engage in some introspection and try to figure out why it is that they feel motivated to engage with that side of the argument (I'm 100% aware this sounds super condescending, but I can't think of any other way to say it). With posters like JeffersonClay, it seems like he may actually want the party to be more centrist/"third way"/whatever, so that's a pretty straight-forward motivation, but for others it seems like they don't actually disagree about much policy-wise so I'm not sure what's going on there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:"how much a campaign focuses on an issue" only adds up to 100%; spending more time on economics necessarily means less time on pluralism You just have to live the conservative thinking going on with this post. You going to argue that extending civil rights takes away rights from others because that's the end of where you're taking this. This post seriously argued that in fact we can inky accomplish one thing at a time. God save us from feckless liberals
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Or you could not spend most of your campaign repeating that Donald Trump is Bad when most of America already agrees and instead spend some of that time discussing both the economy and minority issues that don't have to do with Donald Trump being Bad. Donald trump is bad because he's a racist sexist islamophobe has everything to do with minority issues. You can claim she should have approached those issues differently, but with the same amount of emphasis. You can claim she should have emphasized economic issues more. But you can't claim she should have been able to do both simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:"how much a campaign focuses on an issue" only adds up to 100%; spending more time on economics necessarily means less time on pluralism The nearly year and a half long presidential campaign season certainly provides ample opportunities for huge helpings of both???
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:"how much a campaign focuses on an issue" only adds up to 100%; spending more time on economics necessarily means less time on pluralism And the Hillary campaign, wisely and graciously, elected to run on neither economics or pluralism, in the favor of offering a heaping helping of empty platitudes. In the eyes of the JeffersonClays of the world, the problem was that the platitudes were too strong, and in the future the disenfranchised should be offered even less.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
all of you should be loving ashamed of yourselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
oh, I think she overemphasized pluralism the DNC, for example, was pretty much entirely pluralism, except for the part that was jingo
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Donald trump is bad because he's a racist sexist islamophobe has everything to do with minority issues. Shame those pesky minorities disagreed, huh. Trump got more of the Hispanic vote than Mitt Romney. Wrap your head around that one. quote:You can claim she should have approached those issues differently, but with the same amount of emphasis. You can claim she should have emphasized economic issues more. But you can't claim she should have been able to do both simultaneously. The claim the Clinton campaign should have offered more than empty platitudes to the disenfranchised would appear diametrically opposed to your "Clinton paid too much attention to minorities" thesis, JeffersonClay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:And the Hillary campaign, wisely and graciously, elected to run on neither economics or pluralism, in the favor of offering a heaping helping of empty platitudes. I think one of the amusing components of Hillary's Wall Street speeches is how she offered those bankers the same empty platitudes she offered the public throughout the campaign, all at low low price of a few million dollars and the further tarnishing of the image of her integrity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
then again, I thought "the election is a referendum on pluralism" was a slam-dunk winner but then again again, the 1/21 protests were waaaaay more about pluralism than economics
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:oh, I think she overemphasized pluralism Ya see, that's where I differ. The idea of playing on pluralism is not a bad idea! It just needs to be backed up with something concrete to rally around. There were even ways to promise immigration reforms, school reforms, poverty relief programs and health care reforms in a way that would sound good to the public, but that the donors would know would mean "hell yeah we are going to ride this privatization train all the way into the station!" And instead of offering the minorities she needed to win -anything-, the Clinton campaign poured all its money into instead offering them the sentence "Donald Trump is Bad." I can understand the appeal. Saying Donald Trump is Bad is obvious, true, and most importantly of all, doesn't require you to promise voters anything. Unfortunately, it turns out that when you offer voters nothing, they return the favor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Its not even that she offered voters nothing, its the gall to expect that vast swathes of your 'base', which you've been actively loving for years, are forever beholden to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While the people who think Hillary is worse than Trump or is some uber-corrupt cackling evil person are dumb (the people in these threads I'm talking about should be obvious), I don't think it's unreasonable to focus a lot of effort on criticizing Democrats during our current situation. I've never had a problem with reasoned criticism of democrats from the left and I think the party benefits from it, even if I don't always agree with all of it on a strategic level. Arguments about specific democrats and specific policies that should change are helpful and should be encouraged. Arguments that condemn the party as inherently corrupt, or as more concerned about protecting their corporate masters than their constituents, or which otherwise legitimize right wing smears are not helpful. That, I think, was Ellison's point when he called out people more concerned about making GBS threads on Clinton than the Republicans. See also Bernie Sanders being sick and tired of hearing about Hillary's emails.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:. Portraying Trump as a bigot who would dismantle the pluralistic gains we've made was not an empty platitude. Putting Khazir Khan on stage at the DNC was not an empty platitude. I'm not sure you have a lot of credibility to suggest I don't care about minorities when you're constantly depicting attacks on bigotry as empty platitudes. They weren't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Donald trump is bad because he's a racist sexist islamophobe has everything to do with minority issues. You can claim she should have approached those issues differently, but with the same amount of emphasis. You can claim she should have emphasized economic issues more. But you can't claim she should have been able to do both simultaneously. Actually a lot of the same lovely economic policies Trump loves and advocated directly harm minorities of every stripe, assuming that she's bound by your bizarro restriction where she's unable to say more than one thing per mouth opening "Donald Trump wants to lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans. This takes money directly out of the pockets of you and your neighbors, and reinforces his constant attacks on those different than he is" whoa I said two things there and I just spit balled that on my toilet Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
