|
skooma512 posted:Stuff like that ultimately drives people towards guys like Trump. You can't just namecall and bully people all the time and expect them to suddenly want to take your side on anything. If he's so beatable, why hasn't he been beaten? Sure is a real lucky coincidence for him that he only went up against terrible awful candidates who couldn't win against anyone! After all, I'm sure he certainly would have lost to the candidate who lost to a terrible awful candidate who couldn't win against anyone. There's no way a professional con artist and fraudster could possibly be a decent political campaigner, especially when he's also a celebrity with reality show experience!
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
Space Jam marathon posted:I'd say there's a pretty good chance John Oliver or similar journalist does a piece on it. Wouldn't help. Trump whined about the GOP primaries being rigged against him too, at least until he won. Voters are simply significantly less likely to feel that an election was fair and unbiased if their candidate lost. People will complain no matter what the DNC does.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:To add to that someone said that the GOP might nuke the fillibuster to deny Democrats the opportunity to influence the senate but have there been any moves to actually do that It's practically guaranteed. A lot of the things Republicans did over the past decade are things that Congress could have done at any time, but generally refrained from doing because it was against ~tradition~ and doing it would give the other side an excuse to do the same thing back. Now that they've retaken control, the first issue on their slate is to prevent the Dems from using the exact same tactics against them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
MrSargent posted:Is there a reason why people literally using racial slurs is being glossed over in D&D now? It's been reported, he'll be banned fairly soon
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:After the hullaballoo subsides a bit, I'll probably reactivate my FB account. And those same folks will be there; the ones who I tried MANY, MANY, MANY loving times to have civil conversations with about the state of the nation. They probably feel the exact same way about you. Everyone feels that their beliefs are basically correct, and thanks to modern media, the internet, and decades of ideological think-tanks, anyone can find a factual-sounding piece of "evidence" to support their beliefs if anyone tries to tell them they're wrong. You can't convince them because they've already decided that what they believe is the truth and that anything that contradicts that is fake. That's why conservatives bitch about "scientists", "academics", and "the media" all being liberal - if a scientist determines that something in their conservative beliefs is objectively false, then clearly the scientist is just a tool of the leftist conspiracy, cooking the books and creating fake "truths" to swindle the populace and support the dastardly liberal agenda. That's why it's so tough to change minds. Challenging them on facts is pointless, because if they haven't already decided they're genuinely open to changing their mind, they'll just dismiss any facts you throw at them, because they already have their own set of "facts" that agrees with them and is therefore more trustworthy than anything you can throw at them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:I don't disagree at all. But it kinds of turns the whole "you must live among them & find common ground" argument on its head. The "you must live among them & find common ground" argument is crap, honestly. Look at how much "being nice to people and demographics who didn't support him" Trump did! All I can see in that argument is a clear double standard, where the right can be openly insulting against racial minorities, religious minorities, women, and LBGTs with basically no penalties or reprecussions...but the left are awful people if they dare to be anything less than one hundred percent in tune with the needs of uneducated white males.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Squashing Machine posted:Then we're lost. Absolve yourself of all responsibility, there's no point in trying to change minds because there are no minds to change. "Evils of the uneducated"? I'm not saying "uneducated white males" because I'm trying to create some boogeyman or something, I'm saying it because the people I'm responding to are saying that uneducated white males are a uniquely important demographic whose feelings are worth more than the well-being of women, black people, Hispanic people of all kinds and origins, Muslims, Jews, LGBT people, more. And no, the reason "we" get accused of being elitist is because we believe in a truth that disagrees with their gut feelings. That's where "ivory tower academic" comes from - it's a way to dismiss science and research that goes against conservative orthodoxy by saying that those elitist college-educated scientists and researchers just don't understand how the real world works and therefore all their studies and research are wrong, except for the one or two outliers with questionable methodology which agree with the far right. ilkhan posted:I just find it painful that the common thread here is that anybody who voted for him (which does not include me, by the way) is automatically a racist