|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
quote:It was a vision Hillary herself couldn't articulate for them. But the one aspect of her campaign that she was most confident about was that none of the tribes, separately or in collaboration, had any idea how to construct a winning message for her. In her view, it was up to the people she paid to find the right message for her -- a construction deeply at odds with the way Sanders and Trump built their campaigns around their own gut feelings about where to lead the country. From, you know, the book that just came out.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:From, you know, the book that just came out. The supreme irony here is that at the end of the day specific sloagans and policy proposals pale in importance to the simple question of sincerity. She probably would have done much better with weaker sloagans were they just argued in a more authentic way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:The supreme irony here is that at the end of the day specific sloagans and policy proposals pale in importance to the simple question of sincerity. She probably would have done much better with weaker sloagans were they just argued in a more authentic way. And a clearer way. When you're trying to pivot on issues that essential voters really care about, you gotta make it clear what your new position is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Seriously, though, the feedback loop is exciting to watch. Hillary's policies don't excite people, so her sycophants tell her to campaign on anything but policy, so she actively avoids taking any progressive stances, so she continues to fail to inspire her base, so her sycophants tell her to double down on the empty platitudes harder, repeat for twelve months and we arrive at lost, broken creatures claiming that if only the Hillary campaign had been a little more racist with its empty platitudes they'd have won. I'm literally arguing that focusing on Robbie Mook's algorithm or wasting money in the LA media market makes it easier for centrists to ignore policy issues by focusing on the non-policy ineptitude of the campaign. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, but I can't see any reason why its any better to talk about Robbie Mook loving us over than Putin loving us over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:From, you know, the book that just came out. what's that? hillary had so little reason to run for president she had to pay people to find reasons?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm literally arguing that focusing on Robbie Mook's algorithm or wasting money in the LA media market makes it easier for centrists to ignore policy issues by focusing on the non-policy ineptitude of the campaign Who is doing that exactly? I think the only person focusing on it is you in some vain attempt to make yourself feel better about your bad choices I guess?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm literally arguing that focusing on Robbie Mook's algorithm or wasting money in the LA media market makes it easier for centrists to ignore policy issues by focusing on the non-policy ineptitude of the campaign. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, but I can't see any reason why its any better to talk about Robbie Mook loving us over than Putin loving us over. You know, the more I get exposed to internal party politics in real life, and the more I read from other people who have spent a lot of time in it, I am beginning to believe that running "bad campaigns" are actually, sincerely an ideological issue for a certain class of Democrat. Things like traingulation seem to be impossible to disentangle from Third Way philosophy as an integral strategy, but leads to directly to many of the problems the Hillary campaign had with data-drive, focus-tested and credibility-lacking messaging that seemed to satisfy far too few people. The idea that a winning message must be constructed from disparate pieces joined together in just the right way rather than being derived from a fundamentally appealing core. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm literally arguing that focusing on Robbie Mook's algorithm or wasting money in the LA media market makes it easier for centrists to ignore policy issues by focusing on the non-policy ineptitude of the campaign.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
 SECRETARY CLINTON STOP I'M FROM THE FUTURE YOU'RE MAKING A HUGE MISTAKE
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Actually centrism is all about horseshit about algorithims and models. I mean of course the people of Appalachia are hosed. This model proves it. Of course the dems don't need to worry about poor Midwestern. The demographics of the futures mean we will win all elections in ten years. Also,  . More efficient then hiring POLLSTERS! Seriously someone give that mook a swirlie.
Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You know, the more I get exposed to internal party politics in real life, and the more I read from other people who have spent a lot of time in it, I am beginning to believe that running "bad campaigns" are actually, sincerely an ideological issue for a certain class of Democrat. Triangulation worked for bill. The defenders of third way policies or triangulation will point to Robbie Mook as evidence that Hillary was just doing it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
"Right from the start, a threat to Mook's vision of total control existed in the form of a scrappy grassroots PAC called Ready for Hillary. And not even the expressed wishes of Bill and Hillary Clinton could keep Mook from crushing it." Cool
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Triangulation worked for bill. The defenders of third way policies or triangulation will point to Robbie Mook as evidence that Hillary was just doing it wrong. It "worked" if the goal is to win elections, not make the country a better place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Triangulation worked for bill. The defenders of third way policies or triangulation will point to Robbie Mook as evidence that Hillary was just doing it wrong. Triangulation worked for Bill because we were a loving different country twenty five years ago. The Hillary campaign should have realized when Michigan happened that it was a different country now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Triangulation worked for bill. The defenders of third way policies or triangulation will point to Robbie Mook as evidence that Hillary was just doing it wrong. Worked for him so much that it ensured HRC wouldn't win. Also Triangulation can not fail, it can only fail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Triangulation worked for Bill because we were a loving different country twenty five years ago. The Hillary campaign should have realized when Michigan happened that it was a different country now. Trump's campaign was also heavily triangulated, on healthcare, trade, and military interventionism he broke with Republican Party orthodoxy and presented a message designed to attract moderates and liberals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Triangulation worked for bill. The defenders of third way policies or triangulation will point to Robbie Mook as evidence that Hillary was just doing it wrong. There are a great many strategies that can be adopted that "work" in the short term but have genuine long term consequences. A lot of strategies might work once or twice but still not be worth adopting as the norm. Despite the frequent refrain that voters have the memories of goldfish, many of them do recognize patterns, and triangulation seems like a strategy with obvious risks and drawbacks whether you follow it with real policy or use it only rhetorically. JeffersonClay posted:Trump's campaign was also heavily triangulated, on healthcare, trade, and military interventionism he broke with Republican Party orthodoxy and presented a message designed to attract moderates and liberals. Do you have any evidence any part of Trump's campaign was actually triangulated? "Breaking with party orthodoxy" is completely irrelevant to the question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
axeil posted:The good news is that most everyone has a comparative advantage at something and most people want to be productive members of society. If we work to eliminate how crucial your parents' starting wealth/race is more people will find success in areas they are good at. First off, almost no one (especially on this subforum) is advocating for a system where everyone is given the exact income, etc. You seem to be a really big fan of these bizarre strawmen (like the "Full Communism Now!" stuff, which is extremely condescending and just makes you look like an idiot). Very few people posting in this thread are actually communists. Second, it is almost impossible to divorce talent from environment/upbringing. Someone who has better conditions and opportunities growing up (which isn't only tied to wealth, but also stuff like how stable their family is and how much emotional stress they're subjected to) will generally be genuinely smarter and more capable by the time they become an adult than someone who doesn't have those same opportunities. There's no way to really remove the huge advantage people with wealth have in this regard; even if you give a basic standard of living to everyone, people with wealth will still be able to afford their children more opportunities. As a result, creating equal opportunity without also giving more or less equal outcome is literally impossible (unless you take children from their parents as babies and send them to government camps or something equally silly). So, with very rare exceptions (like people who are prodigies or something) people don't really have identifiable special talents, and it's certainly not the case that "everyone has their own special talent" (there is no rational reason to think this is the case outside of blind optimism). A key point that many people who say things like you do don't understand is that under a capitalist system, only a small percent of the population will ever be able to earn much money. This is an undeniable fact, because most jobs required for society to function are relatively low skill and will never provide a significant income to the people who work them, but they still need to be worked (and likewise, the demand for high skill and/or high paying jobs is far, far smaller than the population of working age people). So massive wealth inequality will always exist unless wealth is greatly redistributed (unless you assume some bizarre post-scarcity society with an economic and political system that doesn't resemble our own). I think that many people make the mistake of thinking "well, as an individual I can learn to do X and make more money; therefore, anyone can do the same thing and if everyone worked hard/smart they could also make good money  " which is pretty stupid and ignores the big picture.My feeling is that people should be allowed to accumulate wealth and earn higher incomes, but only to the absolute minimum extent necessary to stimulate competition and motivate people (which is almost certainly far, far below where things stand currently). There is absolutely no ethical reason why people with special talents (which, again, often translates to "people who were lucky enough to have a better upbringing) should be rewarded with a higher quality of life - the only reason is a pragmatic one (which I agree exists). I can virtually guarantee that people would not be significantly less productive even if you reduced the rate at which they could gain additional wealth (beyond a certain point) by 90%, because money isn't directly tied to hours worked for most high earning professions in the same way it is for the working class (and in practice we don't exactly see lower productivity links to higher tax rates on the upper class). What I find the most bizarre is when fortunate people make this sort of argument. I was better at school than most people growing up and more or less effortlessly got into a good college with a big scholarship. I was then able to get a decent job as a programmer after graduating. I know many people who work far harder than me and are rewarded less. I can't comprehend the sort of terrible person who would think "I deserve to make more money" in my position. Like how does someone even end up like that? I can sort of understand it if it's coming from someone who went from being poor to being rich, but it makes no sense to me coming from someone who started out middle class (or, god forbid, upper class).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:"Right from the start, a threat to Mook's vision of total control existed in the form of a scrappy grassroots PAC called Ready for Hillary. And not even the expressed wishes of Bill and Hillary Clinton could keep Mook from crushing it." grassroots? more like weeds *stomps vigorously* HannibalBarca posted:
ahahahahahaha hillary's an idiot
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:I think the real question is "does plasma give more value to society than selling derivatives" and the answer is "no" Well, derivatives actually are really important, since stuff like futures are derivatives. Finance in general is, in fact, really important, but the financial sector as it exists now causes a massive amount of harm. It's sort of like how the pharmaceutical industry is important but it would be a big problem if they started to randomly include poison in their medications.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Trump's campaign was also heavily triangulated, on healthcare, trade, and military interventionism he broke with Republican Party orthodoxy and presented a message designed to attract moderates and liberals. By that you mean mean just enough nativist middle management prototype cultureless suburban shitbirds to eek out a win. Because those are the people that will sacrifice our social contract for a portion of one mortgage payment back on their taxes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:By that you mean mean just enough nativist middle management prototype cultureless suburban shitbirds to eek out a win. Because those are the people that will sacrifice our social contract for a portion of one mortgage payment back on their taxes. but didn't you hear, for every one working class voter we lose we will pick up two of them
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:So gently caress all people without "talent?" Reminder that meritocracy is by definition antithetical to democracy, where all people are held equal regardless of race, creed, gender, or education. It's why they drove out labor and union leaders. Why should those people be rewarded when they don't even have a degree? The Democratic leadership has accepted it as their Prosperity Gospel though, so you better get used to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
"Palmierei asked Abedin to find out which newscaster Hillary would prefer [for her first national TV interview] and the answer that came back was "Brianna." That meant CNN's Brianna Keilar, and Palmieri worked to set up a live interview on CNN. But it turned out that Hillary had said "Bianna" -- as in Bianna Golodryga of Yahoo! News, wife of a former Clinton administration economic aide. By the time the mistake was made, it was too late to pull back."
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:"Palmierei asked Abedin to find out which newscaster Hillary would prefer [for her first national TV interview] and the answer that came back was "Brianna." That meant CNN's Brianna Keilar, and Palmieri worked to set up a live interview on CNN. But it turned out that Hillary had said "Bianna" -- as in Bianna Golodryga of Yahoo! News, wife of a former Clinton administration economic aide. By the time the mistake was made, it was too late to pull back." “You are wrong to look at these crowds and think that means everyone wants $15 an hour" -Jennifer Palmieri This is clearly someone who is in touch with the Democratic base.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Majorian posted:“You are wrong to look at these crowds and think that means everyone wants $15 an hour" -Jennifer Palmieri earlier in the book it describes Mook as having tried to get rid of Abedin and Palmieri all at once, which strikes me as some Alien vs. Predator vs. Terminator poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:earlier in the book it describes Mook as having tried to get rid of Abedin and Palmieri all at once, which strikes me as some Alien vs. Predator vs. Terminator poo poo Yeah, I see Palmieri as the biggest offender out of the three of them, personally. The messaging was the largest problem with Clinton's campaign, and Palmieri still seems intent on doubling down on her mistakes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Jesus Christ I want to read this book but I get the feeling it's going to piss me off more than the first two Rick Peralstein books did
