|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Condiv posted:basically, hillary's campaign was for old people. she was not interested in pandering to "self-interested" college attending millenials, she was not interested in pandering to young black people, or young poc in general. the only group she specifically targeted (and increased her vote share with over obama) was rich old people. and that's just not a path forward. Yeah, it is good though that she and the rest of the Democratic establishment finally admitted it. Now everyone knows what’s going on, and hopefully won’t get fooled again.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:16 |
|
|
lol they're still sticking to the script that the road to victory is through the Paneras of America and they're going to lose horribly
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Hilary's gift to history was to elevate the alt-right into national prominence while aggressively spreading the idea that any form of economic populism was tantamount to white supremacy. hillary 2020! e: lmao https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/886643007914749955 Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:hillary 2020!
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:Most coal miners are black, FYI Unless there is some joke I'm missing because mining is a dirty job, CDC says 97% of coal miners are white.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:hillary 2020! https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/886979367741607936 https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/886979782289879042
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
we already know its a steaming pile of poo poo, 23 million people losing their insurance isn't enough to base a message on? also there exist other issues (though healthcare is the big one at the moment)
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
They're facing an existential threat and have the most unpopular and rapacious scumbags ever as opponents and they still dodge making any firm stands on anything. The Democrats main strategy is going to be avoiding progressive promises and hoping that public revulsion puts them in power by default. They're going to lose bigly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:There's no thought or acknowledgement of the people currently suffering. Well, I think the thing is that even for the more well off* who do acknowledge current suffering, it isn't driving them as much on an emotional level. They may realize rationally that it's important and even genuinely want to improve it on some level, but emotionally that's not concerning them as much as the idea of things becoming worse (because that might affect them, while at least they're guaranteed personal comfort in the status quo). And I say this as someone who was like that in the past - back during college when I wasn't really exposed to any economic stress (due to a combination of being young and being in a social group that was mostly well-off, minus me of course), my biggest worry was that Republicans would gently caress things up and make them worse. I think that for people whose lives go smoothly, they never stop feeling this way. * and I'm not just talking about the 1% here, but anyone who is financially stable/comfortable Ardennes posted:Granted, another narrative that seems to be going around is the empty argument that since Trump voters (ie almost all Republicans) on average had higher incomes...class or economics had nothing to do with what was happening. When you look at the general breakdown of income, Trump did 16 percent better than Romney among the poorest voters ( under 30k income), the end result was 53% versus 41%. That should be something pretty scary to most Democrats. A lot of the liberal response to the election has been this sort of "lying/misleading with statistics that are technically true." They'll give true statistics, but then draw an incorrect conclusion from them (or use statistics that don't prove their greater point). One example related to what you mentioned is the way they'll use statistics showing "most Trump voters believe X", when it's far more relevant to look at the change in who people voted for between elections (since it's obviously important if, say, 20% of a demographic voting Democratic dropped to 10%, even if most didn't vote Democratic in both cases). Another example is the fact that they often use nation-wide statistics, rather than statistics from the specific regions important in the election. I can understand ignorant laypeople like journalists making this mistake, but I also saw a lot of academics who should know better doing this. Sneakster posted:Here's my prediction for how that's gonna go: loving lol, he even admits that both Clinton and Sanders would have increased his taxes, and Sanders doing so more is a negative. I'm pretty sure that Clinton wouldn't have increased your taxes unless you were pretty well off (like at least upper middle class), right? Is the guy replying to him who mentions making 5x the median income referring to him? That guy seems very similar to a lot of the semi-well-off liberals I know (by "semi-well-off" I mean people who make maybe 70-125k), though the ones I know didn't smear Sanders as much. It's mainly the "we didn't lose on college campuses and coffee houses" part. Basically, this sort of liberal strongly identifies with the general idea of "being a highly educated professional who dresses 'nicely', speaks in a 'neutral' accent (if in the US), and is kind to minorities/LGBT people." That explanation doesn't totally cover it, but there's a specific type of person they identify with that is really easy to notice if you know what you're looking for (as that guy specifically mentions, the sort of person who goes to coffee houses and lives in a nice, relatively well-off area). They like the idea of "being a person who cares about ethnic/gender minorities", but they doesn't really feel comfortable around them unless they're in a similar socioeconomic position. More than anything else, they REALLY dislike poor, uneducated white people. There are many times that I've heard someone talk about how rural (implied poor) whites should be sterilized or subject to some sort of voting test. I've tried to point out how hosed up this is in the past, and they dropped the point in order to avoid further conflict, but in a way that makes it clear they didn't actually change their mind. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:That guy seems very similar to a lot of the semi-well-off liberals I know (by "semi-well-off" I mean people who make maybe 70-125k), though the ones I know didn't smear Sanders as much. It's mainly the "we didn't lose on college campuses and coffee houses" part. Basically, this sort of liberal strongly identifies with the general idea of "being a highly educated professional who dresses 'nicely', speaks in a 'neutral' accent (if in the US), and is kind to minorities/LGBT people." That explanation doesn't totally cover it, but there's a specific type of person they identify with that is really easy to notice if you know what you're looking for (as that guy specifically mentions, the sort of person who goes to coffee houses and lives in a nice, relatively well-off area). They like the idea of "being a person who cares about ethnic/gender minorities", but they doesn't really feel comfortable around them unless they're in a similar socioeconomic position. More than anything else, they REALLY dislike poor, uneducated white people. There are many times that I've heard someone talk about how rural (implied poor) whites should be sterilized or subject to some sort of voting test. I've tried to point out how hosed up this is in the past, and they dropped the point in order to avoid further conflict, but in a way that makes it clear they didn't actually change their mind. Yeah. Something like this reads like satire or a real parody of what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/886979367741607936 If you still believe the excuses of the dem establishment you're dumb af, and doubly so if said excuses are based on the idea that they're preparing some kind of political masterstroke.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:hillary 2020! The Democrats will never ever ever have a "core message" again. That would require actually standing for something and their donors won't allow that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/886979367741607936 they're politely waiting for republicans to stop trying to repeal ACA to develop an identity? and you think this is smart?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
that actually makes some sense. if trumpcare fails, you want to hit them hard on their total inability to live up to their awful promises, option on saying "btw we'll actually provide you something good." if trumpcare succeeds, you want to hit them hard on "you elected them, they took your healthcare. elect us. we will give you back your healthcare." both angles are viable, but you can't commit to either before the whole sordid mess is over and done with for the year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
make no mistake a full-throated support of single payer works with either angle, so their refusal to get behind it now remains hideously embarrassing political malpractice, but the Grand Strategic Rollout being delayed is a defensible call.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:loving lol, he even admits that both Clinton and Sanders would have increased his taxes, and Sanders doing so more is a negative. I'm pretty sure that Clinton wouldn't have increased your taxes unless you were pretty well off (like at least upper middle class), right? Is the guy replying to him who mentions making 5x the median income referring to him? Referring to him or tax bracket effected. I think the most sickening bullshit with Clinton especially was the re-branding of Clinton's entire career. You had the cynical emergence of "bernie bros" despite him having the majority of women not-yet-half-dust. Purring the primary abortion came up and Hillary waffled on support while Sanders was firm on it being a human right. Sanders supported gay rights since college and Clinton was supporting DOMA and attacking gay people even being allowed to dump til the mid 2000s. The Clinton administration was a Republican wet dream that destroyed welfare rapidly accelerated mass jailing. Clinton's entire career was a Goldwater supporter joining the democrats out of convenience and stomping on every vulnerable group a long the way. Jesus Christ that primary was completely insane feminist icons like Gloria Steinem were popping up just to say younger women supporting Sanders were just doing it for attention from boys. Clinton put together a literally fake Congressional Black Caucus staffed by cigarette, payday loans, liquor, Oxycontin lobbyists to give her an award after CBC waffled. Sanders views and platforms were right about everything, and socially to the left of Clinton on every social and minority issue on top of the practical economic platforms. I'd almost forgotten how nightmarishly terrible and substance free Clinton was Anyone that supported Clinton by any measure is such a pile of loving garbage. Sanders was always crushing Trump by double digits and Clinton was never outside the margin of error and careening popularity, everybody knew this was going to happen and that all the celebrity, institutional, and money power in the world Clinton could use to help in the primary would still probably lose in the general. Her base was dead and Trumps was motivated, they should have had a brokered convention. loving useless liberal trash, and these human bumper stickers are going to do it again and again until whatever fascist lunatic the GOP nominates just takes political unrest and liquidates the DNC. Do you think Rump's Attorney Goblin would be allowed to get away with insane poo poo like the three strikes law? E: Ze Pollack posted:but the Grand Strategic Rollout being delayed is a defensible call. Well, aside from Pelosi saying she'll get $15 min wage passed in another decade if we get them back in power. Wow, 15 bucks! Sneakster fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:Jesus Christ that primary was completely insane feminist icons like Gloria Steinem were popping up just to say younger women supporting Sanders were just doing it for attention from boys. Yea, hoooooo boy, that sure was a loving thing, wasn't it? E: VVV I am still extremely shocked by it. I remember it happening. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yea, hoooooo boy, that sure was a loving thing, wasn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:we already know its a steaming pile of poo poo, 23 million people losing their insurance isn't enough to base a message on? It's not enough to just say "we won't throw those 23 million people off their insurance!" because people can see their co-pays and deductibles rising and the ACA is not going to last that long. People ain't blind and the ACA as it is doesn't cover a shitload of people. The Democrats must offer them something more that the slow death status quo, and Single Payer or even a Public Option is it. They won't though, their donors in the health industries will not allow it. Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
we are in a healthcare crisis, and the dems are insisting that the band-aid they claimed was temporary at first is now a permanent patch that will fix everything with just one more tweak
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
oddly enough that one tweak is throwing even more cash at insurance companies!