piece of poo poo. As if there weren't dozens of other possible reason to vote for him or dozens of reasons to vote against Clinton. Focusing all your hatred in one direction feels good, but it ignores the other causes and just pisses off the people who did vote for him for other reasons and makes them even stronger proponents. If you want to change their minds, it might help to actually listen to their complaints (which is, ironically enough, one of their complaints in the first place). The vast majority of people voted for him in spite of that racism, not because of it. Voting for him in spite of that racism means that the person felt the racism was not a good enough reason to vote against him. What if this election was David Duke vs Hillary Clinton? Would they swallow your hatred and vote for an open racist, a literal goddamn publicly known KKK member and self-identified white nationalist, because they thought his economic rhetoric was better and that Hillary supporters were too "elitist" toward white people? If so, then I feel quite comfortable calling that person racist, because even if they weren't voting for Trump because of his racism, they at least felt like they could tolerate voting for a racist, and that their own white person issues were more important than equal rights for women and racial minorities.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yep I think this is exactly it. The Democrats don't need to get Trump voters, they need the Obama voters that stayed home. Except there's no point there, because now that Republicans run the Supreme Court, voter ID is gonna be law in p much every state with Dems, and voter suppression and intimidation will be the order of the day in every state that isn't deep red. poo poo is terrible
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:You say that, and what I hear is "Race is the possible reason to vote for anyone at any time. It is the only issue that has any relevance at all." which is blatantly and completely false. Your single issue may not be my single issue which may not be some other voter's single issue. You don't get to decide what is important to someone else. It's a pretty important issue! If your voting logic goes "hmmm, on the one hand, he supports agents of the state murdering innocent black people and promised to deport immigrants and Muslims, but on the other hand, he's good on gun rights*" then you think gun rights are more important than the rights of black people to be not murdered. If you're a single-issue voter, that just means that other issues - like civil rights for non-white people - don't matter to you. Is it racist to be perfectly fine with the fact that your preferred presidential candidate literally wants to revoke the citizenship of anyone with brown skin and supports the state-sponsored murder of anyone with black skin? I'm pretty sure the answer is "yes". Even if you're not voting for him because he's a racist, you're choosing to knowingly tolerate his racism and vote in support of him knowing full well what he will try to do to minorities when elected. paranoid randroid posted:hot take but i think the biggest failure of leftist ideology at the moment is calving off race and economics into discrete issues without overlap. this creates a Blind Men and the Elephant situation - Jacobin finds the economics facet of Trumpism and declares it to be a class issue; Slate finds the white identity politics and declares it to be a racial issue. On the other hand, most of the time when someone comes down this road it's just an excuse for a white leftist to abandon race issues altogether and focus exclusively on the economic aspect while ignoring racial issues entirely because they, naively lacking a full understanding of racism, assume that the rising tide will necessarily lift non-white boats along with the white boats. Even Bernie had to struggle with that to some degree, and his supporters certainly made a point of obnoxiously demonizing minorities for "voting against their own interests" by supporting Hillary (though many of those same supporters are now accusing Hillary supporters of being "elitists" who look down on white people). Ratoslov posted:Y'know, I've been considering making this post (but snarkier) repeatedly all day. It really seems like a lot of the posters here don't think that the masses have any agency whatsoever, and only political elites have it. If a elite does something, and a group of voters responds, it is the elite whose fault that response is. The masses aren't people, they're a volitionless automaton that inputs words and outputs votes or no votes. It's very odd. On the other hand, what if the elite does something and the voters don't respond? The thing that strikes me most about the Republican obstructionism that characterized Obama's administration was how much voters rewarded it. Sure, Obama won his second term, but the Republicans gained more seats in Congress in 2010 and 2014 than they lost in 2012, many moderate Republicans were replaced by Tea Partiers in those years, and of course now there's the 2016 Republican blowout. The Congressional GOP has been heavily rewarded for being poo poo and blocking attempt after attempt to help Americans and fix the economy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
