|
Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
33 | 6.38% |
| No |
|
343 | 66.34% |
| Keith Ellison |
|
54 | 10.44% |
| Pete Buttigieg |
|
71 | 13.73% |
| Jehmu Green |
|
16 | 3.09% |
| Total: | 416 votes | ||
|
Fiction posted:No I don't have to hold your hand and explain what words mean. So when you said "professional class", you were not using Barbara Ehrenreich's definition, but one cooked up by the CSPAM brain trust?
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
Fiction posted:Do you admit that Hillary was uniquely unqualified to beat Trump compared to Bernie yet or are you following JC's logic that Bernies didn't vote for her hard enough so it's their fault? False dichotomy. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So when you said "professional class", you were not using Barbara Ehrenreich's definition, but one cooked up by the CSPAM brain trust? Nope. I meant people who can afford to pay off the student loans they needed to take to get a technical job that one can actually survive on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Nope. I meant people who can afford to pay off the student loans they needed to take to get a technical job that one can actually survive on. And these are the "upper class", the exploiters, the bourgeoisie. It's okay to admit you resent people who managed to graduate college. It'll help you heal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:And these are the "upper class", the exploiters, the bourgeoisie. It's okay to admit you resent people who managed to graduate college. It'll help you heal. I am one of those people so I don't deny my bourgness. However I want to work to abolish class, so I rightly criticize the Democrats for being the party of people with money who don't want to be seen as racist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Fiction posted:I am one of those people so I don't deny my bourgness. However I want to work to abolish class, so I rightly criticize the Democrats for being the party of people with money who don't want to be seen as racist. So social workers are the bourgeoisie but CEOs aren't. Uh huh. Real folksy socialism ya got here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Fiction, when I said your socialism was about the class conflict between the educated and the uneducated, I thought I was extending your line of thinking. It seems satire is obsolete, just like schools will be under Marxism-Leninism-Fictionism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
stone cold posted:(here's a hint fish, you don't want to be on the side of a man who calls people "illegals who need to wait in line") I didn't see him say that, but if he did, that's a lovely, ignorant thing to say, and he should apologize. e: That doesn't seem to be his position though: Crowsbeak posted:This, having known some Illegals, let me tell you alot come here because companies actively advertise in Central America for jobs here. Make the penalties for hiring illegals be punitive to the point where they do not hire illegals. Also I am perfectly fine with being against open borders. Its another thing to punish illegals when the reason they're here is mostly that companies knowingly illegally hire them. I do wish he'd not say "illegals," since it's pretty pejorative, but it doesn't sound like he thinks "illegals need to wait in line." Of course, it does need to be recognized that there IS no "line" for undocumented workers; thats why the sane AND humane position on the matter is to support a pathway to citizenship. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I think this data is pretty close to what you wanted. It certainly suggests the narrative I'm articulating isn't wildly off-base. Thanks for the data. I think my issue with your interpretation is that it could easily be argued that stuff like opposition to immigration and job-related racial resentment is tied to a feeling of economy insecurity (which also had a pretty strong correlation*). I.e. people who are suffering economically are more likely to seek out a scapegoat, and here comes Trump (and a bunch of other people) telling them it's because of the immigrants. While I would agree that it's wrong to say "racial resentment and opposition to immigration are definitely caused by economic insecurity" (since, as I think some post/article from early said, you still see this stuff a lot in countries with more robust social welfare systems), I feel that the most ardent "I really hate immigrants/minorities no matter what" people are generally consistent Republican voters. That is, most people who are unconditionally bigoted against (for example) Hispanic people reliably vote Republican. The fact that most racists will still be racist regardless of the economy does not necessarily mean that there isn't a politically significant subset of people who are more susceptible to such beliefs when facing economic insecurity. Of course, I also certainly can't prove that a greater focus on beneficial economic policies will pull back a bunch of former Obama voters. It's possible, but I haven't seen the data to support that it's necessarily the case. But the difference is that my motivation for leftist economic policy isn't "it will win elections" but rather "I think it is good and will help people (and isn't likely to have a big negative effect electorally)", so there isn't a need for me to make that proof. On the other hand, your opposition to such policies seems to revolve around an assertion that it either won't help or will actively hurt Democratic electoral prospects, so your