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:Clinton put together a literally fake Congressional Black Caucus staffed by cigarette, payday loans, liquor, Oxycontin lobbyists to give her an award after CBC waffled. Do you have a source on this? Not saying it didn't happen, I just don't remember it and that's insanely hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Great Metal Jesus posted:Do you have a source on this? Not saying it didn't happen, I just don't remember it and that's insanely hosed up. Indeed I do
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Great Metal Jesus posted:Do you have a source on this? Not saying it didn't happen, I just don't remember it and that's insanely hosed up. It's not "a literally fake Congressional Black Caucus." The CBC never endorses a candidate and there was confusion between the CBC and the PAC, which did the endorsement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:Referring to him or tax bracket effected. there is a strategy. it is a stupid strategy, but it exists: try to ride the reaction to trumpcare back into power. the absence of a trumpcare to ride is making it look even stupider.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Neon Belly posted:It's not "a literally fake Congressional Black Caucus." The CBC never endorses a candidate and there was confusion between the CBC and the PAC, which did the endorsement. You make it sound a lot classier than a board stacked with lobbyists for the legion of doom being used to obfuscate that. Its not like it was intentional to have headlines that would indicate the CBC did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:We're going to loving lose next year and in 2020 and forever and ever because we're the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
To be fair UKMT was singing the same tune until Corbyn unexpectedly boiled May's bum. But yes unless the progressives get their poo poo together and start making effective populist movements popular we're in for a bad time. Grouchio fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:To be fair UKMT was singing the same tune until Corbyn unexpectedly boiled May's bum. UKMT expected Corbyn to demonstrate parity with Miliband and the viability of the left. He outperformed and will soon be PM. The problems are entirely unrelated; we had a left platform getting slaughtered in the media and then it turns out that leftism kills the media.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Have the bad libs in the UK bent the knee since the election?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:To be fair UKMT was singing the same tune until Corbyn unexpectedly boiled May's bum. The UKMT didn't have to worry about the rules being changed on them. You can't come back if the rules get changed to structurally and legally prohibit you from doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Have the bad libs in the UK bent the knee since the election? they actually did for about two weeks, then Chukku Umunna stuck his head out during the queens speech amendments and now the right wing papers are just taking potshots at their incompetence. C. Everett Koop posted:The UKMT didn't have to worry about the rules being changed on them. You can't come back if the rules get changed to structurally and legally prohibit you from doing so. Blair already did that and now we have Corbyn and a poo poo load of authoritian party controls that suddenly socialists are in charge of. Took a loving while, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:To be fair UKMT was singing the same tune until Corbyn unexpectedly boiled May's bum. Sanders would win if he ran in 2020. I'd rather not pin hopes on him, but I don't know of any other politician on national stage who isn't awful garbage. Maybe we're stuck with the guy who's right about everything and the unlikely longshot of the most popular politician in the country somehow winning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:Sanders would win if he ran in 2020. I'd rather not pin hopes on him, but I don't know of any other politician on national stage who isn't awful garbage. Maybe we're stuck with the guy who's right about everything and the unlikely longshot of the most popular politician in the country somehow winning. Also, what was the general consensus of the GOP's efforts at finding a message in 2009, a year before the tea party erupted?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Is there anyone other than Sanders this thread would be happy to see run and is a viable candidate in a general election against Trump?
