|
I've been thinking about the ramifications of this election for the future of the left half of the left-liberal coalition, and it seems to me this greatly enhances the standing of the Jacobin/neo-socialist/Brocialist wing of it. The elite white feminist and LGBT activist wing on the other hand is facing a catastrophe so big it's hard to think about. They completely bet the farm on the success of the Democratic establishment and got in bed with it. The Lena Dunhams of the world are going to take the biggest brunt of the impact from Trump's admin in terms of both political and cultural influence and also in actual real world oppression, even more than racial minorities I think. You'll likely see gay marriage repealed, openly discriminatory legislation against trans people, a de facto ban on abortion in red states (which is most states now). Buy shares in Jacobin I guess
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
Squashing Machine posted:Because it's just good common sense? I find it funny that a common party stance of full gun control is thrown under the paranoia bus the moment we feel threatened. It's almost like it wasn't really a value at all! It's basically a luxury item for liberalism, given it'd be enormously hard to implement (remember you'd need to buyback guns and actively remove them from circulation) and enrages the Republican base like the red flag in bullfighting. It was loving stupid for Dems to try for it instead of shoring up their support on more core issues
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Uh, I don't think so, the people invested into the current strategy are still coming out of colleges and are going to prop up the current direction for at least a couple of years, while there is a slow, but steady push back against them. As for real world oppression, the Lena Dunhams are Trump's buddies in all matters but politics. I dunno, I think the political climate can change dramatically pretty quickly. Certainly government policy will, believe Trump when he says he's going to do all that poo poo in the first 100 days. The near-instantaneous radicalization of the political climate in the last 4-6 years is evidence of that
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Sharkopath posted:And then what happens when those progressive economics policies end up materializing nothing for minorities, the same way the unions abandoned us? The unions didn't abandon minorities, they first were purged of radical activists in the early 50s and then shriveled up and died in the late 70s
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Man I am glad the American legislation process is so slow and convoluted. Just looking at those possible staff picks and you'd think we'd have creationism in schools, gay conversion therapy and nation-wide oil drilling inside of a month to say nothing of carding brown people to make sure they're citizens. it's not convoluted at all, literally the only thing standing between you and the things you describe was Obama's veto. on January 20 all that stuff will become law in very short order
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Shadokin posted:Over 1 million less Republican votes the 2012. Little over 5000 less then 2008. Democrats over 9 million votes since 2008. HRC was a terrible loving candidate and liberals convinced themselves she wasn't and then spent 16 months screaming at and shouting down anyone who pointed this out if you want to blame someone blame the party elites who decided January 20 2013 Hillary would be the nominee and then pressured everyone else out of the race except for the millenial pied piper from brooklyn icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Oh I agree, but frankly? I think the answer is simple rank misogyny, and so do 9/10s of the women I know personally. People suddenly found that concerns about corruption and collusion were of the utmost loving importance when it was Clinton on the ballot, whereas anyone else can be far worse and have it overlooked. you and your friends are idiots
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
chumbler posted:Yes, nonviters bear no responsibility at all. Clearly it is the party's fault. The purpose of political parties' existence that you'll learn in a poli sci 101 class is to win elections. The party, not the voters, is the entity with agency in a political science sense, it's the party's responsibility to win elections, not the voters'. You should be furious at the Democratic Party and HRC for losing, being mad at Bernie Bros is nonsense
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Well, they could have spent 16 months sabotaging her campaign, would that have made you like them better? No, you would have despised them just the same. Once again, HRC was a genuinely terrible candidate with huge problems in an absolute sense, even with Trump's being much wrose. The near-pathological inability to admit this on the part of her supporters and surrogates is IMO the biggest reason Trump is now president. They could have nominated someone who could win, but they didn't
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
The Ninth Layer posted:How many people do you think you personally convinced not to vote? Noone, everyone on this dead gay forum's mind is made up
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
If it's true that Bern people voted at the same rate as HRC people, do you think the people current blaming the left will walk back their statements or reflect in any way on the consequences of that behavior on enthusiasm? Laffo of course not, but just saying
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Honestly, they weren't given a lot of options. Only Bernie, and he had some negatives too. You can't blame people for not voting Warren when she didn't run. The people with power in the party decided Hillary would be the nominee and pressured everyone out of the race except Bernie
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
The Ninth Layer posted:I am pretty confident I convinced a few people I know to show up and vote. I don't think I can say that about everyone who spent the election doing anything and everything they could to make people feel bad for voting Clinton. In fact I'll bet a lot of that kind of rhetoric committed to people staying home. For the record, I do actually think a lot of the left wing criticism of HRC was a little excessive. But the reverse, the furious hippie punching and smearing of the left had an equally large negative impact, in my opinion actually a greater one, all on top of HRC and her people's own enormous failure
