|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Bad news for Gillibrand fans: https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/861933576799084546
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Turns out you were wrong about Democrats learning nothing from Kansas. pretty sure I've said a whole lot of nothing to do with Kansas also lol at the idea that Democrats can learn
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Nobody ever read it except college Republicans and liberals who get off on bipartisan consensus. The Republican voter base has never given a gently caress about conservative prestige media they care about FOX though which distills a lot of those national review ideas to phrases the average person resonates with and then bill o'reily or sean hannity yells it out very loudly
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Typo posted:they care about FOX though which distills a lot of those national review ideas to phrases the average person resonates with and then bill o'reily or sean hannity yells it out very loudly isn't fox falling apart?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Actually if you don't politically align with the daily show you are an irrelevant Democrat. Hell, you barely exist without a healthy does of the daily show The Daily Show is but a distant memory now, its prime spent on the bush and obama administrations. John Oliver is all I need.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:No, most people who cared about the economy or worried about being poor voted Clinton, not all people. This is in fact an incredibly important difference when the race was as tight as it was, which people keep ignoring for some strange reason. Exactly. When you're dealing with coalition politics (ie: a "Big Tent" party), and a horrifically stupid, antiquated electoral system like the EC, you need all cylinders firing. Clinton needed the working class in the Rust Belt behind her. She did not get it. That was largely because of a flawed campaign strategy and a seemingly stubborn refusal to appeal to them in any meaningful way. Issues like racism and voter suppression also played roles, but as I and others have said before, those are factors over which the Democrats have very little control. (and they're going to have even less control in 2018 and probably 2020) They do have control over their strategy and their messaging, however. That is what they need to focus on, for the next few years. The fact that some of them are so incredibly unreflective that they go out of their way to defend the party's deliberate turn towards neoliberalism over the past several decades, is pretty egregious. Freakazoid_ posted:The Daily Show is but a distant memory now, its prime spent on the bush and obama administrations. John Oliver is all I need. He's really good. I'm glad he hasn't squandered progressive goodwill like Sam Bee has.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Bad news for Gillibrand fans: Meh, we'll see how she campaigns in 2018 and 2020. I'm not ready to write her off as quickly as Jacobin is (not that I really know who would actually be acceptable to, you know, Jacobin).
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
My feeling is that Democrats who become more progressive out of political convenience are better than ones who don't, but that it's still much better to get someone who didn't have to be forced into changing their views in a positive direction in the first place. The latter politician is going to be more likely to push for positive things sooner (and more likely to stick to their positions if it becomes more politically convenient to move to the right again in the future).
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/yappelbaum/status/861903226194595840 Alienation from the means of production is a hell of a drug WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 22:42 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
quote:This analysis provides only a surface look at the concerns and anxieties of America’s white working class. Polling is a notoriously clumsy instrument for understanding people’s lives, and provides only a sketch of who they are. But it’s useful for debunking myths and narratives—particularly the ubiquitous idea that economic anxiety drove white working-class voters to support Trump. lol that they can huff their own poo poo immediately after explaining why this article is bullshit tldr there's no poll that would be able to show what they are saying
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
If it doesn't work, Republicans want to eliminate it rather than fix it. Democrats believe if you can't get perfection the first time, it's better to never start in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
for a fun time try deciding whether being opposed to illegal immigration is a cultural issue or an economic one then try to figure out why it even matters. maybe if enough Republicans are racist the Democrats will add that to their platform to get those sweet sweet moderate votes?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:https://twitter.com/yappelbaum/status/861903226194595840  You folks really, really don't want the Democrats to change their platform or strategy one iota, do you?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Articles like that completely miss the point. It doesn't matter if most working class Trump voters were concerned about cultural issues. All that matters is if enough were concerned about economic issues to swing the election (and if the portion concerned about economic issues is higher than it was in the past). Like, it is correctly answering the wrong question. edit: More broadly, this is a good example of how statistics can be misleading, even if technically done correctly. It kind of reminds me of those quotes about Trump primary voters having higher than the median household income, while ignoring that they had the lowest household income among Republican primary voters, who as a group make more than the median household income. The problem is that understanding distinctions like this is above the heads of most laypeople and journalists. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:26 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Voters abandoned the democrats because they were tired of neoliberalism! Oh, a statistical analysis indicating the voters who flipped were primarily motivated by racism and sexism? Obviously irrelevant. Didn't you learn anything from the election? Who cares why they voted the way they did, they'll love the socialism we're selling. Everyone will, especially republicans in deep red districts! Bernie would have won Alabama!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Voters abandoned the democrats because they were tired of neoliberalism! Oh, a statistical analysis indicating the voters who flipped were primarily motivated by racism and sexism? Obviously irrelevant. Didn't you learn anything from the election? Who cares why they voted the way they did, they'll love the socialism we're selling. Everyone will, especially republicans in deep red districts! Bernie would have won Alabama! You need to stop taking Abuela's loss so personally by blaming everyone and everything else.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:You need to stop taking Abuela's loss so personally by blaming everyone and everything else. That's what you said in the Russia thread, defending the talking points you stole from Kellyanne Conway.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:That's what you said in the Russia thread, defending the talking points you stole from Kellyanne Conway. Really, you lament Abuela's loss in every thread. It's getting irritating.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Voters abandoned the democrats because they were tired of neoliberalism! Oh, a statistical analysis indicating the voters who flipped were primarily motivated by racism and sexism? Obviously irrelevant. Didn't you learn anything from the election? Who cares why they voted the way they did, they'll love the socialism we're selling. Everyone will, especially republicans in deep red districts! Bernie would have won Alabama! The voters who were tired of neoliberalism didn't vote. The voters who voted trump were racist.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:Really, you lament Abuela's loss in every thread. It's getting irritating. You have 48 posts in this thread and 30 of them are about her. If talking about Hillary Clinton irritates you, perhaps that's a problem you can solve yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
i have a proposal, jc and the neoliberal branch of the party can go do their own thing and we're all go do our own thing and then in december 2020 we can sit down and compare notes
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You have 48 posts in this thread and 30 of them are about her. If talking about Hillary Clinton irritates you, perhaps that's a problem you can solve yourself. Like I said, I'm tired of debunking your pro-Hillary falsehoods and egregious talking points altogether. It's getting irritating.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:pretty sure I've said a whole lot of nothing to do with Kansas "You speak falsehoods, I do not crush my testicles with great force" *punches self in dick immediately after* Also, no you're loving wrong: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/dems-host-town-hall-meetings-health-care-gop-districts?cid=sm_fb_maddow
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:Really, you lament Abuela's loss in every thread. It's getting irritating. everyone should lament her loss though? trump is terrible
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Voters abandoned the democrats because they were tired of neoliberalism! Oh, a statistical analysis indicating the voters who flipped were primarily motivated by racism and sexism? Obviously irrelevant. Didn't you learn anything from the election? Who cares why they voted the way they did, they'll love the socialism we're selling. Everyone will, especially republicans in deep red districts! Bernie would have won Alabama! Are you talking about a different study? The one just linked doesn't seem to be about voters who flipped and is just referring to white working class Trump voters (defined in this study as workers who aren't salaried). Also, sort of going back to the thing I mentioned in my previous post, knowing that a majority of Obama -> Trump voters were primarily motivated by racism (which is honestly kind of difficult/impossible to fully divorce from economic concerns, though that's a separate issue) is still irrelevant to the question of "would stronger economic policy more directly benefiting these people encourage more of them to vote for Democrats than currently do?". Merely knowing that most were driven by racism/sexism does not counter the hypothesis that better economic policy targeted at the working class might result in more people voting Democratic. These studies are interesting and valid at answering certain questions, but they do not seem to be supplying any evidence to counter the claim that better economic policy (and messaging of that policy) might improve voting turnout. For what it's worth, I'm not going to claim that such policy will or won't improve turnout. My intent is simply for such policy to improve peoples' lives. Which then puts the burden on you to either give evidence showing it would depress turnouts OR explain why you think such policy wouldn't help in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:"You speak falsehoods, I do not crush my testicles with great force" poorly executed joke involving sex organs and a rachel maddow link. yep, that's a liberal
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
What is the point of being a virulently anti-racist party if said anti-racist party can never win an election?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:What is the point of being a virulently anti-racist party if said anti-racist party can never win an election? low taxes
