|
What the heck was Hillary thinking even making those speeches in 2013 and 2014 when she knew she was going to run for president? A lot of the content in the excerpts is a lot of the same old wishy-washy substance-less crap from her stump speeches, but what a loving blunder to think speaking to them could possibly play well in terms of public perception. She would have literally been better off playing World of Warcraft during those years.
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
zegermans posted:It fits because it conjures up the image of a slobbering creature with dog-level understanding and loyalty. Did you seriously just post this without the slightest bit of ironic self-awareness?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I haven't even concluded it was a disadvantage. Yes, I'm sure her campaigning on the message of "America is already great" resonated extraordinarily well with rust belt voters who feel existentially hosed by the system.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Take Hillary's economic policies and message them better. So in other words, act more like Joe Biden?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Who's the alternative Im making GBS threads on? If 500 pages haven't convinced me hillary's problem was neoliberalism maybe it's because neoliberalism wasn't the problem? So you've pretty much ignored the fact that the only parts of Trump's debate performances that had any sort of resonance in the mainstream media and elsewhere were when he slammed Hillary's wishy-washy statements on NAFTA and TPP? Of course, there are many reasons why Hillary lost, both internal and external. But the fact that you not only think there is ZERO correlation between Hillary's neoliberalism and her loss in rust belt states, but that her stances actually HELPED her in these places that she absolutely needed to win, is loving insane. Do you believe that anything Hillary did contributed to her loss, or do you maintain it is all the fault of phishing and Comet?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Free trade isn't any more a core component of neoliberalism than gutting regulations or lowering taxes, sorry. Repeating yourself ad nauseum does not make it so. Are you kidding me? Free trade is the most classical tenant of economic liberalism, neoliberalism included. You can't brush free trade aside because those others policies are also generally favored by neoliberals, when it is THE issue that connects it to older state economic liberalism.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Actually barely any of it. This is pretty interesting, but is there a more recent article showing how this trend developed once the General Election kicked into high gear?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Obama's and Clinton's years in government saw higher spending on social services as a % of GDP than LBJ's. They were pretty far from being austerity hawks, too. And yet they are the face of the neoliberal menace. Guess who pushed for and signed the loving laws that led to those social services? You're trying to equivocate LBJ with Obama and Clinton, but for gently caress's sake the latter two were just administering the laws that the former enacted. What's so hard for you to understand that it's about the degree of Hillary's embrace of neoliberalism that people in this thread are disgusted about? The fact that other leaders had some general policies in common does NOT make them the same!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:LBJ was good for passing the great society laws meaning the federal government spent more money on the poor. Clinton and Obama were good for spending even more money on the poor than LBJ did. None of them are bad, and "neoliberalism" is a nonsense narrative that disintigrates under the slightest scrutiny. You seriously don't think the domestic priorities of the Democratic party have changed since 1968?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't pretend to be able to do intertemporal telepathy so I just look at policy, actions, and other measurable outcomes. Then your analysis of such actions and outcomes is pretty bad if you can't detect any meaningful difference between the 1960s Democratic party and the party today.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Democrats after Reagan were and are willing to spend more money on social services than LBJ ever did. You do realize that absent a repeal of the laws enabling those programs, that spending is NOT discretionary?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you want to make the argument that Bush 2 only agreed to high levels of social services funding because the democrats made him do it, fine. But that sounds pretty bad for the neoliberalism narrative. Characterizing that non discretionary spending as Bush's tacit approval of them is disingenuous at best, as touching medicare and social security payout levels is called the third rail of American politics for a reason...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Assuming your insane arguments are correct, what does it then say about Barack Obama that he was willing to cut social security spending as part of a grand bargain but then Ted Cruz hosed it up? Or Bill Clinton and PRWORA for that matter. Also, Cruz wasn't in the Senate yet, it was tea party house members who threw a fit over token tax increases, but your point still stands.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Sounds like he avoided doing the very bad thing that LBJ did. Weren't you the one cautioning people about extrapolating about intent if we don't have intertemporal telepathy? And my point still stands, if you think that social service spending levels always and without fail evinces some sort of intent to preserve and expand the underlying programs rather than demonstrating adherence to political reality, then your analysis sucks and you should be ashamed of yourself. Paul Ryan and the house GOP have signed off on countless continuing resolutions to fund the government at current social service levels, do they deserve credit for that too even though they will destroy those programs at their first opportunity? Does it make them as leftist as LBJ until they commit the act of gutting those programs?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:LBJ cuts benefits after democrats badly lose an election -- not his fault. Compare the opening negotiating positions of Clinton and Obama (with the grand bargain) to LBJ's. Clinton laid out his agreement to welfare cuts right from the getgo in his 1996 state of the union speech. And Obama was even willing to sign off on a grand bargain that didn't even include any tax increases until house Democrats threw a fit and only then were a few token increases were thrown in! MooselanderII fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes, I don't think there's a good way to disentangle a politician's true intentions from the necessities of political reality. Well that's great, but what does it say about Paul Ryan and the house GOP that they have signed off on continuing resolutions maintaining social service levels?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Yeah, the bottom line here is that JeffersonClay can't accept that some of the blame for Hillary's defeat rests with Hillary herself and the Democratic establishment she helped cultivate. Why is that so controversial?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Let's not forget that a whole bunch of shitlords were too embarrassed to say they supported Trump and that gave out massive false signals. Combined with hundreds of endorsements from previously conservative people and newspapers, former Republican officials in the military, government and business, and past precedent, decisions were made that were wrong and harmful to the overall campaign but not illogical or based on *magic*. That doesn't excuse the sheer hubris demonstrated by the campaign in ignoring certain states and ignoring parts of other critical states. There is a real disconnect in the campaign's strategy to run up the score across the country while at the same time neglecting the more rural areas of Pennsylvania. It also doesn't excuse how after the DNC, the campaign never really sold Hillary to the country at large. I thought some of the segment's presenting Hillary's work in the 70s and 80s as a champion of good were effective in defining who she was under the veneer of 30 years of smears. However, the campaign's overarching message focused instead on Trump. Having seen the details of how it all played out, Colin Powell, who knows Hillary and her people better than anyone in this thread, was right in saying that she destroys everything she touches with her hubris.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:It does excuse it because every visible sign except "donald trump is campaigning here more frequently" showed that those states should have been reasonably safe (and as my next paragraph highlights, they were still very close). What you're basically saying is that it was okay to take those regions for granted and not do the hard work to make sure they actually voted that way. Obama never did this and even pointed out that he carried Iowa by visiting every VFA and town fair he could, something that Hillary's campaign did not do. In areas where the Obama team worked hard to get out the vote in advance of and on election day, such as African american parts of Florida, Hillary's campaign neglected. Hillary won the popular vote, sure, but the way she got there, by diverting attention to solid blue urban areas, contributed to her loss. Would that popular vote total look as pretty if the campaign didn't invest in that entirely aesthetic effort? Ultimately, winning the popular vote by the whole number she did does not equate her campaign to Obama's, where she loses Florida, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Maine's second district, all places Obama carried twice because he worked his rear end off. Also, compare her 100,000 rust belt loss margin to Gore's Florida margin. You can't pretend the hollow popular vote number obviates the fact that this is the worst electoral vote loss for a Democrat since 1988. The electoral vote result, in spite of the popular vote, indicates that the campaign hosed up big in areas that have been blue since then, due in part to the fact that Hillary's ground game, as well as the overall narrative she constructed for herself, were garbage. Also, this isn't really hindsight because the extent of the campaign's gross neglect only became aggregated and reported after it happened! I think we all should have been a bit weary about this going into election day, especially in light of Elcee Hastings's late October statement about Hillary's neglect of african american communities in October. Slamming this and the campaign's abysmal ground game in Michigan, which both defied the campaign orthodoxy recently successfully used by Obama, is just calling it for what it is: bad campaigning. Lastly, for what it is worth, I don't think anyone can ever know if Bernie would have won the GE because had he faced Trump, the resulting campaign would have been very different, perhaps trading Hillary's rust belt problems for problems elsewhere. However, the fact that he lost the Democratic primary isn't necessarily indicative of his performance of the more open electorate of the general election.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
How do we explain the Obama voters who voted for Trump? Hillary's campaign never had a coherent and simple message other than that she was better than the alternative. Contrast this with both of Obama's campaigns, where a discussion of economic fairness penetrated into the general public consciousness. She seemed hesitant to articulate any simple domestic policy, which was compounded in an election where the opposition was essentially promising to pave the street with gold. Would it really have hurt to throw out a big juicy bone to the working class and on labor issues generally? This underscores a general problem among centrist Democrats who are often unwilling and unable to articulate any sort of publicly coherent economic message. For god's sake, even JeffersonClay is unwilling to do so in this very thread when pushed!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Schlobdb is arguing that the FDA regulations for new drugs are too onerous and that's why drugs are too expensive. Okay, you must be trolling now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Even Neera Tanden acknowledges that Hillary has terrible judgment, something XylrocShammypants and JC, people who don't even know her, can't even accept.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No it was the Democratic Party that got ratfucked. Putin watergated us and then released the poo poo that would create divisions in the party. And you fell for it. And now you are trying to pretend it didn't happen. From someone who complains constantly that democrats refuse to learn from our mistakes in the election, that's pretty absurd. So Hillary didn't contribute at all to her defeat?