That DICK! posted:

I liked when Mitt Romney's campaign was dealt a serious blow by saying that 47% of the country would never vote for him, so Hillary in all her wisdom publicly wrote off half of Trump's supporters

I'm not saying she wasn't write that half of all Trump supporters are irredeemable shitheads and that might even be a lowball, but jesus christ of all the things to actually be honest about

comedyblissoption posted:

also keep in mind that there is extra context that the public sector HAS to spend money that never existed before to keep up with generation of wealth in the economy unless you want to experience the effects of deflationary forces. there is no other way for this "new money" to be generated.

rudatron posted:

The vast majority of money is created by commerical banks, not the central bank, through the fractional reserve system. It doesn't serve the public good.

rudatron posted:

I think we kinda need an economic macro thread, because I know my macro is weak. You up for it Pener? You seem like you know poo poo. Maybe you can drag Aoelius in as well.

comedyblissoption posted:

this is true, but for the commercial banks to ever collect on their loans and make a profit, don't they eventually have to get the money indirectly from the progenitor of the USD which would be the federal reserve?

Alienwarehouse posted:

Notice how they lost both when they began adopting Clinton third way-ism in the 90s.

comedyblissoption posted:

just a reminder that the democrats owned a majority in both houses of congress for the vast majority of the years between FDR and the 1990s

Typo posted:

No they didn't: house democrat from the south had being part of the Reagan Coalition since the 1980s: what lost them the house in 1994 was because they were viewed as too left and Bill Clinton was accused of not being a centrist

comedyblissoption posted:

ok people were accusing obama of being a marxist communist socialist muslim. what is even your point here?

comedyblissoption posted:

the argument that democrats need to be republican lite in order to win so the worse republicans don't get in was the excuse for why the democrats have abandoned being the party of FDR. this argument should have been soundly repudiated by the results of 2016 I hope.

comedyblissoption posted:

I suspect it is more because of losing electoral support because the democrats started abandoning labor and workers and FDR policies starting in the 70s. they couldn't lose electoral relevance overnight.

Typo posted:

Carter was a new dealer and McGovern wanted a Min-income in the 1970s, the issue why they lose isn't because the democrats wasn't left enough: it's because Reagan convincingly sold a set of ideas to the American public that made themselves as individuals and consumers as oppose to members of unions and other new deal institutions.

It's easy to blame party leadership, but the electorate really did buy into ideas that made old school liberal governing impossible all the way up until sometime around 2008

Typo posted:

Carter was a new dealer and McGovern wanted a Min-income in the 1970s, the issue why they lose isn't because the democrats wasn't left enough: it's because Reagan convincingly sold a set of ideas to the American public that made themselves as individuals and consumers as oppose to members of unions and other new deal institutions.

It's easy to blame party leadership, but the electorate really did buy into ideas that made old school liberal governing impossible all the way up until sometime around 2008

Typo posted:

Carter was a new dealer and McGovern wanted a Min-income in the 1970s, the issue why they lose isn't because the democrats wasn't left enough: it's because Reagan convincingly sold a set of ideas to the American public that made themselves as individuals and consumers as oppose to members of unions and other new deal institutions.

It's easy to blame party leadership, but the electorate really did buy into ideas that made old school liberal governing impossible all the way up until sometime around 2008

OXBALLS DOT COM posted:

People don't want a small government, they want an invisible government

FuzzySkinner posted:

I think campaign Obama in 2008, and Trump's economic populist message in 2016 has proven that the American people no longer buy into this.

This is kinda why it was frustrating to see HRC campaign the way she did. Trump would talk about how the Free Trade deals were dumpster fires, "we need to invest in infastructure spending", and other various ideas that in the past would be considered "left wing".

Hillary meanwhile would run back over to the right, defending the Bushes and championing neoliberalism. They keep rejecting what their base wants and focusing on neoliberalism preached by the nutjobs with "blue checkmarks" via their name.

It's a winning. message. Trucker Carlson is preaching protectionism. People like my dad, Adam Carolla are shrugging their shoulders at the whole "YOU'LL HAVE TO PAY MORE MONEY FOR FRUIT/FOOD" argument that I saw Fox Business types make just like 2 years a go.

