|
Majorian posted:No, but we can certainly ascertain that conservative Democrats promising to act as a check on liberal "excesses" did not endear them to either the Democratic voting base, or Republican voters in their districts. That gambit just didn't pay off. There's really no two ways about it, and it's kind of amazing to me that this is a controversial point, in your mind. i refuted this point at length as well. i'm not doing it again: if you missed it, go back and read it. if you are trying to repeat obvious facts as if they are some kind of trump card and its not working it's not because i don't know what the election result was. however, let me try to put this in simpler terms. what you are doing here is a classic fuckup: judging a strategy by its results. that seems absolutely normal, you say, what's the problem with that? the problem with that is ignoring the underlying probabilities that the strategy was put in place to deal with. for an example: did you know that teams in hockey that pull their goalie usually lose? in fact, they lose at astounding rates. i don't know what the rate is, but i assure you it's well above 50%. probably more like 75-90%. so the answer is obvious: never pull your goalie! why, the [local hockey team] pulled their goalie in the playoffs and you know what happened? the other team immediately scored from the other side of the ice, put the game away, knocked them out of the playoffs. what were they expecting! of course you need a goalie. the same thing that's wrong with that logic is wrong with yours
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:like, this is why i don't just think you're making stupid arguments but that you, personally, are being an idiot. a complete idiot. a drooling halfwit. Hahaha, Jesus Christ, dude. quote:do you think i am somehow unaware of who holds the presidency, the house, and the senate? I think you're aware of it, I just don't think you want to admit how much the failure of the Democratic Party's messaging strategy played into it. quote:here's the subtext of what i posted, which completely went over your head: it is more important to do good things than to win elections. the base being upset at democrats is an acceptable price to pay to insure tens of millions of people. That's a completely false dichotomy, though. It is by no means a given that the Democrats, and the Obama White House in particular, couldn't have gotten more out of the Obamacare negotiations. quote:it is of course silly to believe that the base that was upset about the public option dying would have been more pleased at the entire thing dying instead of (reasonably) demanding to know why obama couldn't manage to work with liberman to get it passed instead of driving him out of the party, because most of the base actually cares more about health care than about being a big man politically That would be silly, yes. Thankfully, I never argued anything of the sort. What I did argue was that not signalling an extreme willingness to compromise from the start of the negotiations would probably have paid greater dividends than the way Obama actually played it. evilweasel posted:i refuted this point at length as well. i'm not doing it again: if you missed it, go back and read it. if you are trying to repeat obvious facts as if they are some kind of trump card and its not working it's not because i don't know what the election result was. The problem with your logic here is, it's pretty easy to deduce whether or not the strategy was successful, because the Democratic base did not turn out for these candidates. Its intended outcome was to gin up more Democratic and centrist support for conservative Democratic candidates. It did not have the intended outcome. There's not much more that needs to be dissected, on that level: the strategy failed. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Aug 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's a completely false dichotomy, though. It is by no means a given that the Democrats, and the Obama White House in particular, couldn't have gotten more out of the Obamacare negotiations. that dichomy was presented to you and you came down on the "be big man, let people go without heathcare" side. it was less than 40 posts ago: WhiskeyJuvenile posted:or he just votes against cloture, killing the bill, and decides not to run in 2012 anyway Majorian posted:That would have sucked, but the Democratic base wouldn't have punished them for it, if they didn't apologize for trying and didn't run against their president. Trump's base isn't going to punish him for failing to repeal Obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
i am harry posted:What the gently caress is a member of r/politics doing posting here?! How dumb do you need to be to not get that the outgoing administration's economic policies stretch at very least into September (end of the fiscal year)of the next administration's term? Depending on legislative accomplishments(or lack thereof), possibly much longer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:that dichomy was presented to you and you came down on the "be big man, let people go without heathcare" side. it was less than 40 posts ago: I never said "let people go without healthcare"; if Obama and the Democratic leadership had put the screws to Lieberman and still been forced to compromise on the public option, that would have been one thing. I doubt Lieberman would have jumped ship because of that, and if he had, it would have been the end of his political career. But they couldn't even work up the spine to do that, as the Think Progress piece that I posted demonstrates. e: And again, it's a completely false dichotomy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
What if Trump get sexual gratification from people hating him so he did all this to generate all the hate in the world against him to experience a 4-year long orgasm?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Why would someone from the capitalist class be on the DSA drafting committee? If a Socialist movement doesn't expect infiltration by capitalist agents they're ignoring literally all of history The only surprising thing is how bad this guy's cover story was. Going by history we can probably expect about a tenth of DSA membership to be FBI agents. Like it looks like the DSA did a worse job filtering out trolls than SA does, and I even *enjoy* a good troll