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Neera tanden also acknowledges putin ratfucked the dems because she's not a moron. Well then what the gently caress? You seem to be pinning her loss solely on butt hurt Bernouts who got duped by Putin in your most recent posts.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There was a conspiracy to rob Clinton of the presidency and you fell for it. Indeed you continue to support that conspiracy by denying it existed. Yes, I fell for it by voting for Hillary and by pointing out that Hillary's problems of her own making contributed to her loss.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:I'd still hate Clinton even without the Podesta leaks so I was hardly tricked. Oh I can predict JC's response to each of the sentences in your second paragraph. 1. Show me data that the trade policies affected the election. 2. *ignores* 3. Actually LBJ cut social spending too and Bill Clinton's federal government spent more on social services. 4. The democrats of the past 30 years are no different than LBJ and FDR because they cut taxes and spending. 5. Dumb lefties being choosey cost those!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So when you said people were desperate for someone to intervene on their behalf against the market, you just meant on trade, and were ignoring all the areas where Trump promised to destroy the government interventions in the market like corporate taxes, environmental and labor protections, and public infrastructure. You don't get to ignore the trump policies that contradict your narrative. This is how voters responded to Trump though, they accepted the parts they liked and labeled anything they didn't like as just posturing. What is your point?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Given the choice between an obvious conman and someone who was openly contemptuous of them, rust belters opted to stay home. Or fell for the con.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Trump didn't have significant gains over Romney. Same people that always vote R turned out. Some people did fall for the con, that's what a conman does. Can't be too surprised by that. But from an institutional level, R-voters turned out at the level they always do while D-voters opted to stay home. Either way, the result is the same. Hillary's shittiness led to some crossing over and some leaving the freaking presidential ballot part blank.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:We don't actually know that yet. We'll get turnout by party ID numbers in March IIRC. But turnout wasn't down vs 2012, even accounting for population growth. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that Trump's empty promise to bring jobs back resonated with people, notwithstanding his other objectively lovely policies?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't have any trouble understanding that argument. I have trouble understanding the assertion that people heard "trade barriers" and not the standard cut taxes and regulations pro business poo poo the republicans always run on. Or the kick out immigrants who are driving down your wages bullshit that was central to trump's campaign. You need more than bare assertion to make that case. Did you not see Trump mention NAFTA and "very very bad trade deals" in the same sentence where he promised to bring back jobs? People of course heard this, Trump made it a big issue of his campaign!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Of course he did. He also said a lot of standard republican bullshit about government taxes and regulations stifling Trade isn't the only thing that mattered in the election, many different roads led to this outcome. However, I'm not sure why you find it implausible, absent solid proof (which you'll never get in a social science as soft as this), that voters in the rust belt were swayed by Trump's rhetoric and Hillary's past positions on this issue.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Out if curiosity JC, what is the strategy you think the Democrats should follow in order to not get destroyed in 2018 and 2020?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Resist trump at every opportunity and ride the backlash into office. So you don't think the Democrats should adopt more coherent and impactful social programs, even if only to stave off the "back-biting left"?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
You've spent the past few pages bitching about back stabbing leftists and have been prone to blaming the election loss on them altogether. Why the gently caress are you so resistant to throwing them a bone so that they don't "back stab you" as you see it? How is that not necessary?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I said they were too dumb to realize they were being ratfucked and fell for it. Throwing them a bone won't make them any smarter-- indeed it will teach them they need only gently caress up a presidential election to get what they want. I wasn't making the argument that they lost the election on purpose because the 2016 platform wasn't leftist enough. Is that the case you're making? Your characterization of what I was saying is weird. How about this:What harm does throwing them a bone cause? Doesn't it strengthen the party's message and broad appeal?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
I love how JeffersonClay's doesn't even go as far as saying that leftists back stabbed Hillary by not voting for her, but for whining too much about the content of the DNC and Podesta emails. What an out of touch idiot.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:The main issue with people whining about the DNC in this thread is they drastically overstate the strength of the left and they bitterly hide their head in the sand over how moderate American politics is and how the center wins elections. People in this thread were also blaming the left for whining too much and that this tipped the balance. I get that you like to argue in bad faith, how about this one: the last two successful democratic presidents both campaigned as populist candidates with wide appeal to both white and blue collar workers (even if they didn't govern that way), while Hillary and Hillary schills ignored the latter and said their votes don't matter anyways. You can successfully campaign on both as Bill and Obama showed us, which makes the Hillary campaign's handling of this message all the more unforgivable.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 18:56
|
|