z0glin Warchief posted:You're overthinking this. You don't need to convince them to vote for your whole package deal of a million different policies, you just need them to vote for you. Pick some specific issues they care about and offer some solutions. Go to white middle America and tell them how much you care about the heroin epidemic and what your plan is to fix it for their community. Tell them about your plan to bring jobs to the area through this great new training program you're going to pay for by taxing Wall Street. Be sincere about these things, and make them believe you care about them. Because you do care about them. The problem is that those promises are impossible promises. There is no way to bring back jobs to all of rural America. It's possible to bring some jobs to some areas, but not nearly enough to help even a quarter of rural America or rural Americans. That's why everyone who comes to talk to rural America about their problems just offers up vague platitudes, not real policy proposals - these regions have been ruined by structural economic changes that can never be undone or reversed, and actively refuse the few things that can be done to help them, so the only way to appeal to them is to be a good liar. And for that matter, some of these issues simply can't be spoken to on a national level. For example, a lot of these communities have drug problems - but so do many black communities, and the reason why our nation has such awful drug policy is in fact because it's widely considered to be a predominantly black problem. I agree that the Dems absolutely need to build local and state-level infrastructure, though. They've let their roots wilt and focused too much on the national stage. FactsAreUseless posted:Also there's the bit of me that's like "huh, Trump really did have the biggest and hugest support and totally crushed it by being the best despite all the poo poo saying he couldn't possibly win, so maybe I'm just loving insane and the world actually works that way and all the other ways he says." I've been thinking for a couple of years now that much of what's considered common knowledge about elections is just rules made up by pundits, and that the impact of things like scandals is actually a lot smaller than the conventional wisdom thinks. As long as the candidate doesn't let the pundits pressure them into resigning in shame, it only really pushes things a couple percent one way or another. I don't think that's a unique-to-Trump thing. I think he's an excellent campaigner who put his con artist skills to good use and benefited enormously from the fact that most of the "rules" he broke were things that voters actually didn't give a poo poo about, which the GOP had been noticing for some years now (remember when they did a government shutdown over nothing and got away with it?) but which they didn't have the stones to really go all-in on.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Ornedan posted:You seem to be forgetting things like AT&T room 641a from the Bush era. Really one of the major failings of Obama is that he kept all the horrors Bush started going. Trump will in all likelihood do the same, and they will get to keep refining their work. Obama's greatest accomplishment was convincing people that he wouldn't continue most of Bush's policies. In 2008, most people believed that he would end Bush's surveillance programs (in spite of a voting record that suggested otherwise), and it was taken for granted that he would end the Bush tax cuts ASAP.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:I sincerely cannot wrap my head around this. Obviously being a white progressive doesn't make you immune to having racist ideas, but the idea of being consciously racist, and of making a decision like this even if you don't articulate it as such, is bizarre to me. I recognize that it happens, and I recognize that racism is a thing, but it's such a weird feeling to be like "I don't even know how I would talk to a white person with these ideas, because I do not understand them." The white establishment has spent literally centuries coming up with alternate rationalizations for racism so people could be racist without feeling racist. Murgos posted:There are, according to the last census around 169 million white people of voting age in the US. Whites who didn't care enough to show up and vote against racism can't really get a clear pass here. It's like saying you're not racist because you didn't stop to help that white cop beat an innocent black man to death...even though you saw it happen and just kept walking without doing anything about it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
chumbler posted:Yes. Democrats frankly have no option but to take the high road here. The party is in shambles and will wipe out what little remains of its chances to fix anything if they try to be obstructionist. Obstructionism worked absolutely fantastic for the GOP, though. The last twenty years have demonstrated extremely well that obstructionism gets rewarded by the voters, while cooperating with the majority just pisses them off. Harry Joe posted:It's incredible really, being condescending and insulting towards ~50% of the population didn't work leading up to the election and in fact could probably be pointed to as to being one of the reasons Clinton lost the election to an overgrown oompa-loompa, yet here this thread is still doing the same thing as if that's going to convince anyone. This is self-evidently stupid, because being condescending and insulting toward 60% or so of the population worked just fine