|
Karl Barks posted:DSA does a ton of canvassing i mean its pretty much a canvassing only organization at the moment
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:i mean its pretty much a canvassing only organization at the moment yeah this is about right
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:im glad Macron won so now i can say hes pretty loving bad all-in-all Yeah it's nice letting the stench fill my nose after all that breath holding
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
im permabanned poster hillraiser58. i first started reading twitter when i was about 24. by 26 i got really obsessed with the concept of a russian conspiracy and tried to channel it constantly, until my thought process got really bizarre and i would repeat things like "putin in the white house" and "bernie is a russian plant" in my head for hours, and i would get really paranoid, start seeing things in the corners of my eyes etc, basically prodromal schizophrenia. im now on antipsychotics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:im permabanned poster hillraiser58. i first started reading twitter when i was about 24. by 26 i got really obsessed with the concept of a russian conspiracy and tried to channel it constantly, until my thought process got really bizarre and i would repeat things like "putin in the white house" and "bernie is a russian plant" in my head for hours, and i would get really paranoid, start seeing things in the corners of my eyes etc, basically prodromal schizophrenia. im now on antipsychotics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Given that it's France, this might actually mean less misogyny, but I still don't think it's a great idea. You'd think they'd look for a different model 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Does GOTV with these groups work better with some candidates than with others? GOTV is less effective with candidates people are excited about - but the reason is because voters don't need to be GOTVed when they already like the candidate. They GOTV themselves. The issue is that this largely happens along a predictable set of voters that you're already targeting, rather than sort of a giant pile of votes you didn't expect to see coming out of nowhere. Democratic campaigns focus very heavily on turning out non-voters or drop-off voters -something that is totally necessary, of course - but still have this giant bloc of people who are both un-engaged and un-receptive to any sort of contact. And yes, everyone here is going to believe those voters will be receptive to the right message, which is fine but I think really lacks data. Even when you see a candidate like Bernie Sanders, you might only be engaging a small % of that giant bloc that isn't enough to win. Dealing with that group of people is very, very difficult and we have been hammering our heads against that wall for quite some time. Understanding them is hard because they don't typically answer polls, they don't talk to canvassers, they don't read political mail, they hate tv ads, etc. I think to some degree, that group will never vote until such time as we see some kind of crisis or pivotal moment that forces them to start engaging in civic life. I think what the Democratic party really fails to do is engage with people who are already voting but don't agree with us. We want them to start agreeing with us. We know it's possible, it's just that the party is so focused on winning the next election that they ignore all the work you could be doing to build the party in red states/districts over a sustained period of time by taking votes from what the GOP thinks is their base. We want those people to become more supportive of progressive causes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I think what the Democratic party really fails to do is engage with people who are already voting but don't agree with us. Easy there Mr Schumer
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Understanding them is hard because they don't typically answer polls, they don't talk to canvassers, they don't read political mail, they hate tv ads, etc. I think to some degree, that group will never vote until such time as we see some kind of crisis or pivotal moment that forces them to start engaging in civic life. It'd literally be more productive to understand /why/ they don't do that stuff. I bet you'd get an answer that reflects their assumed agent capacity. ThndrShk2k has issued a correction as of 21:48 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
ThndrShk2k posted:I bet you'd get an answer that reflects their assumed agent capacity. ThndrShk2k has issued a correction as of 21:48 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/liberalism_txt/status/875436826080813056
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
we need to win how? by winning
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
we need to double down, nay, triple down on failure
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Look, I'm the first one to say we shouldn't toss accusations of a personality cult around casually, but.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:GOTV is less effective with candidates people are excited about - but the reason is because voters don't need to be GOTVed when they already like the candidate. They GOTV themselves. The issue is that this largely happens along a predictable set of voters that you're already targeting, rather than sort of a giant pile of votes you didn't expect to see coming out of nowhere. Democratic campaigns focus very heavily on turning out non-voters or drop-off voters -something that is totally necessary, of course - but still have this giant bloc of people who are both un-engaged and un-receptive to any sort of contact. And yes, everyone here is going to believe those voters will be receptive to the right message, which is fine but I think really lacks data. Even when you see a candidate like Bernie Sanders, you might only be engaging a small % of that giant bloc that isn't enough to win. Dealing with that group of people is very, very difficult and we have been hammering our heads against that wall for quite some time. Understanding them is hard because they don't typically answer polls, they don't talk to canvassers, they don't read political mail, they hate tv ads, etc. I think to some degree, that group will never vote until such time as we see some kind of crisis or pivotal moment that forces them to start engaging in civic life. As a voter that doesn't agree with them on a lot of things, I think your major obstacle is that you are just wrong about too many things. I couldn't agree with being anti-gay when the party was anti-gay. I couldn't agree that invading Iraq was a good idea. I can't agree with the drug war. I thought Obamacare was crap with no public option. I don't agree that single payer is bad or impossible to pass. It kind of seems like for my entire life when centrists disagreed with me