it's hard to nail down 2016 campaign Trump on economic policy because he either took all sides of an issue, sometimes in the same speech, or he spoke in such vague generalities that it invited people to project onto him. Meanwhile, "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" is still paying dividends in opposing his plans
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
I'm sorry JC but thats just how its going to be because Clintonites have shown now the the Gorusch hearings to be inherently the enemies of the American workers and need to be put on the run. I am sorry you seem to think its horrible we want the rich to pay their fair share. I am sorry you think its horrible that we expect the banking system to not screw those wanting to buy houses. I am sorry you are against people getting good wages. Actually I am not. I want you to join the GOP because that's where those who only live for greed belong. Oh and @ WJ well that could have been handled by Clinton being from the start against TPP, acknowledging that NAFTA didn't work, promising Medicare for all, and promising to break up the big banks. But we know for rather obvious reasons she never would have been. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
In fairness it probably wouldn't have come out well from the mouth of a candidate taking funds from Goldman Sachs, so maybe she played the only hand she could lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:it's hard to nail down 2016 campaign Trump on economic policy because he either took all sides of an issue, sometimes in the same speech, or he spoke in such vague generalities that it invited people to project onto him. like attacks on "Republicans Believe X" don't land because he's spent the past year making GBS threads all over Republican orthodoxies
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Portraying Trump as a bigot who would dismantle the pluralistic gains we've made was not an empty platitude. Putting Khazir Khan on stage at the DNC was not an empty platitude. I'm not sure you have a lot of credibility to suggest I don't care about minorities when you're constantly depicting attacks on bigotry as empty platitudes. They weren't. What policies did Hillary Clinton campaign on that would have any impact on bigotry?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:What policies did Hillary Clinton campaign on that would have any impact on bigotry? Well breaking up the banks wouldn't have solved racism so she didn't want that
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:What policies did Hillary Clinton campaign on that would have any impact on bigotry? not giving comfort to assholes who'd shoot Indians for being Muslim, for one
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton was programmed with a simple algorithm that could have illustrated by a venn diagram with one circle labelled "Solves Racism" and another circle, not even close to touching the first one, labeled "Helps the Donor Class" This circle is also labelled "Hillary's policy"
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The majority of the Trump Bad argument was about pluralism. He was bad because he was a racist sexist islamophobe, and electing a president like that would be harmful to a pluralistic society. So if you're suggesting she should have focused less on Trump's bigotry and more on her economic plan, you're also suggesting she overemphasized pluralism. I remember explaining this to you, apparently without success. The issue, I think, is that "he's a racist sexist islamophobe and will be harmful to a pluralistic society" is still a Trump Bad argument, not a Hillary Good argument. She literally had "America is already great" as a slogan; she wasn't saying "vote for me, I will enact policies to help make our institutions reflect our pluralistic values" so much as "don't vote for him, he doesn't represent our values." She, of course, did actually have some policies like that, and advocated for them to an extent, but looking at the content of her ads and the ways she attempted to connect with the electorate, the thrust of the campaign felt much more "we're already great, pluralism is great, trump will ruin that" than it was "we can be greater if you vote for me." People weren't given a clear picture of what she would do to advance the values she campaigned on, or rather how she would make people's lives better once in office. In fairness some of that is on the media for it's boneheaded editorial choices, but everyone knew going in that the media hated Hillary Clinton (remember, Clinton Derangement Syndrome is a thing), and that she and her team would need to find other ways to spread the word. This is where the aura of inevitability really hurt them in my opinion; they didn't feel the pressure to get out there and push a message with the fervor that would be necessary to penetrate the veil of media bullshit and accumulated mud from decades of Republican mudslinging—instead more or less content to let Trump make their argument for them...and he did, in spades, it just wasn't a winning argument because it only addressed half the equation. Edit: By that I mean "why to vote FOR Clinton" instead of just "why to vote AGAINST Trump", not a social/economic thing. z0glin Warchief fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:What policies did Hillary Clinton campaign on that would have any impact on bigotry? Electing Donald trump has already resulted in a significant, measurable increase in bigotry. You can't legislate an end to racism. It's about culture, too, and a country's leadership is an important component of the transmission and modification of culture. She advocated for policies that would help minorities as well, both directly and with economic measures that would help the poor generally, but the last time I cited and linked them you said it didn't matter because she didn't really campaign on them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Electing Donald trump has already resulted in a significant, measurable increase in bigotry. You can't legislate an end to racism. It's about culture, too, and a country's leadership is an important component of the transmission and modification of culture. So her platform was "is not Donald Trump"
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:not giving comfort to assholes who'd shoot Indians for being Muslim, for one That's the thing, though. They didn't. Remember, we're trying to get ahold of Schumer's beloved suburban Republicans here, and quite a few of them sympathize with that. Can't risk offending them by being ~too~ pluralistic. The campaign was careful to a (fatal) fault to not taint itself with any actual policies, instead merely repeating that Donald Trump was Bad ad infinitum. Put up minorities to make speeches about how minorities were good at the DNC? That they could do. Actually promise to do anything for them, don't make Robby Mook laugh, he's got the Pittsburgh country club circuit to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:So her platform was "is not Donald Trump" I still believe she lost because of who she was, not because of what she ran on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While the people who think Hillary is worse than Trump or is some uber-corrupt cackling evil person are dumb (the people in these threads I'm talking about should be obvious), I don't think it's unreasonable to focus a lot of effort on criticizing Democrats during our current situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Electing Donald trump has already resulted in a significant, measurable increase in bigotry. You can't legislate an end to racism. It's about culture, too, and a country's leadership is an important component of the transmission and modification of culture. So her platform was a modified form of the democrats in 2010, and 2014. "We're the nice guys, and not the assholes". Didn't work it turns out, who would have thought?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:42
|
|