for Trump. Where the hell did you hear this talking point from, anyway? I'd really like to know who's sowing the seeds of racism in idiot white progressives. Ice Phisherman posted:4. Trump isn't going to be able to pass laws. At least not the laws he wants. End of story. Why? Well it's the beauty of our democracy that the president can't introduce laws. The current republican establishment hasn't changed overmuch and still largely is bought and paid for. They also hate his rear end. He can stamp his feet all he wants but without congress' help he won't be able to get any of his platforms passed. Furthermore the democrats can still filibuster. Until that gets done in it's still a 4-4 supreme court and will probably stay that way until someone loving dies. Imagine a large amount of lower court decisions until someone dies. If there's anything the dems have learned from the republicans is that while you can't create political change, you can sure halt it by being obstructionist. At best he'll be able to roll back executive action and gut already existing federal institutions. Bad, but not as bad as it could be. He can also push for executive actions as well. The dems might actually push back. You never know. I wouldn't be so sure. Look at how much the Republican establishment went to go fall all over Trump? Now that he's won, the party establishment is going to be putting the screws on Republicans to whip them in support of whatever Trump proposes. The GOP doesn't quite know how the hell he managed to pull off that win yet, but they're determined that whatever he did, they're going to let him keep doing it and follow his lead. As for the magnifying glass, so what? He's already scandal-plagued; hasn't hurt him yet. When he doesn't accomplish anything, he'll just bust out his best con-man voice, give some speeches about how much he cares and how any failings are all the Democrats' or the RINOs' fault, and voters will go overwhelmingly for him in 2020 because Supreme Court justices, and also because he and Bernie managed to break the coalition of the left so thoroughly that whoever the Dems put up in 2020 will make Romney look exciting and fresh by comparison.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:How much of it was them sitting out and how much of it was the dismantling of the VRA? That angle still isn't getting much attention, partially because people are reluctant to speak out about it while the various challenges and cases go through the system, partially because they don't want to seem like sore losers by criticizing the system after they spent months castigating Trump for claiming the system was rigged, partially because there's a distinct unwillingness to give the GOP any credit at all for this result, and partially because all obstacles to going hog wild with voter suppression have been completely removed so things are going to get a LOT worse from here on. The Voting Rights Act is dead, and the Democrats are going to pay dearly for letting the Republicans control the states.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:One thing I think we all need to do is stop talking like 2020 is our next shot at doing something. 2018 is going to be a bloodbath as it is and right now in the wake of this hot mess of 2016 is the time to reinforce a message of "Remember this in 2 years, and get off your rear end and vote to stop it from getting worse" The nature of the House and Senate map is such that there is basically no chance of the Dems making significant gains in 2018, unfortunately. It'll be more about avoiding losses than anything. Bishounen Bonanza posted:Let me help you out since you seen to be having some trouble. I'll admit that say 20% of Trumps supporters are actual racist white supremacist. The rest of them are people who got hosed by the government letting companies use free trade to suck wages and jobs out of this country. That includes a few million hispanics and blacks who voted for Trump. The fact that you can't seperate the two groups in your mind and insist on insulting as racist people who want structural economic reform is bizzare. People like you are the reason the Dems are going to lose again in 4 years. Maybe they just wanted structural economic reform. But that doesn't change the fact that they knowingly voted for an openly racist candidate. Whether his racism was the reason they voted for him is irrelevant. What matters is that to these people, his racism wasn't enough of a reason NOT to vote for him. How could that be anything but racist? corn in the bible posted:or you could have voted for bernie sanders yeah, because turning all their candidates into milquetoast Trump knockoffs worked really well for the RNC