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Maybe leftists could develop some organizations and power structures of their own. Wouldn't it be cool if you had national leaders who were left of the Democratic Party center driving organizing at the state and local level? I'm not even making a critique from the left. I'm making a critique from "wants a president who's not a Nazi" Third parties will never by definition be competitive in a FPTP race for the presidency anyways. The Democratic Party failed to choose a nominee who could beat a C list gimmick celebrity endorsed by the KKK, they have to take a large share of the blame
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
I know what will re-energize the Millenials for the Dems: blame the left
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
jesus christ if people's response to this disaster is 'Hillary did nothing wrong' i don't even
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:i would prefer if we didnt put people like Connor Kilpatrick in charge of determining the new direction of the left, considering his greatest contribution to the discourse following Trumps victory was to go around mocking black people on twitter for suggesting that race played a powerful role in getting Trump elected. hes just really loving terrible in every way. instead we're going to get people who insisted the only reason possible to dislike Hillary was sexism
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
cheese posted:Where is the pissing on allied constituencies? (white dude) jacobin writer connor kilpatrick got in a bit pissing match with (black dude) jamelle bouie of slate. i'm not exactly sure of the details but kilpatrick wrote a big piece in jacobin about how dems have to give a poo poo about the white working class and that's what triggered it. both sides at fault IMO but the white brocialist look is not a good one IMO even if it's just a look icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:Kilpatricks comportment on social media in general involves a lot of shouting down minority voices for talking about the racial elements of the Trump campaign. ive also noticed a troubling willingness on the part of writers for outlets like Jacobin to accept conservative frameworks, such as the coasts being elitist and out of touch with no mention or consideration of urban working class, apparently because those frameworks make it easier to slag off establishment liberalism. Kirkpatrick's whining about Bouie on twitter was dumb but I wouldn't call it shouting him down? As for coastal elites, they're obviously talking about people like the Clintons and other generally white people. I agree Jacobin is a little white dude ish but that's a ridiculous argument to say they're stealth conservatives or racists for complaining about elite white liberals
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
greatn posted:Edward Snowden is a moral and political coward who is only in his current position because of his own arrogance and stupidity. He's a willing tool of Russian hegemony and Putin legitimization, rather than facing justice for irreparable harm to US Intelligence. gently caress the US intelligence community Snowden is the good guy, it's Assange who's the shithead. Going to Russia is hypocritical but it's better than life in a horrible prison if he'd stayed here
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
The real problem with the Dem party is that the state-level parties in swing states are absolutely pathetic disasters. That's a self-reinforcing cycle too, because the longer they're out of government the less accumulated experience they have in governing. Dems absolutely need to rebuild competitive parties in places like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Florida
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:im not saying that theyre any of those things, im saying theyre incredibly glib about the realities facing the left in this country, and disturbingly willing to cadge onto very ugly frameworks if it furthers their ability to be sanctimonious. it makes me extremely skeptical about the viability of a labor-left coalition if the thought drivers of that movement are more interested in getting to run a victory lap around their imagined enemies than in actually, yknow, coalescing. i dunno, "Won't Somebody Think of White Centrist Liberals???????" doesn't really seem to me in any way worthwhile to complain about. toleration of white working class racism is a very real danger with the chapo left but a party run by wealthy white liberal elites just got loving destroyed, so warning about the danger of moving away from them seems  as for flippancy and infighting, it's 3 days after the election. people have been pretty conciliatory and humbled in circular firing squad terms compared to what I had expected if Clinton lost. give it some time icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:im not talking about the centrist white liberals, im talking about the minority constituencies that get erased when you boil things down to "only lovely effete establishment people from Beverly Hills vote for Clinton" I think it's entirely possible to harshly criticize white centrist libs while also affording due respect to minority opinions. I think Chapo and Jacobin probably don't in practice, but criticizing white centrist liberals isn't per se incompatible with respecting minority coalition partners. That's a pretty lovely comment on that Chapo guest guy's part, but that's not really what people like Kilpatrick are doing
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:its undoubtedly not incompatible. my complaint is that the radical left falls prey to the same impulses that they accuse the center left of. and to be honest it rankles me more when a radical does things like make sniffy dismissive statements that completely ignore the existence of the working class in my state, than when some lanyard at the Aspen Ideas Festival does the same for the Rust Belt working class. because we should know better than that. Fair enough