argument relies more heavily on supporting this point. *Not to mention the fact that "is the economy worse now than a year ago" isn't necessarily a good proxy for general economic insecurity. Someone could easily think "I guess it's not worse, but it's still bad." I would have responded "it isn't worse than a year ago" to that question despite believing that the economy is still unacceptably bad. stone cold posted:Not only that, but doesn't this data show us that we should be appealing to the people who didn't bother to vote rather than these racists? I think this discussion started as a result of someone posting a link to some analysis (I think by Nate Cohn) suggesting Obama->Trump voters had a bigger impact than low Democratic turnout and is based on that assumption. I don't know enough to gauge how accurate the initial analysis was. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Actually my take on the economic migrants that have come here illegally is to make it to expensive to employ them, through very hefty fines on any buisiness that would employ them, along with part of the fine going to snitches. If no one would employ them then they would go home. When it comes to refugees I think America as a creator of most of the conflicts they are fleeing has a moral imperative to accept them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Actually my take on the economic migrants that have come here illegally is to make it to expensive to employ them, through very hefty fines on any buisiness that would employ them, along with part of the fine going to snitches. If no one would employ them then they would go home. When it comes to refugees I think America as a creator of most of the conflicts they are fleeing has a moral imperative to accept them. So you stand by the "they need to wait in line" schtick?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Thanks for the data. I think my issue with your interpretation is that it could easily be argued that stuff like opposition to immigration and job-related racial resentment is tied to a feeling of economy insecurity (which also had a pretty strong correlation*). I.e. people who are suffering economically are more likely to seek out a scapegoat, and here comes Trump (and a bunch of other people) telling them it's because of the immigrants. Exactly. And here's something that I think needs to be cleared up in this discussion: sure, there's plenty of racism and racial resentment in areas like the Rust Belt. I'm sure that on-average, most people in these demographics are less enlightened on issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc, than we are. I fully believe that racial resentment helped motivate them to vote for Trump. But the big area where I disagree with JeffersonClay's analysis is the assumption that racial resentment is such an overriding factor, that it will keep left-wing economic populism from bringing a significant portion of them back into the Democratic coalition. I understand not particularly LIKING people who voted for Trump, particularly those who voted for Obama not so long ago and then bizarrely defected to Trump last year. But whether or not you like them doesn't really matter; what matters is the fact that the Democrats need them, if they want to win the next presidential election, and make gains in Congress over the next few cycles. As Nate Cohn's piece revealed, reenergizing voters who stayed home, while important, isn't going to be enough to put the Democrats over the top. Fighting voter suppression of black people and other minorities is also vital (and morally perhaps the most important step that the Dems need to take), but the Dems are unlikely to succeed in this until they get elected in large numbers. No matter which way you slice it, the Democrats are going to have a much tougher time winning races in 2018 and 2020, if they don't bring a large portion of those Obama-to-Trump defectors back into the fold. quote:Of course, I also certainly can't prove that a greater focus on beneficial economic policies will pull back a bunch of former Obama voters. It's possible, but I haven't seen the data to support that it's necessarily the case. But the difference is that my motivation for leftist economic policy isn't "it will win elections" but rather "I think it is good and will help people (and isn't likely to have a big negative effect electorally)", so there isn't a need for me to make that proof Indeed, although it's good to have it as a response for when someone objects, "Well, it would be nice to do what's moral, but we need to win elections!" Right, but you're not going to win elections without appealing to those voters economically. e: Ytlaya posted:I think this discussion started as a result of someone posting a link to some analysis (I think by Nate Cohn) suggesting Obama->Trump voters had a bigger impact than low Democratic turnout and is based on that assumption. I don't know enough to gauge how accurate the initial analysis was. Yup.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So you stand by the "they need to wait in line" schtick? In the same sense that any American wanting to move to some country in Europe should to. Also being that most don't come here to stay. They won't be waiting in line as most people actually applying for residency do so to stay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Actually my take on the economic migrants that have come here illegally is to make it to expensive to employ them, through very hefty fines on any buisiness that would employ them, along with part of the fine going to snitches. If no one would employ them then they would go home. When it comes to refugees I think America as a creator of most of the conflicts they are fleeing has a moral imperative to accept them. The U.S. would need to make it easier for people to come into the country legally first, though, IMO. We can't tell people to wait in line legally when the current system is a dead-end for a lot of immigrants, and an insane slog for those who are lucky to get through.