history proved me right? The best path to find agreement is probably to listen to people like me now instead of waiting for history to punch you in the teeth again. The most pragmatic thing to do in politics is to be on the right side of issues long term. FuriousxGeorge has issued a correction as of 21:15 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:GOTV is less effective with candidates people are excited about - but the reason is because voters don't need to be GOTVed when they already like the candidate. They GOTV themselves. The issue is that this largely happens along a predictable set of voters that you're already targeting, rather than sort of a giant pile of votes you didn't expect to see coming out of nowhere. Democratic campaigns focus very heavily on turning out non-voters or drop-off voters -something that is totally necessary, of course - but still have this giant bloc of people who are both un-engaged and un-receptive to any sort of contact. And yes, everyone here is going to believe those voters will be receptive to the right message, which is fine but I think really lacks data. Even when you see a candidate like Bernie Sanders, you might only be engaging a small % of that giant bloc that isn't enough to win. Dealing with that group of people is very, very difficult and we have been hammering our heads against that wall for quite some time. Understanding them is hard because they don't typically answer polls, they don't talk to canvassers, they don't read political mail, they hate tv ads, etc. I think to some degree, that group will never vote until such time as we see some kind of crisis or pivotal moment that forces them to start engaging in civic life. I don't always agree with you but I appreciate these posts, thank you
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
you could always run candidates who promise to do things that people want, instead of running candidates that promise to do things people don't want and then spend the entire election season trying to convince them they want it I guess that's hard though
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
It's great that Hillbots are willing to starve Iran into submission and trash the few good foreign policy moves Obama had on the hopes that it might sting Russia a little.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Voter suppression in Wisconsin is probably responsible for Hillary losing the state, which had been reliably blue for a while up until the 2010 Tea Party rise. (You can also blame this on any number of her campaign strategies and decisions, but voter suppression is a tangible thing we can point at.) "Reliably blue" is a bit of a stretch. Gore and Kerry only barely won the state - Kerry beat Bush there by just 11k votes, while Gore won with just a 5k vote margin. Also, there's a notable statistic in that article - turnout in heavily African-American areas dropped even in states that didn't have voter ID laws. It dropped more in voter ID states, but even in areas without voter ID it still dropped a hefty 2.2%. It almost seems to suggest that there might be some other reason besides voter suppression that black voters were more likely to come out to vote in 2012 than in 2016. I wonder what it could possibly be. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that voter suppression is entirely inconsequential. I just think that Dems have been losing support and turnout among black voters, particularly compared to when Obama was on the ticket, and pointing to GOP voter ID efforts provides a convenient excuse for that so that they can blame it all on Republican skullduggery and not have to take a good clear look at whether they're doing enough for minorities. The same goes for many other constituencies that are either traditionally Democratic or were expected to lean Democratic - they didn't turn out as expected or lean nearly as blue as expected, because it turns out "sure, we stonewall anything that might benefit you but at least we don't actively hate you like the other side does" isn't a good campaign strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
I'm sure she had some reason to think of Chelsea Clinton here Chelsea Clinton is somehow adjacent to this incident, in some way, I am sure this wasn't a complete non-sequitur caused by primary salt, definitely
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I think people tend to overstate the impact of the voter suppression, since it's only being done in states that were already totally politically dominated by the GOP Voter Suppression: How Bad? Pretty Bad -- based on research from this Brennan Center report. The American Prospect posted:
NC has been competitive at the statewide level for Dems -- Trump won it, GalacticAcid has issued a correction as of 22:30 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
loquacius posted:I'm sure she had some reason to think of Chelsea Clinton here it's actually because she was responding to a donald jr tweet and started thinking about how it could have been chelsea in that position instead
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
hey speaking of, a link to this just showed up in my inbox Members of Congress Introduce Legislation to Modernize Voter Registration the brennan center posted:Leading members of Congress introduced the Automatic Voter Registration Act of 2017 this week, a transformative bill that could add 50 million eligible new voters to the rolls. The lawmakers are scheduled to join the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and other leading voter advocacy organizations to discuss the proposal during a Capitol Hill briefing Wednesday afternoon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:hey speaking of, a link to this just showed up in my inbox that sure is a thing that will be law
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Look, I'm the first one to say we shouldn't toss accusations of a personality cult around casually, I won't accuse Hillary of cultivating one intentionally
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
zegermans posted:that sure is a thing that will be law supporting good things regardless of existing congressional support is how we do things here, in hte suck zone
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:hey speaking of, a link to this just showed up in my inbox that looks like a great idea and mcconnell is going to open his giant lizard mouth, swallow it whole, and act flummoxed when anyone asks him about it
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Great Idea will never come to pass! We must work on ideas that will pass rather than push forward a dream that never can be due to the situation we have created and staunch refusal to even support such an idea