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Unfortunately it seems Dems actually have to get white people from flyover country who aren't Fully Woke critical theory majors to vote for them if they don't want this poo poo to keep happeningLightning Knight posted:The Clinton Foundation did receive money from a Saudi prince, yes, and yet Hillary didn't run on a platform that was any more pro-Saudi interests than any other American politician and was still running on a platform that was pro-women's and LGBT rights. The conceptual leap required to establish quid pro quo is baseless because there's no proof it made a difference in her actions. taking money from gulf oil barons looks loving awful, even if there is no smoking gun. why are people still defending Hillary on this poo poo?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I don't give a gently caress about optics that's why Donald Trump is president, FYI liberals thought they could just retreat into their bubble and not do the whole 'politics' thing and win anyways, i guess?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Hurr de durr durr, I didn't vote for Hillary in the primary, rear end in a top hat. The fact that right wingers can run efficient smear campaigns and baseless accusations and get away with it consistently - Kerry got this poo poo too remember - should immensely concern progressives because it's not like we're going to be immune to it either. They weren't baseless accusations though. Hillary really did take millions of dollars from various dictators around the world to her personal foundation. She actively created the basis for them. Maybe in a perfect world it shouldn't matter, but in this world, it does matter, and saying "gently caress the world I don't have to care" means Donald Trump becomes president. Sorry
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Every single person on earth including Trump and Conway thought Trump was losing up until he didn't on tuesday. Nobody but the wackjobs who were totally in the tank saw this coming. Clintons campaign was excellent, but she was running against a dude who managed to ignite racist sexist populist fire and rallied disinfranchised white working class people like so many populists before. That's a very hard thing to counter. There's definitely a precedent for it, but we haven't seen something like that happen in decades. When you're running against a dangerous quasi-authoritarian you really cannot responsibly allow any missteps at all, and the blase attitude towards Hillary's faults was the opposite of that
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:Lena Dunham and her boyfriend were literally weeping in the streets when Hillary lost. https://twitter.com/bradanders79/status/797613013096419329
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:That's also with RBG on the court, and she's an 83 year old survivor of multiple cancers. How long do you think she'll be holding on? 87? 91? Frankly control of the SC isn't all that important if you can actually secure control of Congress. It only really matters as a last resort against a unified conservative congress+president(uh oh) and as a tiebreaker in a divided congress+president. If Dems can win in 18 and 20 they should be fine And lol RBG will be on that bench until she drops dead
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Spacebump posted:The working man isn't just white. Remember when Hillary's aides mocked BLM for being looney radicals? Her platform would be nominally pro-police reform at best
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:I dunno man look at her resume, that claim isn't some opinion. Being qualified and experienced fit the office isn't really related to a loss caused by the reasons I outlined above. The entire pundit and polling class had it wrong as well and going by traditional metrics of campaign efficacy she had no feedback telling her to course correct. The thing is that Hillary was so close to winning, that fixing any one of the issues with her candidacy would have won it for her, and ultimately I think she herself has the foremost responsibility
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Yeah, can't say I'm surprised it took less than a week to go back to calling everyone racist and refusing to discuss anything else. It's one thing to call Trump's voters racist, it's another entirely to call people within the left-liberal coalition racist FWIW I'm under no illusions that Trump's popularity with the WWC was based in racism, but the problem is you absolutely need those people to vote for Democrats in order to prevent Rs from burning the country to the ground, and an economic appeal seems to me the best option you have at attracting them
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, this logic implies that the proximate cause for her losing was Comey and his hatchet job. Yeah I think that's true. If Hillary hadn't spent the year before the primary taking donations from Qatar though she probably still would have won even with Comey
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Bullshit. Find me one vote that was switched by that that wouldn't have been lost to the Vague Miasma of Clinton Scandal anyway. If Hillary was indeed permanently tainted with Clinton Scandal she should never have been nominated
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
the problem wasn't lack of radicalism so much as elite white liberals retreating into a hugbox echo chamber full of Hamilton and Westworld references and refusing to do actual politics because it's impure and they shouldn't have to
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Maarek posted:This. She spent more on correct the record trolls than latino outreach, spent more money in Nebraska than Michigan, never visited Wisconsin, etc. For as much as people like to complain about the left and purity politics I would almost describe what happened as a purity politics of the moderate center, of the Democratic Party refusing to do those things that could have earned it votes because it thought it shouldn't have to do anything except deliver smug, moralizing lectures on the superiority of the center
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
fknlo posted:New Eichenwald article. I think it's pretty good so far. https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/798251823282999296 mcmagic posted:This is directly from the Clinton campaign losers to try to make their failure look better. It's disgusting. https://twitter.com/inthedollarbin/status/798253850125799424 paranoid randroid posted:tbh i think that oppo dump on Sanders is about as overhyped as Clintons oppo file on Trump. this is the correct answer
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:According to what I've been reading people who lose elections are the only person responsible for their loss. Wrap it up Bernailures, he failed the primary and cost us everything. i agree. bernie losing the primary was his fault mostly. but losing that primary did not have anywhere near the catastrophic direct consequences as losing the general the people you should really be blaming are the DNC and Clinton camp grifters who pushed everyone but Clinton out of the race because of the smorgasbord of spoils and favors they stood to collect on if/when Clinton won
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:Eichenwald is such a loving freak, holy hell. i'm the lewandowski style uncontrollable urge to punch out random people who've criticized your boss
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 18:45
|
|