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The U.S. would need to make it easier for people to come into the country legally first, though, IMO. We can't tell people to wait in line legally when the current system is a dead-end for a lot of immigrants, and an insane slog for those who are lucky to get through. Completely agreed on this. America probably could increase the number to at least two million a year and see little problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
stone cold posted:like here I was thinking after i came back to thread there'd be some sort of actual discussion, but it's idiots like you and nazi crowsbeak cheerleading so it makes your genitals happy I have never defended crowsbeak and have no interest in doing so. my sole, single, solitary point is that effectronica is an extremely bad poster who derails every single thread he shows up in. i have never seen him make a good-faith, coherent argument. his entire contribution to the discussion is a perpetual, teenaged hissy fit of ad-homs and reducto ad absurdum that contributes less than nothing to the forums, and he should be ignored and/or ridiculed whenever possible. edit: a good example for contrast is jeffersonclay, who I don't agree with at all, but clearly tries to make substantive points and doesn't devolve into name-calling. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
stone cold posted:No, what you're advocating is to once again tell minorities to step aside in the name of the rising tide lifting all boats. Typical. Could you please give an example of a policy supported by the leftists in this thread that specifically targets poor whites and would ignore minorities? The vast majority, if not all, of the leftists in these threads are in favor of literally all the same policies you are with respect to trying to fight bigotry/discrimination. There's a minority of leftists who claim that racism is just a side effect of class issues, and those people are dumb, but I haven't seen them much in these threads. This isn't a sarcastic question. It's just that you and Brainiac Five clearly seem to think that the people who disagree with secretly want to throw minorities under the bus and I don't know where this idea is coming from. The closest thing I've encountered is leftists being against "identity politics", but that seems to be a minority position in these threads (with most people agreeing that we should keep the same focus on social issues while also improving our economic policy/message).
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I have never defended crowsbeak and have no interest in doing so. JC calls people idiots on the regular
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Could you please give an example of a policy supported by the leftists in this thread that specifically targets poor whites and would ignore minorities? The vast majority, if not all, of the leftists in these threads are in favor of literally all the same policies you are with respect to trying to fight bigotry/discrimination. There's a minority of leftists who claim that racism is just a side effect of class issues, and those people are dumb, but I haven't seen them much in these threads. Well, Ytlaya, as long as you're convinced that the people saying we need to focus on Obama->Trump voters and the people saying that a rising tide lifts all boats are irrelevant, no discussion on this subject is possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Condiv posted:JC calls people idiots on the regular Eh, he seems to do that mostly when the discussion gets tense. I don't seem him personally escalating things that often.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
It's comforting to know Bernie wing purges can be forestalled by just calling them morons, at which point they'll call you a toxic boring troll and run away crying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:It's comforting to know Bernie wing purges can be forestalled by just calling them morons, at which point they'll call you a toxic boring troll and run away crying. You need to get laid
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, Ytlaya, as long as you're convinced that the people saying we need to focus on Obama->Trump voters and the people saying that a rising tide lifts all boats are irrelevant, no discussion on this subject is possible. Criticism of "A rising tide lifts all boats" is meant to refer specifically to the idea that a net improvement doesn't necessarily mean there will be an improvement for everyone involved. It does not mean "if something causes a net improvement, it must by necessity throw people under the bus", which is what you seem to be implying. It is unequivocally true that improvements to social programs targeting the poor (like expanding access to medicaid, for example), will, in fact "lift all boats" so to speak (assuming you're just talking about poor people). Minorities will also greatly (if not disproportionately) benefit from those programs. The fact that such improvements are not themselves wholly sufficient to address