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Ok, so how, exactly, do you plan on shaming these white voters you despise in a manner in which they A: Care and B: Don't react to by just voting Trump again because gently caress you buddy. Well, let's turn that around. Why should black voters do anything to help white people, who not only actively hate them but have monopolized the power of the state to oppress them for literal centuries? Why should they be obligated to give a poo poo what whites think? Why should equal rights for minorities be something that white people yank away any time they feel like minorities aren't being sufficiently grateful to their white overlords? Bishounen Bonanza posted:She was obviously wrong, as voters could see for themselves over the last two decades. Easier said than done, because Trump's working-class voters have already demonstrated that they are absolutely fine with white supremacism and that it is a sufficently reassuring ideology to help their fears and fix their problems, and that they're tired of "PC" liberals coming in and telling them they can't joke about assaulting women and beating minorities anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:I'd say numero uno on the "DRAIN ARE SWAMP" list is most likely not going to happen. I can't imagine that entrenched Republicans and most Democrats will support that poo poo, but then again everyone seems to enjoy bending the knee to Trump so gently caress if I can say that with any real certainty. I could see the other poo poo, especially the dumb "Trade 2 old regulations for one new regulation", getting through though. Most of the trickier things on his list aren't "do this thing", they're "announce my intention to do this thing". Naturally a constitutional amendment putting term limits on Congress ain't gonna happen, but all he needs to do is start it off and then when it fails he can blame elitist mainstream politicians.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Squashing Machine posted:And you're a paranoid fanatic who throws accusations essentially at random and selectively dismisses real evidence in favor of something that makes you feel good. Guns will not save you. They probably won't, but they're better than nothing. One person with guns doesn't affect anything, but a whole community with guns fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship between the community and the police. No, a traffic stop isn't going to change much...but the cops will be a lot more wary about doing traffic stops in black neighborhoods in the first place, because they'll be worried about more than just cameras. When they do show up in black neighborhoods, they'll bring more force, but that's resource-intensive enough that they won't be able to just wander around black neighborhoods all day stopping and frisking random black people or breaking up public gatherings with threats. Besides, peaceful protest has done nothing, and voting clearly isn't cutting it; I don't blame African-Americans for wanting to take things into their own hands, rather than waiting patiently for white people to deign to recognize their issues. icantfindaname posted: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 Both parties have agency, though. Why isn't the GOP being credited for their part in keeping Dem voters home? Aside from the voter intimidation and suppression, and the Watergate-esque leak of years worth of DNC emails and files, they engaged in a number of tactics clearly intended to keep Dem voters at home, like calling on Bernie supporters to abandon Hillary. Of course, the Hillary campaign made many of the same moves that the Trump campaign did, like promising a better economy and hammering relentlessly at perceived personal faults of the other candidate. Nope, I guess it's all just that registered Democrats didn't show up at the polls because they hated the candidate that won the primaries by a massive margin, and that way more Dems would have turned out to vote for someone who got three million fewer votes in the Democratic primary. Comparing 2008 to 2016 is stupid, because it's apples and oranges. In 2008, the economy had only just collapsed into the biggest recession since the Great Depression, and Obama represented the opposition. On the other hand, Hillary was a member of the same party of the incumbent, who's presided over an economy that's barely recovered and is still teetering on the brink of a second collapse. I can't imagine why their turnout numbers might be different. Fojar38 posted:The GOP obviously isn't as dead as everyone thought it was, but how fragmented it is is going to become more apparent when Trump takes office and the next session of Congress begins. Reminder that there are significant sections of the GOP who all hate each other and also hate Trump and will no longer have a Democratic president to unify them. Even without the filibuster it will provide plenty of opportunities for Congressional Democrats to put their thumbs on the scale. The GOP is going to fall in line behind Trump for a while. He won, and victory covers a multitude of sins. On the other hand, the Dems look like they might fracture into three or four different groups all blaming each other for Trump's victory, and collapse into infighting as they all attempt to throw each other under the bus.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Isn't the President directly in control of the borders so he could just be like Border closed with Mexico no flights to Mexico. He'll just resume construction on the wall Bush started building in 2006, which Republicans defunded a year or two later when they realized it was expensive and figured they'd scored their points already just by starting the wall.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
RIP the Dems, can't wait for the GOP to dominate the country entirely for the next twenty years while the "progressive" wing leads a movement for the Dems to shun literally everyone except young white males