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Is 'degenerate' some sort of alt right secret word? I was as a white person critical of white people in a youtube comment and got called that, and I feel like I've seen it used before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If a Socialist movement doesn't expect infiltration by capitalist agents they're ignoring literally all of history I mean, he was pretty smart to found the Austin DSA chapter and campaign for Bernie as a cover.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:however, let me try to put this in simpler terms. what you are doing here is a classic fuckup: judging a strategy by its results. loving  How else should we judge a strategy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Is 'degenerate' some sort of alt right secret word? I was as a white person critical of white people in a youtube comment and got called that, and I feel like I've seen it used before. It's Nazi rhetoric, it's what they called people of mixed race origin, those who were in mixed race romantic relationships, those who supported them, those with mental or physical disabilities, LGBT people, etc. Replace it with a racial slur and you have about the right connotation and tone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Bogatyr posted:How dumb do you need to be to not get that the outgoing administration's economic policies stretch at very least into September (end of the fiscal year)of the next administration's term? Depending on legislative accomplishments(or lack thereof), possibly much longer. Who are you calling dumb: The person you quoted or the original post? Seriously, it's not clear. The original post alleges Democrats are hypocritical for saying Obama is not responsible for the economy at the start of his first term and at the same time Trump isn't responsible for the economy at the start of his term.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Mustached Demon posted:While I'm tired from working all night: drop loving gun control. Replace it with government subsidized safety training or some poo poo. Ah, so somehow, THAT issue that has intense pushback from a relatively small lobbying group and few dedicated detractors is toxic and should not be touched, but somehow, unions, which have generations of vocal hatred against it and so much more lobbying against it, that we just need to work to redeem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:loving If someone gives us a chance to bet on the outcome of rolling 2 six-sided dice, the best bet would be 7 as it has a 6 in 36 chance of showing up, higher than any other roll. If we then roll 2 six-sided dice and it comes up a 12, our next bet should still be 7. This post has nothing to do with politics, simply game theory.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
twice burned ice posted:I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Maybe I misread your post, but it seemed like you were saying that Booker doesn't have black people's interests in mind. I disagree with that. i am harry posted:What the gently caress is a member of r/politics doing posting here?! Hellblazer187 posted:If we'd gotten Nixoncare in the 1960s, we'd be at true UHC today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:loving To be fair lets use as a metaphor the Soviet counterattacks between 1941 and 1942. You'd think since many of them were diasterious that counterattacking was a mistake, but in reality the problem was implementation; the counterattacks largely worked to cripple the Wehrmacht's ability to take Moscow in a reasonable timeframe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I mean, he was pretty smart to found the Austin DSA chapter and campaign for Bernie as a cover. He's probably just a sincere socialist who's also kinda racist, which isn't exactly unusual. But he shouldn't be part of leadership.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think you're aware of it, I just don't think you want to admit how much the failure of the Democratic Party's messaging strategy played into it. this sort of post is precisely why i have no patience with you. "the failure of the demoratic party's messaging strategy" is a meaningless statement here. what part failed? well, you pick the part you want to change and just assert it was that part. well, was messaging really the key factor? you ignore that: you have basically defined messaging as the only factor, and defined it on a national level. your argument, boiled down, attacks the idea of democrats in red states trying to separate themselves from the national party. that's a stupid argument. democrats, to win control of the house and senate, need to win senate and house seats in places that would prefer a generic republican to a generic democrat. so the candidate needs to not be a generic democrat. that is not enough to win in "wave" elections which are pretty much defined by people not really caring about who the person is but who the party is. those candidates get into office by using the strategy you so oppose which is how they're there in the first place. now, how you apply all of this to 2018 is a hard question. but your answer is generally one of two things: (a) we can't do things exactly like we did in 2010/2014 (duh) and (b) i have identified the specific things we did wrong in 2010/2014 (but just asserting it, without giving any evidence or reasoning why the particular flaws you identified are the correct ones). i have no patience for simple solutions to hard problems, but that's all you're offering. i have even less patience with declarations the problems are not hard, they are simple, you're just not seeing it! Majorian posted:The problem with your logic here is, it's pretty easy to deduce whether or not the strategy was successful, because the Democratic base did not turn out for these candidates. Its intended outcome was to gin up more Democratic and centrist support for conservative Democratic candidates. It did not have the intended outcome. There's not much more that needs to be dissected, on that level: the strategy failed. ok you literally did a "i dont see anything here" again. this doesn't identify any problem with my logic. it just repeats your stupid argument without addressing anything i said. you are declaring that pulling your goalie makes you lose the hockey game, as you can see from (a) the team pulled its goalie and (b) they lost.