bigotry and inequality does not change this. Regarding the Obama -> Trump voter stuff, I had assumed that whole discussion was related to that one linked analysis suggesting those voters were of more importance. I don't personally feel qualified to judge how accurate that analysis is. I err on the side of thinking that it's a better idea to focus on non-voters than Obama -> Trump voters, but I still think it's important to at least investigate why so many people switched sides. Dr. Fishopolis posted:edit: a good example for contrast is jeffersonclay, who I don't agree with at all, but clearly tries to make substantive points and doesn't devolve into name-calling. Yeah, the main reason I usually reply to him is because even though I generally disagree with his arguments/logic he at least puts forth an argument and attempts to substantiate it. That being said, part of the reason these arguments with Brainiac Five or stone cold bother me is that there isn't actually much of a difference in ideology here. I feel like they are assuming the absolute worst about anyone they've filed into a mental "people I disagree with" category*. No one on either side of this argument is really a threat when it comes to social issues. Your average baby boomer Republican or Democrat is considerably more racist than pretty much everyone posting in these threads. If you want to find the most racist Democrats, you're going to be looking for older Democrats, not younger Bernie Sanders supporters. Younger Democrats in general, regardless of whether they backed Sanders or Clinton, are significantly better on social issues than their older counterparts. Either one of these sub-groups gaining more political power would be a win in terms of social justice. I feel it's easy to get caught up in this distorted perception that the only Democratic viewpoints are those of the (mostly) younger people who post in internet communities like SA, when in reality they represent a minority of Democratic voters as a whole. *Some leftists also do this, but it bothers me more to see people representing the views of those with political power (within the Democratic Party, that is) strawmanning a relatively powerless political minority than it does to see said minority strawmanning those with more power/influence. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
It bothers me that there's this massive effort at apologetics for no discernible purpose. Someone says educated people are the bourgeoisie? They must be stupid, not malicious. No one could possibly be malicious, except Hillary voters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Eh, he seems to do that mostly when the discussion gets tense. I don't seem him personally escalating things that often.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
That's exactly why so many independent lefties have abandoned the party. They keep being demonized and ostracized by liberals and centrists. In reality, they're harmless and, though uncouth at times, should be welcomed with open arms. Now that things are settled. Can we talk about Trump firing shots at the Freedom Caucus? I think now is when Dems should push the populist policies which Trump was promising. We need to drive a wedge between the fiscal morons and the moderate (R)s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:That's exactly why so many independent lefties have abandoned the party. They keep being demonized and ostracized by liberals and centrists. In reality, they're harmless and, though uncouth at times, should be welcomed with open arms. I dunno, if you had asked me a week ago, I would have agreed. But Flynn asking for immunity in exchange for testimony has kind of sucked the air out of the room for the moment. Since the Dems are unlikely to succeed in getting a left-populist agenda passed into law right now, the objective should be to make a big show of trying to pass that agenda, and getting shut down by the greedy, sociopathic GOP legislators. It would probably be better to make their stand once this story quiets down temporarily, when they can maximize the attention they draw to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
quote:Bernie Sanders criticized Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign in Boston Friday night at a progressive rally alongside Sen. Elizabeth Warren, saying the Democratic nominee's loss revealed the need for the "fundamental restructuring of the Democratic Party."  bernie. dems reaching for sexism and xenophobia only enable trump while ignoring the real reasons for his ascendancy. the dem party has failed people, and has been failing people for a long time. we need dems running the party who don't have a boner for reagan, we need peeps with love for the new deal in their hearts
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
I'm not really convinced that Sanders' jobs plan would be sufficient. His proposal is.a $1t infrastructure plan. That's fine to inject some money into the economy, but I don't honk it's gonna be a long term solution to the hollowing out of middle class jobs over the decades. poo poo like free college, while Cool and Good, doesn't address the problem of college graduates not being able to find commensurate work
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