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:poorly executed joke involving sex organs and a rachel maddow link. yep, that's a liberal Thank you for calling me a liberal. Anyhow, dems making good on the adopt-a-district promise. Quoting for other people not clicking on Rachel Maddow: quote:On Monday afternoon, Democratic Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney listened to their concerns in his 18th Congressional District. Then, he listened to concerns from constituents in the 19th Congressional District Monday night.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Voters abandoned the democrats because they were tired of neoliberalism! Oh, a statistical analysis indicating the voters who flipped were primarily motivated by racism and sexism? Obviously irrelevant. Didn't you learn anything from the election? Who cares why they voted the way they did, they'll love the socialism we're selling. Everyone will, especially republicans in deep red districts! Bernie would have won Alabama!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:What is the point of being a virulently anti-racist party if said anti-racist party can never win an election? but what about the rent being too drat high regardless of racial status
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:everyone should lament her loss though? trump is terrible Nah, she earned her loss.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Nah, she earned her loss. do you live in America?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:everyone should lament her loss though? trump is terrible Would things really be that much better? Right now, we'd have Merrick Garland on the supreme court, a democrat in charge of the FCC, the rubberstamping of the TPP, probably a ground war in Syria and maybe 4-8 years of more gridlock until a true believer/republican extremist comes into power as the country grows increasingly tired of the status quo that's doing nothing for them. (Oh, and I guess we'd also have fun things like corporations being able to repatriate their money at a rock bottom rate as long as they put a penny in the infrastructure fund getting attributed to the Democrats, the same way so many destructive right-wing policies passed [or almost passed] with no fuss under Bill Clinton/Obama) Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 07:01 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
It's possible to figure the election was hers to lose, and that she lost it through hubris and stupidity and cronyism, and that she deserved to lose because of that, and still lament that she did lose, because she brought the rest of us down with her. Those two ideas can easily exist in the same brain. They are not contradictory.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Racism never comes from nowhere. Clintonites never seen to be able to give a coherent theory as to why racism is worse now than it was 4 years ago, so that Obama could win but Clinton (a white woman) would lose. The reason is simple: people are more anxious, more afraid, and in that fear turn to old prejudices. Cultural anxiety is a function of economic anxiety, limiting the size of the in-group and romanticizing old prejudices are symptoms of decline and alienation, not totally serrated forces.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Its really weird how "white people are racist" has itself become a racial stereotype. Its particularly egregious when you start comparing it to racism in other countries. When we talk about racism in countries like China, or the Middle East, or whatever, the cause is always (correctly) seen as relating to education or development or whatever. Yet, when talking about it in the white community, its assumed to be caused by a malevolent spirit, that can only ever be exorcised through the ritualistic blood sacrifice of appalachians. Maybe the cause is the same in both cases, and the people who prefer to only ever see racism as an essentialistic character flaw, are engaging in exactly the same kind of prejudicial thinking they're claiming to oppose? Its just that they refuse to engage in self reflection of this fact, because that would imply some uncomfortable conclusions about their own moral superiorty, which they have gone to great lengths to nurture.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Getting ready for Gillibrand to disappoint still feels like a safe position and a somewhat realistic one to have after Obama. If anything it will help enthusiasm when she beats the low expectations of democratic party presidencies.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Would things really be that much better? Right now, we'd have Merrick Garland on the supreme court, a democrat in charge of the FCC, the rubberstamping of the TPP, probably a ground war in Syria and maybe 4-8 years of more gridlock until a true believer/republican extremist comes into power as the country grows increasingly tired of the status quo that's doing nothing for them. For the sake of accuracy, there's pretty much no way the TPP would have passed this Congress if Clinton had somehow managed to squeak out a victory. Republicans in Congress have shown that it doesn't matter how much they like the content of a bill or treaty; if a Democratic president can chalk it up as a win, they'll oppose it reflexively. Also, Garland probably wouldn't be a serious threat to Roe v. Wade, like Gorsuch very well may be. I don't think there's a plausible argument at this point that Clinton would have been as bad as, or worse than, Trump. The problem is that a Democratic president should be much, much better than a Republican president. Like, to the point where we shouldn't even be having this discussion. But, here we are. 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
Seeing Garland cry when Obama announced his nomination is pretty hilarious in hindsight.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 08:20
|
|