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The ground will never even be broken on the wall. Precedent suggests otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:If he honestly did do stuff like that, and ended up just being a really cunty Eishower republican, id be ok with that. but i just dont know. Please don't use "oval office" or "cunty" as an insult or pejorative.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:Sounds like a winning campaign ad. "Hmm, on the one hand, one candidate promised to deport Muslims, Arabs, and Mexicans, said that sexual harassment isn't a big deal and bragged about sexually assaulting women, wants to overturn Roe v Wade, opposes gay marriage, and will likely have the opportunity to appoint two or three SC justices if elected. But on the other hand, the other candidate didn't really speak to me, so I guess I don't really care who wins" - someone who totally cares really hard about equal rights for women, LGBTs, and minorities
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Xae posted:Like it is not a sizeable portion of the progressive base has the mentality of a 12 year old girl and needs to be ~~~iNsPiReD~~~~ to perform their civic duty. So what happens when catering to them leads to losses among another demographic? I'm not saying politics is a zero-sum game where you can't appeal to one group without losing another, but there was already disappointingly little attention paid to minority issues in this election, and I'm sure seeing that white Democrats can't be bothered to show up and have their back is going to do a real number on minority turnout - especially since any hope of reversing Shelby County is dead under a Trump presidency.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
disjoe posted:I don't think the pivot should be "let's coddle the racist and say his racism is okay" and I really hope no one in this thread thinks it should be. What happens when a white racist guy instead prefers to vote for people who pledges to improve their lives but not the lives of minority communities? What happens when a white racist guy would rather vote against people who pledge to improve the lives of minority communities even if they're also pledging to improve the lives of white people? This is how we end up with welfare recipients who vote to repeal welfare because, although it was really helpful to them when they needed it, they've heard that a lot of black people use welfare too and therefore it needs to go.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:By doing the things that improve the lives of both communites obviously. A new labor movement that has to include minorities this time. The number of people onboard should drwarf the people who would gently caress themselves just to make somebody elses life worse.  Oh, aren't you just adorably naive?PerniciousKnid posted:Is anyone familiar with Progressive Democrats of America or similar groups that would be good places to get involved in electing Neo Bernie in four years? If you want Neo Bernie, step one is to never, ever say the words "in four years" ever again. Elections happen every two years. Deified Data posted:The best part is minorities face the same problems white working class folks do so we don't actually have to choose one or the other. Some people disagree for some reason. Actually they face all those problems a lot harder and also have a lot of unique problems that affect them and not white people.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Fraction Jackson posted:If you believe that we can't do both, then it's basically over and we can pack the party up right now, and America with it. She mentioned economics fairly often. It just didn't get much coverage in the media, which preferred to devote airtime and article space to Trump's antics and EMAILS rather than actual policy proposals.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
zh1 posted:You people think Hillary cared about preserving human dignity? Seriously? I can see why you might find that dubious... ...if you had never listened to a single word she had ever spoken in her entire life.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:No one is saying abandon the minorities for poor whites, people believe that we can do both. help minorities as well as the poor whites. you cant just constantly poo poo on lower white class people and expect them to take it, its why we have trump now. Helping both minorities and poor whites is easy. Helping both without the poor whites spitting in your eye and voting against you to punish you for daring to help anyone besides them, on the other hand, is pretty drat hard.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Boon posted:If you read my posts, I get that. What I'm telling you is that racism is not the driving force, it's a symptom. Ah yes, it's the black president's fault that white people are racist. Are you even loving listening to yourself? There's always going to be people in lovely situations, that's not an excuse for racism. Condiv posted:if hillary was good for racial justice, why did she do her best to inflict trump on america? Man, I had no loving idea the DNC was so powerful that they could rig not only the Democratic primaries but the Republican primaries as well! You'd think such a far-reaching conspiracy would be able to get the presidency, too! Unless that's just all part of "their" plan! 