I agree with Bernie, but I don't think the Democrats were exactly “reaching” for sexism and xenophobia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I'm not really convinced that Sanders' jobs plan would be sufficient. His proposal is.a $1t infrastructure plan. That's fine to inject some money into the economy, but I don't honk it's gonna be a long term solution to the hollowing out of middle class jobs over the decades. nah, the stuff bernie's mentioned is a starting point, not a total solution. that's what maes the resistance against bernie so odious, it makes it clear dems have not been serious about taking the first steps towards rebuilding the middle class
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
fsif posted:I agree with Bernie, but I don't think the Democrats were exactly “reaching” for sexism and xenophobia. there's a ton who are reaching for those things as an excuse for their terrible campaigns and tone-deaf policies not reaching people remember the old stereotype of limousine liberals? our party has become filled with them, and they blame racism and sexism for people recoiling at their policies
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
I wrote an article on Medium, and while it is kind of technical, I think it is relevant to this thread: https://medium.com/@mnharris/political-polarization-and-electoral-landslides-be41aa166389 What the article does is look at political polarization by looking at how many states were won by landslides, defined as over 60% of the vote. For most of the post World War II era, a candidate could only win states by landslides if they won the country by a landslide. Since 2000 or 2004, that has changed with Republican and Democratic candidates winning some states in landslides, even when they had small percentages in the popular vote. Why is this relevant to this thread? If we look at post-World War II elections, most candidates and parties tried to appeal to the general population. One of the ideas was that the electorate, from Oklahoma to Rhode Island, had generally similar values, and that they selected the candidate who seemed best able to implement "general American values". That is why you could have an election like 1976, where Carter and Ford had a 50-48% election, and most US states had pretty similar numbers. A situation like 2016, where Hillary Clinton got 48% of the vote but managed to get win California with 61% of the vote, is pretty divergent from what is normal in Post-World War II politics. This is about geographical areas, and not demographic groups, but if the question is whether the Democratic Party is, in historical terms, turning away from their base, the answer would seem to be the opposite: the Democratic Party is currently very much appealing to a few base regions and demographics, and then hoping that it can slide in under the wire for undecided voters in a few areas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Condiv posted:nah, the stuff bernie's mentioned is a starting point, not a total solution. that's what maes the resistance against bernie so odious, it makes it clear dems have not been serious about taking the first steps towards rebuilding the middle class The stuff Bernie's talking about is Keynesian welfare liberalism which is itself a failing ideology. Kinder, gentler capitalism isn't really worth fighting for
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Condiv posted:there's a ton who are reaching for those things as an excuse for their terrible campaigns and tone-deaf policies not reaching people I think you can acknowledge the role racism played in the rise of Trumpism and still believe that the Democratic party has lost its way. It's frustrating that when any factor other than the Democratic party's incompetence is discussed it gets dismissed as an “excuse”.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
fsif posted:I think you can acknowledge the role racism played in the rise of Trumpism and still believe that the Democratic party has lost its way. It's frustrating that when any factor other than the Democratic party's incompetence is discussed it gets dismissed as an “excuse”. acknowledging is fine, but there's a ton of hillary die-hards still going "racism is why hillary lost" or "sexism is why hillary lost". those are excuses. hillary lost because her campaign was really badly run and she was one of the most substanceless candidates in history
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The stuff Bernie's talking about is Keynesian welfare liberalism which is itself a failing ideology. Kinder, gentler capitalism isn't really worth fighting for i think it'll be easier to push people towards that first instead of just going straight to 100 full communism now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i think it'll be easier to push people towards that first instead of just going straight to 100 full communism now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I wrote an article on Medium, and while it is kind of technical, I think it is relevant to this thread: Or else base has been redefined from appealing to people based on their economic needs, to their cultural wants.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
fsif posted:I think you can acknowledge the role racism played in the rise of Trumpism and still believe that the Democratic party has lost its way. It's frustrating that when any factor other than the Democratic party's incompetence is discussed it gets dismissed as an “excuse”. Bernie's never going to be the leader of the democrats saying dumb poo poo like Trump supporters weren't racists.  He's been to where the trump voters are. He's looked deeply into their souls and knows they have no racial animus, just a deep desire for Medicare. Same blind spot as the primary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 19:29
|
|