|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
And that makes Trump win 80% of the vote how?
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:44 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:And that makes Trump win 80% of the vote how?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Bill Clinton also presided over a period of massive economic expansion, so people give him credit for that. They shouldn't, because it happened in spite of his bad policies, not because of them.. So your theory is that people mistakenly credit Bill with the economic growth under his administration, but that they accurately blame Hillary for her association with his neoliberal administration. That's real dumb.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So your theory is that people mistakenly credit Bill with the economic growth under his administration, but that they accurately blame Hillary for her association with his neoliberal administration. That's real dumb. Mmmmm, nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. The people who still like Bill Clinton, and who don't blame him for deindustrialization, don't live in the regions that the Democrats need to win, in order to win the presidency.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Bill is extremely popular today dumbshoes. It makes no sense that his neoliberalism would only impact the popularity of his wife. Bill Clinton wasn't out there last year trying to get elected on his neoliberalism, you goddamn clown. Majorian posted:Bill Clinton also presided over a period of massive economic expansion, so people give him credit for that. They shouldn't, because it happened in spite of his bad policies, not because of them. Also this. A lot of people like Bill Clinton because the 90s were good times for them and chalk it up to him without bothering to examine the details A Buttery Pastry posted:Where are you getting that from? Top tip: The only thing you're getting out of shrike is mindless contrarianism.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Like, that last point that I made is the central factor that you never seem to grasp, JC: it doesn't matter how popular Bill Clinton, or Hillary Clinton, were in terms of national polls. What matters are electoral votes. The Democratic neoliberal message does not resonate in the regions that they need to win the presidency. Also lol at the "Bill Clinton is WILDLY popular even today!!!" nonsense. As of July of last year, he was at around 51%, on-par with GWB.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Mmmmm, nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. The people who still like Bill Clinton, and who don't blame him for deindustrialization, don't live in the regions that the Democrats need to win, in order to win the presidency. Majorian posted:Wrong. Clinton was marketed as a partner in her husband's administration. Like it or not, fairly or unfairly, Hillary Clinton's record includes all the deregulation, all the badly-negotiated free trade agreements, and all the factory closures of the 90's. I'm glad you've backed off the latter argument, it was dumb. Biden would have won, despite neoliberalism. If bill could have run again, he too would have won. being associated with his administration is not a net negative for a democratic candidate. The article you referenced says exactly that. quote:Bill Clinton's presidency, we would note, is generally much more well-regarded than Bush's. While Clinton certainly had his problems -- many of which are being rehashed even as I write this -- his presidency featured good economic times and is generally viewed as a success. What is it with you and self-refutation? JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 19:30 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm glad you've backed off the latter argument, it was dumb. I didn't back off of it at all - Hillary Clinton is tarred with her husband's legacy on trade and deregulation, and it has made her very unpopular in those regions that the Democrats need to win. quote:Biden would have won, despite neoliberalism. If bill could have run again, he too would have won. being associated with his administration is not a net negative for a democratic candidate. It really is, actually. It's adorable that you still think national polls mean anything.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm glad you've backed off the latter argument, it was dumb. Biden would have won, despite neoliberalism. If bill could have run again, he too would have won. being associated with his administration is not a net negative for a democratic candidate. Except that it clearly loving is, since his wife and former First Lady is not president and never will be president.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Except that it clearly loving is, since his wife and former First Lady is not president and never will be president. She didn't lose because she's associated with the Clinton administration. She lost because she ran a lovely campaign and because of exogenous factors like Comey and Putin.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:She didn't lose because she's associated with the Clinton administration. Actually, it definitely played a role. It made her seem like a supporter of free trade without accounting for the well-being of workers, and a proponent of deregulation. She didn't do much to help change this narrative going into the election - indeed, she helped cement it by saying that she was going to "Put a lot of coal workers out of business." Like it or not, her association with her husband's administration hurt her in those states that she needed to win.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Oh, is hillary running again? Probably. She's shown no signs of learning anything from this election cycle and continues to cry about her loss.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
I can't wait for Democrats to hang Trumpcare around republican necks like they did Garland obstructionists.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
gohmak posted:I can't wait for Democrats to hang Trumpcare around republican necks like they did Garland obstructionists. Instead what you will get is more screaming about Putin and frog memes. And probably a lot of whining about Trump getting to replace 2 Supreme Court justices.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Actually, it definitely played a role. It made her seem like a supporter of free trade without accounting for the well-being of workers, and a proponent of deregulation. She didn't do much to help change this narrative going into the election - indeed, she helped cement it by saying that she was going to "Put a lot of coal workers out of business." Like it or not, her association with her husband's administration hurt her in those states that she needed to win. I'd say she was hurt way way worse by calling TPP gold standard than w/e memories of trade during the clinton administration
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:She didn't lose because she's associated with the Clinton administration. She lost because she ran a lovely campaign and because of exogenous factors like Comey and Putin. Her campaign wasn't lovely in an apolitical way. She could not run a good political campaign because her husband and Obama both had many 'achievements' that were actually not good at all, and that many Democratic voters aren't happy with. This is why she spent a fair amount of the campaign just apologizing for previous votes or shows of support.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Biden would have won, despite neoliberalism. If bill could have run again, he too would have won. being associated with his administration is not a net negative for a democratic candidate. VitalSigns posted:Not really, the likelihood that a candidate less hated than Clinton could have eked out a win on a Obama's-third-term-but-even-less-popular platform, with another 4 years of an obstructionist congress, unable to pass anything but the social security and medicare cuts you want, while the Democrats continue to bleed support and lose state-level races, is not exactly an auspicious sign for your ideology.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:She lost because she ran a lovely campaign So why do you still spend your time (six months later) attacking people who state this?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:So why do you still spend your time (six months later) attacking people who state this? Saying she ran a lovely campaign allows him not to admit that it's her politics of paying allegiance to corporate donors that lost her the presidency and as such it's framed as just a matter of technical prowess and not a moral and political bankruptcy at the heart of the question.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Typo posted:I'd say she was hurt way way worse by calling TPP gold standard than w/e memories of trade during the clinton administration Eh, possibly. The point is, her reputation as a free trader/deregulator was already set after the 90's. She needed to pivot sharply to win in 2016. Saying that poo poo about TPP certainly didn't help, I agree.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Transplanting this from Trump Admin thread:The Glumslinger posted:On the other hand, the reason why third wayism became popular is that between 1969 and 1993, the democrats were in the white house for a total of 4 years. Carter's 1 term was the only democratic president for a loving generation I don't wonder; I know. Democratic leaders thought that McGovern lost because he was too left-wing, which was in fact not the case. They thought they could stop catering to the working class, because hey, where else were those union members going to go, the Republicans? This was a conscious shift on the DNC's part, too. They did this because they thought the new, young energy was with the professional class, and this would somehow amount to enough electoral votes for them to have a permanent majority. Boy did it backfire. e: Indeed, Carter's economic adviser Alfred Kahn famously said in an interview: quote:I’d love the Teamsters to be worse off. I’d love the automobile workers to be worse off. . . . I want to eliminate a situation in which certain protected workers in industries insulated from competition can increase their wages much more rapidly than the average. I mean, yikes.  That ain't a leftist position.
Majorian fucked around with this message at 01:11 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Typo posted:I actually wonder, s charisma more important in an American election than say, a French election? The whole "have a beer with them" is just saying, in a nutshell, that you identify with that person on some level. Being more likely to support or like a person you identify with, or that you think are on 'your team', is a universal human trait. Politics is almost entirely an emotion based in-group out-group thing, one of the reasons wonks tend to loving suck at prediction is because they constantly forget that the average person spends less time per day thinking about politics on a deep policy level than it took to type this post.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:To use the same argument, if leftism is so self-evidently popular, why can't it succeed by itself? Ah but social democracy has the advantage of being morally good, as well as a solid record of superior performance to liberalism on every metric except "do the rich love it". Neoliberalism on the other hand, has the arguments that it's Sensible and Serious, and that it wins elections. But the first two were never true and now it doesn't even have the third going for it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
I'm going to quote a post I made in C-SPAM, because it belongs here more than it does there. I was replying to a post zegermans made that is very similar to some of the posts I've seen this thread that basically amount to attacking leftism on the basis of it not having already won many elections or accomplished its goals.Ytlaya posted:This is from like a thousand posts ago, but I've seen this sort of thing a lot and it's a really bizarre sentiment to me. It's literally analogous to someone in the 1940's or something saying "heh, maybe civil rights activists could try actually winning elections if they wanted to fight racism Basically the gist is that this sort of contrarianism transparently appears to be aimed at opposing the cause in question when you imagine it applied to other issues (like the example of racism prior to the civil rights era I give in my post). The argument that having not already won and accomplished its goals detracts from the validity of a movement is also inherently absurd and could have been used against literally any positive historical social movement prior to its ultimate success. It's like arguing with an abolitionist in the 1820s by saying "heh maybe if Americans really wanted to end slavery they already would have: smug:" I feel like this weird obfuscation of a person's own ideology is a big part of what annoys me about these contrarian posts. If someone puts their cards on table and says what they believe, it's at least possible to have some sort of discussion. But instead there's just these weird sarcastic jabs that never reveal what the person making them actually wants.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 02:20
|
|
" in response to people being upset about segregation and Jim Crow laws. It's an attitude that seems to be asserting that anything not currently successful in the status quo is at fault for not already having succeeded. The same logic can be used to oppose literally any sort of change on the grounds that it hasn't already happened.