Trump...indirectly might be the best person i've ever seen prove how neliberalism is a failed ideaology.

Accretionist posted:

We need to be unabashedly pro-government.

Edit:

We need pro-government narratives.

I'll rip off a monologue I saw a while ago:

I am not a politician but I do know this: If the water comes out when I turn on the tap, it doesn't happen magically. Or if there's gasoline when I turn on the pump. For the world to function, a thousand things have to go right every minute. And they have to go right quietly. That's why you have government, to make sure that these things happen quietly. So that we can have our society.


I posted that in another thread and I liked this guy's angle:

FuzzySkinner posted:

Well and I do notice a streak of "libertarian" in most 's. It's why gun rights, free speech and such are so roundly protected. These are very much American concepts in a lot of ways.

But this doesn't mean that they're adverse to concepts like public roads, schools, healthcare and other things that are vital for a successful country. I imagine they're not thrilled with frivolous poo poo or the continued funding of stuff like the NSA or things like "The Patriot Act", etc

Accretionist posted:

We need to be unabashedly pro-government.

Edit:

We need pro-government narratives.

Typo posted:

can the democrats credibly drop gun control as an issue in red states

quote:

As the fog of summer was still clearing, when few people paid close attention to politics, the New York Times had just published a story about a coming Clinton campaign strategy shift. Hillary would “show more humor and heart,” the headline declared.

“In the piece, Clinton’s top aides—including Mook and Palmieri—admitted that there had been significant blunders made by the campaign, notably the months-long denial that there was a problem with her use of a private e-mail server. And that the American public perceived her as too robotic and aloof. But, they promised, the real Hillary would emerge following Labor Day weekend.

That Hillary, they claimed, was relatable to nearly anyone, downright funny, and didn’t take herself too seriously. More than anything, they said, she was authentic. The image makeover was timed to preview Clinton’s appearances on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, and countless other lighthearted programs where Clinton would dance the Nae Nae, reveal that she kept up with the Kardashians and Homeland, and ask hosts to playfully tug on her hair.

Buell was displeased. By announcing a strategy to make Hillary seem more real, her team had “actually achieved the opposite effect. Clinton supporters across the country read it the same way. It was a pure what-the-gently caress moment—a major unforced error that buttressed qualms about Hillary’s honesty and trustworthiness at a terrible time. Buell, channeling the collective outrage of the pro-Clinton forces, scolded Mook.”

“Why would you say something like that?” Buell demanded. “There’s nothing more disingenuous than having the campaign quoted within the article.”

Mook didn’t have a good explanation because there was no good explanation. Instead, he defended himself by assuring her that the campaign’s data looked strong.”

Montasque posted:

Shattered is a pretty good read. On chapter six right now, and it starts with a great story:


This book makes Mook and Palmieri look like such loving idiots.

Typo posted:

tbf I got a feeling this is partially because they mostly interviewed ppl who aren't mook and are trying to cover their own asses by blaming someone else

Barry Convex posted:

If you read to the end, you'll find out that "it was all Russia/the FBI/BernieBros' fault" was a strategy deliberately concocted by Mook and Podesta just after the election to deflect blame.

quote:

I think that a lot of this energy is not — the base is there, but you are wrong to look at these crowds and think that means everyone wants $15 an hour. Don’t assume that the answer to big crowds is moving policy to the left. I think the answer to the big crowds is engaging as much as you can to be as supportive as you can and understanding — what these people want, they are desperate. It’s all about identity on our side now.

MaxxBot posted:

This Palmieri video is like the most blatant admission of bad Dem ideology I have ever seen, and these are the sort of people Hillary kept around her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx03IuXG5Eg

Montasque posted:

Shattered is a pretty good read. On chapter six right now, and it starts with a great story:


This book makes Mook and Palmieri look like such loving idiots.

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

They managed her campaign like a brand. Coming soon: Hillary Clinton with an all new human* flavor!

Captain_Maclaine posted: