|
Majorian posted:The problem is, they learned the wrong lessons from the '68 and '72 elections. Calling what they did between '68 and '92 "surviving" is overly generous. The Democrats' shift in focus away from blue collar workers, in favor of Fred Dutton's "Now Generation" and the professional class, did not help them win. When Democrats did win big, it was because they ran campaigns with populist messages. Bill Clinton won because he could convincingly tell the working class that he "felt [their] pain." Barack Obama won because he was the more populist alternative to the centrist Clinton or the stodgy, geriatric McCain. We are not going to suddenly start winning with a strategy that has, in fact, failed the Democrats consistently since 1968. It's your fault because you didn't vote hard enough. You voted with your hand. I do not vote with my hand. He who voted with his hand has forgotten the face of his father. I vote with my mind. I do not elect with my vote. He who elects with his vote has forgotten the face of his father. I elect with my heart.
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I agree - but you kind of have to see why they did in the early '90s. The Democratic party is now more progressive than it has been in at least a generation. And it took work to get it here. And it can always backslide to how it was in the 90s. So the original post about the Democratic Party is the greatest force of good in American political life is maddening - its the best tool we currently have in electoral politics but they don't deserve the credit for the work done by grassroots movements.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The Democrats' shift in focus away from blue collar workers, in favor of Fred Dutton's "Now Generation" and the professional class, did not help them win. When Democrats did win big, it was because they ran campaigns with populist messages. Bill Clinton won because he could convincingly tell the working class that he "felt [their] pain." Barack Obama won because he was the more populist alternative to the centrist Clinton or the stodgy, geriatric McCain. We are not going to suddenly start winning with a strategy that has, in fact, failed the Democrats consistently since 1968. To be fair, Clinton also won because Ross Perot was there to siphon away the 'conservative frustration' votes away from Bush. Clinton did sell himself as a new populist, a kid of a single mother who made it big and thinks you should too, America's "First Black President", but he was also careful to avoid all talk of class, not make things like unions part of his speeches, and so on. I'm not even disagreeing. Just a reminder that each election is its own little Zeitgeist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Nicolas Cage can act (he won an Oscar, after all), he just gets requested to overact because its the easier way to sell the kind of lovely movies he legally can't turn down. Reagan has no such excuse. this is his Oscar winning performance 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Just out of curiosity, how many people complaining about the Dems being too centrist were like, alive in the 80s and 90s? I know this isn't reddit so most of you aren't teenagers but it's almost like you sort of forgot Reagan happened. While I obviously can't say that the Democrats would have beaten Reagan in 1980 or 1984 if they had run on a more economically populist platform, I think it's a good bet that they wouldn't have crashed and burned as spectacularly against him as they did. I understand why Clinton ran and won as a "third way" Dem in the wake of the cult of Reagan, but I don't think that's a particularly valid excuse for things like welfare reform or deregulation of Wall Street. Tacking to the center wasn't as strategically necessary as the Democrats at the time thought, and it hurt the party considerably more down the line than they evidently realized.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
I really wish someone would empower Unions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
The impression I got was that Reagan was more famous for being famous than for his actual movies. He was a favorite of the 50s Hollywood fanzines and tabloids, and he was on TV weekly hosting a General Motors progaganda program.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I missed 08 by two months which is fortunate because I would be living today with the stain of having voted for McCain at the time. i would have voted for bush in 04 but i had to mail in my ballot and 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:It's your fault because you didn't vote hard enough. You voted with your hand. I do not vote with my hand. He who voted with his hand has forgotten the face of his father. I vote with my mind. I do not elect with my vote. He who elects with his vote has forgotten the face of his father. I elect with my heart.  You're a turd. Stay the line.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
I missed voting Gore by a single day. I've never considered voting for a republican, except when they are unopposed so I can disingenuously but honestly claim I've voted for republicans if I ever need to have some bipartisan credibility for an argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:The impression I got was that Reagan was more famous for being famous than for his actual movies. He was a favorite of the 50s Hollywood fanzines and tabloids, and he was on TV weekly hosting a General Motors progaganda program. He had also been governor of California, was a former Dem, was a perennial candidate, etc, etc. His being a movie star helped him get to that point, but by the time 1980 rolled around, people saw him as a political figure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:It's your fault because you didn't vote hard enough. You voted with your hand. I do not vote with my hand. He who voted with his hand has forgotten the face of his father. I vote with my mind. I do not elect with my vote. He who elects with his vote has forgotten the face of his father. I elect with my heart. werid, i didnt think anyone like that movie