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:loving its the part of the post you deleted, idiot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:its the part of the post you deleted, idiot. When NFL coaches get up like 21 points in a game and change their strategy to be all runs all the time to try and run out the clock it infuriates me. Why would you stop doing the things you were doing that got you up 21 points? Bunch of idiots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The problem with your logic here is, it's pretty easy to deduce whether or not the strategy was successful, because the Democratic base did not turn out for these candidates. Its intended outcome was to gin up more Democratic and centrist support for conservative Democratic candidates. It did not have the intended outcome. There's not much more that needs to be dissected, on that level: the strategy failed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:its the part of the post you deleted, idiot. Yea, basically you made a dumb hockey analogy to try to make a point about not changing strategies. You're literally just arguing against Majorian "Okay, this strategy didn't work, but that doesn't mean we should try a different strategy!" which just comes off as very very stupid and stubborn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Jethro posted:It doesn't matter whether the strategy was successful. It matters whether there was some other strategy that they should have used that would have been successful. The article you posted says that dislike for Obama was a major factor in D losses in 2010. The Ds that ran on a "check against Obama" platform knew that before the election, which is why they picked that platform. if you want to say that was the wrong strategy, then you must show that there was something else they should have done that would have worked (or at least would have failed less badly). I already did offer an alternative: don't run on the policies that aren't popular in your district, but don't run against the party platform or the president either. See, again, the Blanche Lincoln kids ad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Ah, so somehow, THAT issue that has intense pushback from a relatively small lobbying group and few dedicated detractors is toxic and should not be touched, but somehow, unions, which have generations of vocal hatred against it and so much more lobbying against it, that we just need to work to redeem. Because gun control only has downsides for the party but supporting labor has potential upsides.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
??? quote:NJ.com: Cory Booker's legacy in Newark under spotlight as he looks to Senate
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Dmitri-9 posted:Because gun control only has downsides for the party but supporting labor has potential upsides. This isn't actually true, there is a large constituency for gun control in urban areas, where gun crime is actually a serious, ongoing problem. Policy could work around gun control to reduce gun crime without actually regulating firearms, however, so taking on the extremely entrenched and awful gun lobbies is a mostly pointless endeavor as opposed to simply outmaneuvering them. Eventually though the gun issue has to be dealt with because a bunch of psychotic fascists own a lot of guns in America and won't take kindly to a progressive future. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I never said "let people go without healthcare"; if Obama and the Democratic leadership had put the screws to Lieberman and still been forced to compromise on the public option, that would have been one thing. I doubt Lieberman would have jumped ship because of that, and if he had, it would have been the end of his political career. But they couldn't even work up the spine to do that, as the Think Progress piece that I posted demonstrates. "work up a spine" is also one of those red flags that the post you are reading is very dumb this is not an issue of "spine" it is an issue of what negotiating strategy would have been effective. what you are arguing is that threats are effective. that's not a question of having a spine or not, that's if the threat is likely to advance your interests in the negotiation or not. we have had extremely vivid examples that no, they don't. the HFC was ordered to fall into line for the first house bill and sunk it. murkowski was threatened over her BRCA vote, and was a key vote in killing the "skinny repeal". making threats isn't having a spine and that is the sort of stupid trumpean world view that needs to get squashed, hard. the think progress article reflects a dispute in strategy, and that feingold strongly disagreed with the white house's strategy. it does not "demonstrate" that obama was wrong. it certainly does not demonstrate that stripping lieberman of his seniority or chairmanships (or threatening to do so) was likely to change his mind or produce any positive effects at all. it was much more likely to put his back up and make him kill the thing out of spite. sucking up to him didn't feel good. i'm sure obama and reid hated it. i'm also sure that it takes a lot more spine to do that in order to get the results you need than to be a big man threatening him when that's going to get you nowhere. of loving course he would have been willing to leave the democratic caucus in a pique over getting his chairmanship and seniority threatened. gently caress, he campaigned against obama probably out of spite over the 2006 primary. winning him over, at that point, was effectively winning over a republican senator. he wasn't a loyal democrat. he won as an independent with mostly republican support. also, he wasn't the only vote against the public option (i believe baucus was the other), he was the one who killed the 55+ medicare buyin. being a big man and threatening him would have felt good. so when you're telling me that they didn't, my inclination isn't "why don't they have a spine!!!!!". it's that they had the will to swallow their pride and do what had to get done. as an aside, lieberman's political career was killed. he didn't run again in 2012 because he would lose, hard. but nothing could have gotten rid of him before 2012.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:It's Nazi rhetoric, it's what they called people of mixed race origin, those who were in mixed race romantic relationships, those who supported them, those with mental or physical disabilities, LGBT people, etc. Not everyone who uses it is on the right but it's a pretty strong indicator.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yea, basically you made a dumb hockey analogy to try to make a point about not changing strategies. why is the analysis "teams that pull their goalie usually lose" a bad analysis of the risk/reward for pulling your goalie, and why do teams do it anyway. what important factor did i ignore in that analysis. this is not a hard question, and it's why i used a sports analogy to make it simpler. if you don't know how hockey works i can explain it but you should be able to figure this out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:why is the analysis "teams that pull their goalie usually lose" a bad analysis of the risk/reward for pulling your goalie, and why do teams do it anyway. what important factor did i ignore in that analysis. this is not a hard question, and it's why i used a sports analogy to make it simpler. if you don't know how hockey works i can explain it but you should be able to figure this out. Politics isn't hockey! I get what you're driving at here, "Let's not make a tactical error due to it being a popular tactical error to make" but you can't know if trying a new strategy is an error or not before we try it, and all you're doing is defending the old strategy! E: VVV you can't make a cute little analogy that works perfectly here, we're dealing with more complicated poo poo than "optimize a dice roll or a sports team's winning chances"
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:why is the analysis "teams that pull their goalie usually lose" a bad analysis of the risk/reward for pulling your goalie, and why do teams do it anyway. what important factor did i ignore in that analysis. this is not a hard question, and it's why i used a sports analogy to make it simpler. if you don't know how hockey works i can explain it but you should be able to figure this out. Rolling 2 six-sided die is probably a better analogy. With pulling the goalie you run in to all sorts of conditional probability stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Ok we need a bomb to drop to end this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Yes, I think Ted Kennedy said it was one of his biggest regrets. It should also be an object lesson in demanding far left purity at all times. If we'd gotten Nixoncare in the 1960s, we'd be at true UHC today. Really, there was no way to know at the time that the head of Ways and Means would be replaced by a guy who would block funding for a nationalized plan, or that the recession of the mid-70s would turn Ford against the bills as well. Carter and Kennedy butting heads pretty much killed our chances for universal coverage for good. Opportunities lost, and the perfect ever proving itself to be the mortal enemy of the good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Regarding the Cop in the DSA, I'm a bit confused--people have been referencing the "War on Cops" book thing, but I can't seem to tell if: 1) DSA Cop is the guy who wrote that book (Which would be terrible) 2) DSA Cop was some kind of speaker on the subject, taking the police's side of things (again, terrible) 3) The police union that DSA Cop belongs to invited the author of The War on Cops (who is *not* DSA Cop) to an event as a keynote speaker. Which, I mean, ideally the police wouldn't do, but doesn't necessarily reflect on DSA Cop's personal political views. Can anyone clarify?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Ague Proof posted:Not everyone who uses it is on the right but it's a pretty strong indicator. lol anybody using it in the contexts we're talking about claiming to be anything other than right-wing is deluding themselves. The Lord of Hats posted:Regarding the Cop in the DSA, I'm a bit confused--people have been referencing the "War on Cops" book thing, but I can't seem to tell if: 3) The union, CLEAT, regularly endorses Republican candidates and stood against bills that would've reduced police brutality in Texas. They also regularly and aggressively defend police accused of brutality. Edit: he's also not an actual police officer, he's a union organizer who worked for police unions, plural.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Politics isn't hockey! No, that's not the point. It's that, if you're in a situation where you're 95% sure to lose if you don't do anything, but only 90% sure to lose if you do X, then it's a good idea to do X. However, if you look at all the situations where you did X, you'd reach the conclusion that X fails 90% of the time, and therefore by your logic it would therefore be better to do not-X. Either you're being intentionally obtuse or are really, really loving stupid. It's as simple a sports analogy as it's possible to make.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:Regarding the Cop in the DSA, I'm a bit confused--people have been referencing the "War on Cops" book thing, but I can't seem to tell if: None of those things are true. The person was elected to national leadership of the DSA while omitting the fact that he works for an organization that does union representation work for cops. There is a DSA thread here - https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3808020
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Live on TV now: Even as Dementia Prez continues to tweet insane rants, the liberal media MSNBC continues to toe the line that the new Chief Of Staff will bring discipline.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:Politics isn't hockey!  
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2017 21:08
|
|