Neon Belly fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:We do have three years to see if he sponsors a possible younger protege (if he can find one). I'm gonna be sitting at my computer at home one day when the doorbell rings. At the door is Bernie Sanders, and he will ask me if I want to be president.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:We do have three years to see if he sponsors a possible younger protege (if he can find one). There is no protege. Congress is getting older, younger people aren't running (and don't have the money to). Prior to Citizens United congressmen literally spent several hours every day fundraising. Trump was only the FIRST post Citizens United election cycle. The Republicans are radicalizing further and the DNC leadership is doing everything it can to sanitize the party of Sanders influence. Every player left has every incentive and no consequence to embracing this collapse. America doesn't have much in a shared history or culture beyond being a backwater that became an industrial super power who's apex was in the now past pax-Americana period. There is no shared identity or social cohesion to rally behind, we're a giant company town. Our inbred insane senatorial families are literally openly trying to murder hundreds of thousands of Americans for tax cuts for 400 families. This is only going to get worse and Citizens United ensures that there's no real way for anyone outside the bubble of power has any real chance of effecting reforms. In the Trump thread they mentioned Kamala Harris as possible, something about supporting slavery and being against UHC despite being the only way to fix healthcare. There is absolutely no rational reason to assume things will improve based on the current leadership, and the now virtually incontestable power they hold. Short of fast and massive reforms by some miracle fantasy of Sanders getting in in 2020, literally the only politician with a national profile and decent views. The DNC isn't going to put the limelight on some up and coming socialist in the next few years, there is no sane reason to expect things to improve. Sanders is the sole living crack in a coalescing power structure. Our democracy is now fundamentally broken. Neon Belly posted:Is there anyone other than Sanders this thread would be happy to see run and is a viable candidate in a general election against Trump? If you think that's ridiculous, name a reasonable alternative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:There is no protege. Congress is getting older, younger people aren't running (and don't have the money to). Prior to Citizens United congressmen literally spent several hours every day fundraising. Trump was only the FIRST post Citizens United election cycle. The Republicans are radicalizing further and the DNC leadership is doing everything it can to sanitize the party of Sanders influence. Every player left has every incentive and no consequence to embracing this collapse. I think there is enough will right now (fragmented will, but its there) to co-op the Democratic party. Hell, it almost happened twice already in the past year (Sanders coming close to winning the nomination / the party chairman election that Obama meddled in). If the progressives organize and get their guys into office we can take over the party from the bottom up. Citizens United is a big roadblock, but Trump proved you can win elections without (as much) gobs of money and Sanders did well for himself without taking corporate donations. If people work to overthrow the party leadership and then ride the wave against Trump with an actual platform we can take the house by 2018 and the Senate / Presidency by 2020. Will this be hard? Well yes, it will be hella hard. But we don't have too many options at this point unless the left just wants to eat poo poo and die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:I think there is enough will right now (fragmented will, but its there) to co-op the Democratic party. Hell, it almost happened twice already in the past year (Sanders coming close to winning the nomination / the party chairman election that Obama meddled in). If the progressives organize and get their guys into office we can take over the party from the bottom up. Citizens United is a big roadblock, but Trump proved you can win elections without (as much) gobs of money and Sanders did well for himself without taking corporate donations. If people work to overthrow the party leadership and then ride the wave against Trump with an actual platform we can take the house by 2018 and the Senate / Presidency by 2020. Yes, this is a good post. The fact that total unknown Sanders got so close to beating literal household name Hillary Rodham Clinton proves that there is a huge base out there hungry for this stuff. We know the DNC/Hillary/neoliberal side will resist every step of the way, but we outnumber them. Also, in this era of crowdfunding, I'm not sure why big party donors need to be catered to any more. Run a GoFundMe to get into local office!
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:16 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yes, this is a good post. Trump was a celebrity who literally had billions dollars worth of free 24/7 coverage what a outlandish Rogue he was. The only thing he proved is the GOP has outed itself as total white trash whos next candidate is going to be a Jersey Shore cast member or some stupid Jerry Springer poo poo. You misunderstand Sanders place in the scheme of things, his positions are due to the freedom of not being beholden to the DNC and being in the only seat in the country where someone could run like that. There is literally nobody else in an existing political position to run like that, and if someone not already in congress ran on a platform like that, they would be completely blackballed. There is literally no avenue for reform short of Sanders somehow getting in in 2020. That is literally it. Its not adulation of Sanders, its the reality of acceptable positions for a member of the DNC, much less run qualified to run or going to get the support of leadership.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 21:03
|
|