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:werid, i didnt think anyone like that movie The critics sure didn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
just think 50 years we'll be loling at how anyone could elect the scorpion king leader of the free world
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:This tweet is so loving dumb I'm surprised he's capable of sucking down oxygen. Arbitration should be illegal, full stop. Don't care if both parties are on equal footing. Arbitration is loving garbage and exists as a means to deny people their legal rights. It's not as bad as civil forfeiture but it's still up there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Arbitration should be illegal, full stop. Don't care if both parties are on equal footing. Arbitration is loving garbage and exists as a means to deny people their legal rights. It's not as bad as civil forfeiture but it's still up there. Arbitration is used very frequently by people in family and small claims disputes to legally resolve differences without lawyer's fees and long time-tables. Mandatory arbitration with an employer or vendor is bad, but arbitration itself exists for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
A terrorist attack happens in America and this thread and Trump have the same reaction because it didn't cause enough damage to the right kind of people. If a white church had been targeted this thread would be circlejerking about if Trump will finally ban all minorities or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Giggy posted:lectures are awesome. But they're only effective if you're interested in the subject. Thaddius the Large posted:"Look, we're totally not eating your face!" says the face eating leopard around a mouthful of your face. Mantis42 posted:Exactly. We need to help PoC by Expanding School Choice™, Fighting for $10 Minimum, and Protecting Israel's Right to Exist. The Left Just Doesn't Get It!  Ague Proof posted:Go out as concern trolls and convince the MAGA Pepes that Mike Pence is a globalist traitor. Mantis42 posted:Bullshit. In a two party system it might be a strategic necessity to vote for the Dems but you're confusing the Left with the Democratic Party. The Dems might eventually come around on an issue after great public pressure to do the right thing but they don't deserve credit as saviors of the human race. Especially when they'll just as easily backslide if you ever let that pressure up - just ask the unions. Does that man realize his bloodline is the first to go in a eugenics program? Mantis42 posted:Why do centrist liberals continually pretend like money, resources, and institutional support have nothing to do with how the primaries play out?  Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Hmmmmmmmm Quorum posted:My dude if centrist finance elemental Cory Booker is campaigning on it you have absolutely no reason for believing that except defaulting to total cynicism so you're never disappointed Shimrra Jamaane posted:Twitter is a loving disease. It may have been a net good like 6 years ago when it was first getting big but its been nothing but a drain on social discourse for a long time now. Shimrra Jamaane posted:I missed 08 by two months which is fortunate because I would be living today with the stain of having voted for McCain at the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/06/trump-fcc-sinclair-broadcast-expansion-241337quote:How Trump's FCC aided Sinclair's expansion Hope you enjoy your state-run propaganda ministry, cause it's acomin' (even more so than Fox News) there's a bolling joke in there somewhere
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I take this weird comfort in that I vote for Democrats in that I hope to one day have socialist statism burst out of their chest and devour all the party elders. In a Nixon-with-a-Democratic-congress sort of way I think I'd be totally fine with Pelosi still in charge of a much farther left Senate, because she actually is the pragmatic efficient ruthless rear end in a top hat we all half-jokingly portrayed Clinton as and would immediately turn coat to ram socialist policies through. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:I really wish someone would empower Unions. Arent they mostly toothless now thanks to various right to work laws?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:I know I'm talking to the poster who never saw a goal posts he couldn't move, but neither Obama or Clinton were outsiders. Obama was groomed for the candidacy starting from the moment he gave the 2004 DNC speech. The primaries, like all elections, aren't ruled by money and patronage networks. It's not impossible for an outsider to win, but its disingenuous to pretend its a level playing field. Anointed candidates with the full backing of the establishment very rarely actually win, though. George H.W. Bush lost his primary Hillary Clinton lost her primary Mitt Romney lost his primary Jerry Brown lost his primary Paul Tsongas lost his primary Gary Hart lost his primary Al Gore lost his primary Nelson Rockefeller lost his primary Nixon lost his primary Humphrey lost his primary Rick Santorum was not supposed to win Iowa Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/06/trump-fcc-sinclair-broadcast-expansion-241337 I've gone over this before but access to 72% of households does not mean they control 72% of stations. Most households have access to 3-5 local affiliate stations so after this merger Sinclair will own one of them for 72% of households. It's bad but not as bad as it's often presented. And even though people trust local TV news more than cable TV news, people are relying on local TV news less and less every year. It's a dying industry. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Arent they mostly toothless now thanks to various right to work laws? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I've gone over this before but access to 72% of households does not mean they control 72% of stations. Most households have access to 3-5 local affiliate stations so after this merger Sinclair will own one of them for 72% of households. Yeah Sinclair can swoop in and buy a bunch of local TV stations because no one loving watches the local part of local TV anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Arbitration is used very frequently by people in family and small claims disputes to legally resolve differences without lawyer's fees and long time-tables. Companies use it a lot too. I think that agreeing to arbitrate an existing dispute is ok but that contractual requirements to use arbitration for all potential future disputes should be illegal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Anointed candidates with the full backing of the establishment very rarely actually win, though. In which primary did Jerry Brown run as the establishment candidate and lose? He certainly wasn't the establishment candidate in '92. Also, Romney wasn't the establishment candidate in '08; it was widely regarded as "McCain's turn" among the Republicans. Gore wasn't the establishment candidate in any race until 2000, when he won the primary. Hart also wasn't the establishment candidate in '84; Mondale swamped him in endorsements and donations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I've gone over this before but access to 72% of households does not mean they control 72% of stations. Most households have access to 3-5 local affiliate stations so after this merger Sinclair will own one of them for 72% of households. They still should be among the first in line in Democrats manage to take things back and are serious about their antitrust stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Arent they mostly toothless now thanks to various right to work laws? That's part of it yeah.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Am I correct in thinking that this was stirred up by Republicans to make Clinton look like an illegitimate President?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Anointed candidates with the full backing of the establishment very rarely actually win, though. Flipping the argument on its head, how many non-establishment candidates won a primary? Just Trump? WampaLord fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
Ague Proof posted:Am I correct in thinking that this was stirred up by Republicans to make Clinton look like an illegitimate President? I'm sure some Republicans had that in mind, but it was also just an easy explanation for the outcome of a close race. It seemed correct at first sniff, but when people delved into it, it didn't actually really swing the election.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:To be fair, Clinton also won because Ross Perot was there to siphon away the 'conservative frustration' votes away from Bush. Clinton did sell himself as a new populist, a kid of a single mother who made it big and thinks you should too, America's "First Black President", but he was also careful to avoid all talk of class, not make things like unions part of his speeches, and so on. Furnaceface posted:Arent they mostly toothless now thanks to various right to work laws?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Hmmmmmmmm Any of those 3 could be Stephen Miller.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Ague Proof posted:Any of those 3 could be Stephen Miller. But it's really the middle one. (also Stephen Miller is a McPoyle from "It's Always Sunny," there's no other way to explain him)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Ague Proof posted:Any of those 3 could be Stephen Miller. The one in the middle looks like Peyton Manning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
xeria posted:The one in the middle looks like Peyton Manning. No wonder he shills for Papa John's. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
One in the middle is Stephen Miller. Looks like he tortures and kills squirrels for fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Carter really hosed us up: blocked single payer prevented guaranteed jobs from passing
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
Ague Proof posted:Am I correct in thinking that this was stirred up by Republicans to make Clinton look like an illegitimate President? I don't think so. I voted for Clinton and thought Perot bleeding off R votes helped his chances. Not that I put a hell of a lot of thought into it, it was just kind of one of those "conventional wisdom" things that looking back may not have been so wise. There didn't seem to be the same level of effort put into gaslighting the public back then, it was a simpler time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 01:44
|
|