|
shrike82 posted:To use the same argument, if leftism is so self-evidently popular, why can't it succeed by itself? "if free soil-ism is so popular why can't the republican party succeed by itself?" -shrike82, 1857
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah but social democracy has the advantage of being morally good, as well as a solid record of superior performance to liberalism on every metric except "do the rich love it". It's really too bad most social democracies across the world are moving towards neoliberalism whether it's UK, France, or Germany. Again, if leftism is so self-evidently popular, why can't it succeed? 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:shrike82 scolded this thread for not knowing American history, and then in the very next sentence referred to LBJ losing an election to Dick Nixon. He's totally full of poo poo. This needs to be quoted on every page as long as shrike82 continues to threadshit.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
I'm happy to talk about American history. It's a lot more interesting than white male leftists prioritizing their middle class needs over ethnic minorities and women's healthcare. Obsessing about how Hillary and Obama are anti-left neoliberals in light of the House voting to repeal Obamacare is really eye opening.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I'm happy to talk about American history. It's a lot more interesting than white male leftists prioritizing their middle class needs over ethnic minorities and women's healthcare. Maybe they could've tried not to be such lovely corporate boot lickers so as to not end up in this situation in the first place mate?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
And we're now at the stage that leftists are blaming Hillary and Obama on Republicans killing Obamacare. I have to admit being surprised at the depth of the Obama Derangement Syndrome at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I'm happy to talk about American history. It's a lot more interesting than white male leftists prioritizing their middle class needs over ethnic minorities and women's healthcare. It's actually possible to think they're massive chickenshits and still be horrified that their milquetoast version of healthcare is getting repealed. Hell, it's possible to do it while being a minority, mr Trump-democrat.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hey TIC since you're here I'm curious: why are you the biggest Bernie supporter in this thread but whenever I pop into UK politics you're hating on Corbyn like you want to gargle Tony Blair's balls. This is not a gotcha I'm just genuinely wanting to know because I can't figure out if you're a progressive or not. Sanders showed the feasibility of building a multiracial working class coalition around rejuvenated social democracy, Corbynistas are college educated white millennials vomiting bile about the working class basket of deplorables they so despise. Very Clintonesque really, and like Clinton Corbyn is going to suffer a humiliating defeat that will have horrifying consequences for the nation, yet his acolytes will refuse to accept any responsibility just as Clinton's refused to.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
It's almost like, in order to lose an election to Donald loving Trump, you have to be terrible on multiple fronts, just like Donald Trump. If Hillary Clinton were a terrible campaigner but a credible champion of a good platform, she might have squeaked out a win. If she were an excellent campaigner with the same focus-grouped garbage the Democrats trot out every election only to half-rear end (if that) the implementation, then she also could have also squeaked out a win. In order to lose to Donald Trump you have to cultivate the image of an out of touch neoliberal jackass over the course of two decades. You have to have a rich history of supporting a bunch of lovely policies and ideas, which you then discard when it's politically inconvenient. You have to respond in the most tone-deaf boneheaded manner when confronted with your various scandals, which you accrue via unmatched hubris and stupidity. You have to surround yourself with terrible people. You have to be a lovely campaigner, both in the sense of running the nuts and bolts of the thing, and being kind of a disappointing forgettable public speaker. And of course campaigning in all the wrong loving places, too. It also helps if you struggle to debate a coked-up moron instead of clowning on the horse's rear end like you should have and like everyone expected you to. Probably the most memorable moment from the debates was "yeah 'cause you'd be in jail" which she walked right in to. Losing to Donald Trump takes effort. You have to be uniquely bad, just like he is, and that's who the Democrats nominated for their candidate. So that's why it's sort of frustrating talking about this thing because if we say "oh she ran a bad campaign" then idiots like JeffersonClay will seize on it as though it's a vindication of neoliberalism. And if we attack neoliberalism then these same idiots will point out that other Democrats have won on a neoliberal platform in the past. And when all else fails they fall back on "well this electorate is sexist / racist / whatever, so that's why she lost. And Russia." It's just endless excuse after endless excuse, because you can point to any single thing and say "that's a the reason" and it's sorta true because the election was so close. But that's ignoring that this election should not have been close. Both the Republican party and Republican base exposed themselves for the craven fascist shitheads they are in this election, and while that stuff is a lot more popular than it has any right to be, it took a uniquely bad Democratic candidate to still lose to it - and that's exactly what we got. Per above, if she were a good campaigner, with a good platform and a history of supporting it or at least not contradicting most of the poo poo on it, and if she had dunked on the fucker mercilessly during the debates like she should have and like a lot of us expected her to, this election could have gone a lot differently. But she didn't do any of those things, and her and her supporters pissed on anyone who pointed out the fact of it. And then she lost. So now we've got a fascist in the White House and a fascist Congress, and if you're the type who's advocating making a few small changes here and there so that the Democrats avoid losing too many seats in the Senate in 2018, and so that the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2020 can squeak out a win against Mammon made flesh, then you'll have to forgive the rest of us who consider, to your probably considerable surprise, your strategy to be the risky one. And the irresponsible one. And the stupid, stupid, stupid one. It's the one where you're trying to thread the needle between dozens of different constituencies, to please each one just enough that just enough of them will vote for you, all the while not pissing off the ruling class too much because they're paying the bills after all, and so on. And all the while a strong figurative gust of wind could knock the whole thing over, just like it did in 2016. You want to double down on that strategy, which has been proven not to work well and which provides such a weak mandate (and, weak candidates) even when it does barely work, that any progress it achieves can be undone just the second the literal Forces of Evil seize control. And, since your entire strategy is about squeezing out narrow victories in close elections, of course that's bound to happen from time to time. So yeah, gently caress you JeffersonClay, and everyone like you. You're terrible human beings. Worse than Trump voters in a lot of respects, who operate more on emotion or bigotry, whereas you calculate your evil. Go join the loving GOP, seriously - they're more up your alley. You don't really belong in politics at all, really, being so terrible at it, but if you insist on it go gently caress up the Republicans instead please. TIA.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Are leftists seriously telling centrists to join the GOP now?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Not all of them are irredeemable crypto-conservatives, so no.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Are leftists seriously telling centrists to join the GOP now? No, I think Kilroy was being hyperbolic, and I think you know that. Also, I don't think JC is malevolent; I just think he's stubborn and an idiot.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
It would probably be better if economically conservative liberals joined the GOP honestly. They could help moderate it a bit so a Republican victory doesn't put minorities in danger, and best of all they could stop making GBS threads up the Democratic party by supporting Wall Street stooges that enrage and/or depress everyone making less than $250k/yr
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No, I think Kilroy was being hyperbolic, and I think you know that. Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It would probably be better if economically conservative liberals joined the GOP honestly. They could help moderate it a bit so a Republican victory doesn't put minorities in danger, and best of all they could stop making GBS threads up the Democratic party by supporting Wall Street stooges that enrage and/or depress everyone making less than $250k/yr Sorry man, we're stuck with a Cory Booker nominee in 2020.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 05:44 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It would probably be better if economically conservative liberals joined the GOP honestly. They could help moderate it a bit so a Republican victory doesn't put minorities in danger, and best of all they could stop making GBS threads up the Democratic party by supporting Wall Street stooges that enrage and/or depress everyone making less than $250k/yr Yep I agree completely. My worry for years has been when the GOP becomes socially liberal and the Democrats arent behind real economic just policies. I would love to see a real pro-labor anti-capitalist party. The thing is from the polls I have read, most Americans do support progressive goals. The issue is there isnt a party that represents them well enough. Confounding Factor fucked around with this message at 04:17 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 04:14
|
|