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Every socialist theory of the last century has revolved around a mythical proletariat that would cause a socialist revolution if only they were just politically activated and sufficiently radicalized. That belief has been incredibly counter-productive. Conservatives spent the 60s-90s systematically working to dismantle the social democracy consensus that once existed, and they succeeded. That's the reality we live in. The reality we live in is the one in which Democrats have joined the GOP in destroying (and attempting to destroy) the social safety net, Democrats now use terms like "entitlements" that were once confined to Pat Buchanan's piehole, and Democrats "worry" about the deficit and use it as an excuse to decimate said social safety net (but never at the expense of the defense budget). The social-democracy consensus is alive & well among the public; it's just that they have no one to vote for in most general elections when it comes to actually protecting & expanding social programs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Door-to-door conversations with voters about their attitudes and pitching them from highly trained staff and volunteers, mail/tv programs designed around promoting progressive ideas, stronger progressive media, etc. You don't have to organize around a candidate, and in fact it might be helpful to not do that. There have been a few experiments on this kinds of programs and it's been shown that it's possible to move even voters that often vote Republican in a more progressive direction. This just takes time and effort. Alright. What do you suppose has prevented this from happening, or happening in an effective manner?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Voter Suppression: How Bad? Pretty Bad -- based on research from this Brennan Center report. Obama only won NC once, in 2008 - and it was the first time since Carter that NC had gone blue at the presidential level. On top of that, both NC Senate seats and ten of their thirteen House seats are controlled by Republican. Most levels of state government had been traditionally controlled by conservative Dems, but like many other red states with conservative-leaning Dems, they got cleaned out in the big Republican sweeps of 2010-2014 and are now a small minority party in both houses of the NC legislature.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:The social-democracy consensus is alive & well among the public; it's just that they have no one to vote for in most general elections when it comes to actually protecting & expanding social programs. If there was an underserved consensus like that, wouldn't any social-democratic candidate crush the opposition in any race they run in?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:CC keeps doing that lib thing where the onus of good policy and governance is placed on the public, and not politicians/parties/institutions. b. obama: "make me do it" the mistake was in progressives interpreting that as "all I need is a gentle push and a show of grassroots support" instead of a 2 year old's challenge to his mom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If there was an underserved consensus like that, wouldn't any social-democratic candidate crush the opposition in any race they run in? labourvstorieswhenmediacoverageisfair.jpg https://twitter.com/alanferrier/status/873826735300763648 it's just amazing that people choose to be completely ignorant of the fact that the people who control media outlets in this country have a huge interest in preserving their tax rates NewForumSoftware has issued a correction as of 22:21 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:I don't always agree with you but I appreciate these posts, thank you We need someone to come post faux scottish dribble, or ask about a drive through order, or some other random non-sequitur or else it just isnt C-SPAM
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:We need someone to come post faux scottish dribble, or ask about a drive through order, or some other random non-sequitur or else it just isnt C-SPAM
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
oddly, this call for public mobilization in order to achieve legislative goals was also Bernie Sanders' tactic, if anybody remembers his "army of 1 million people outside Mitch McConnell's office"
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If there was an underserved consensus like that, wouldn't any social-democratic candidate crush the opposition in any race they run in? there are like, maybe three earnestly socdem politicians at the national level and they're all in fairly safe seats and crush their elections party donors will never let the movement grow beyond that as long as they control things
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If there was an underserved consensus like that, wouldn't any social-democratic candidate crush the opposition in any race they run in? Sure--if you got rid of corporate benefactors and their PACs, got rid of superdelegates, got rid of most of the dem party leadership & organizations, got rid of the revolving door between public service and private lobbying, and restored fair-media laws. It's gonna happen anyway, eventually, bc as it stands neither major party is addressing voters' needs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:The reality we live in is the one in which Democrats have joined the GOP in destroying (and attempting to destroy) the social safety net, Democrats now use terms like "entitlements" that were once confined to Pat Buchanan's piehole, and Democrats "worry" about the deficit and use it as an excuse to decimate said social safety net (but never at the expense of the defense budget). Democrats shifted to the right because they were repeatedly destroyed in elections as conservatism rose. The consensus has been dead for years - this is why the public throughout the 90s voted for initiatives that restrained taxes at the expense of public programs, increased criminal penalties for non-violent crimes (i.e. three strikes), and more recently rejected the single payer ballot initiative in Colorado by a massive landslide. You're acting like talk radio never happened, that Reagan was never elected president in two consecutive landslides against liberals, that conservatives haven't had a solid strategy to discredit government for decades that they've executed with impunity. It's time to wake up to the reality that you're not in the majority anymore, haven't been for a very long time, and actually work to make that majority a reality. Clinging onto cherry-picked polls showing single payer majorities (before you tell the voters it requires a tax increase, or more government spending) and consistently insisting that this wouldn't immediately bend under the weight of the predictable conservative attacks as more details come in is just unproductive. The concept of a giant progressive public just begging for full socialism now is utterly naive. If it were true, progressives would win primaries and ballot initiatives more often.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 22:27
|
|