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Jesus Christ I want to read this book but I get the feeling it's going to piss me off more than the first two Rick Peralstein books did Which book? I see a half dozen in Amazon that came out recently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Violator posted:Which book? I see a half dozen in Amazon that came out recently. The one that's being quoted right now, Shattered I think it's called
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Triangulation worked for Bill because we were a loving different country twenty five years ago. The Hillary campaign should have realized when Michigan happened that it was a different country now. Did triangulation really work or did Bill get lucky with Perot splitting the conservative vote the first time and running against a garbage pile the second time?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Did triangulation really work or did Bill get lucky with Perot splitting the conservative vote the first time and running against a garbage pile the second time? Perot took a lot of votes from Clinton as well, from what I understand, to the point where it was ultimately a push. The reason why triangulation worked with Bill was because it wasn't obvious that he was triangulating. He was able to convince people that he felt their pain, that he was sincere, that he grasped the importance of the causes he was championing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Did triangulation really work or did Bill get lucky with Perot splitting the conservative vote the first time and running against a garbage pile the second time? I would argue that it kind of worked the second time. But only because promising to do all the poo poo he literally failed to do in his first term would have just made voters not want to show up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Where did the person who was crying about how racist it is to help poor people go
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
call to action posted:Where did the person who was crying about how racist it is to help poor people go Which person? There were several.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
call to action posted:Where did the person who was crying about how racist it is to help poor people go Oh he'll be back. Opposition to anyone advocating economic reform is kind of his thing (curiously, it's also the only scenario where his concern for PoC ever seems to come up...)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:The one that's being quoted right now, Shattered I think it's called Awesome, thanks
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
call to action posted:Where did the person who was crying about how racist it is to help poor people go Are you referring to Submarine Sandpaper? If so, let's be fair to his/her/their argument, because it's not that helping poor people is racist. The concern among a lot of the pro-identity politics progressives is a valid one, IMO: instituting a $15/hour federal minimum wage (or offering single-payer health care, or any other broad-based economic populist policy) is nice, but it doesn't do much to address other structural inequalities against minorities. Black folks, Latinos, women, etc, would still likely enjoy less of a benefit out of such a policy than white people, and that is pretty bullshitty. How can we, as leftists, claim to stand by our principles, if we're not doing everything we can to drive down barriers that prevent large swaths of people from enjoying the benefits to which they're entitled? It's easy for those of us who are white, male, cisgender, etc, to say, "Oh, don't worry, economic leftists will make sure that there are provisions to make sure that underprivileged minorities will be able to catch up financially." But a lot of PoCs, women, LGBT folks, and other underprivileged groups are wary. They worry that once we get a $15/hour minimum wage, we'll declare "mission accomplished!" and then forget about everyone else who helped us get there. And that concern is not without basis; the New Deal and the Great Society, while good things on the whole, left a lot of minorities out to dry. So white leftists say things like, "Identity politics doesn't matter/is a distraction," or, "economically populism will solve racism," they don't exactly sound like they get it, or like they're particularly committed to economic justice for all Americans. Plus, there definitely is a glut on "won't somebody PLEASE think of the white working class?!" articles in the mainstream media. If I were, for example, a PoC, I know I'd find that pretty infuriating, because how often do you see articles saying, "won't somebody PLEASE think about working class PoCs?" Not nearly as often. TyroneGoldstein said it best just a couple posts ago: "there's a pretty strong case to be made that it doesn't matter until it starts directly hurting white people in good enough numbers." However, the argument falls apart on two points, IMO. One is the assumption that there's nothing that can be done to ensure that economic justice extends to all Americans, of all races, ethnicities, creeds, genders, and sexual orientations. Remaining vigilant and holding progressive representatives accountable will be an ongoing process. The second problem with the argument is when it does what Submarine Sandpaper did and makes the unfair generalization that white people's privilege exempts them from poverty, misery, and exploitation. As the Vox article that I posted makes clear, this is an absurd perspective. While a poor white person is probably going to have more privilege, on average, than a poor black person, that doesn't mean that both of them aren't suffering from massive injustices that need to be rectified. Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Apr 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It doesn't do you any favors to conflate bad policy with bad campaign strategy, though. Hey buddy, everyone has been (correctly) saying that Hillary Clinton was horrendous at both.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
Actually some people were saying they're the same thing, which they're not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 03:01
|
|