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Mnoba posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-democratic-party-deserves-to-die_us_58236ad5e4b0aac62488cde5 That article is crap, though. "The Democrats lost because they didn't have a solution to magically resurrect factory jobs that no longer exist. Neither did the Republicans, but at least they offered up white nationalism! Also the Democrats were elitist rich jerks who weren't blue-collar enough." Grognan posted:Poor whites actually split down the middle you gently caress. Its like you're painting an entire group with the racism brush and surprised when the other party uses that to the hilt. I'm not talking about just this election. I'm talking about the slow erosion of social safety nets over the past decades. These are the same people who cheered the demolition of welfare, reelected people who actively rejected healthcare subsidies for poor people, and so much more. Boon posted:According to a lot of people in here, the latino voters who did not vote or who supported Trump are all huge racist assholes with no possible other reason to not vote or to vote Trump (though honestly the latter I don't get - therefore it can only be racism). If you think Latinos can't be racist against Latinos, you're a perfect example of taking minorities for granted.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:She didn't run up the score in democratic areas the way Obama did. Wasn't she about 350K voters short in Detroit and Milwaukee? That combined with the voters she turned out because of their hatred for her is the election. Neither did Kerry or Gore. The more I look at old turnout numbers, the more I'm convinced that comparing them is largely a fool's errand. Hillary got nine million more votes than Gore did in 2000, and let's not forget that Gore still got 600k more votes than Bush did. Barack Obama holds the US record for highest popular vote total ever and second highest popular vote total ever. And while it's tempting to point out the effects of population growth, Ronald Reagan got more votes in 1988 than Bush did in 2000. In terms of turnout as a percentage of the population, the last three decades have been on the low end; 2008 had turnout levels not seen since the days of Nixon. Obama was a historic candidate who got the highest popular vote ever, beating the previous record by seven and a half million votes. And that previous record holder was George W. Bush, who in 2004 beat the previous popular vote record by seven and a half million votes. Trump got nine million more votes than Gore did. Nearly twenty million more people turned out to vote in 2008 than in 2000, and boiling that down to "lol bad candidate" is an absurd oversimplification. KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:OK, well I hope you are prepared to keep losing elections then, because this one demonstrated pretty succinctly that the Dems ignore economic inequality at their own peril. A plank of fighting bigotry is great but the party needs to figure out a way to litigate it that isn't highly divisive, and paying more attention to class is a good start. Yeah! The Dems should do something for poor people and the working class, like guaranteeing access to cheap healthcare and banning insurance companies from dumping them. Or maybe they could create stimulus by backing and funding infrastructure growth like transit lines and oil pipelines. They could support union rights and pro-worker policies with things like the CFPB and the NLRB. Maybe they could even expand unemployment programs and welfare systems to unprecedented levels while funding economic development and job retraining! Too bad the white working class overwhelmingly voted against those policies in favor of "gently caress immigrants, all your jobs will magically come back if we deport them and cut taxes on the rich". To say that the Democrats neglected economic policy is absurd. They pushed economic policies, and pushed them, and pushed them, and all they ended up doing was losing over and over to the very people who were blocking those policies and actively screwing their own constituents just to spite the Democrats. It's become quite clear that the white working class doesn't want solutions and they don't want help, they just want someone to blame.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Butch Cassidy posted:Very at-risk and you are massively lacking empathy. Cannon is located in one of the lowest income parts of the state. Senior skiing is free. They can show up with whatever gear they can cobble together , get fresh air, actual exercise during the cold months, and hang around with peer in the lodge between runs. The state wanted to institute $20 passes for them to increase yearly to a cap TBD. $20 is a lot more to a social security dependent senior than it is to a the seacoast politicians pushing for the bill. And that is $20 per day at a deathtrap and poorly maintained mountain so they go from skiing all they want to hoping they can afford some. The question I'd have to ask is why the state felt the need to start charging for it? Did the state really just want to gently caress over old people for absolutely no reason at all? I doubt it. Well, we know that the place was poorly maintained, so clearly the state was having trouble finding the money for it. Did those compassionate conservatives volunteer to find some other way to keep the place free - like, say, raising taxes? After all, New Hampshire is renowned in the Northeast for its notoriously low taxes. It very well might have been a problem of the Republicans' own making. The Republicans have made a pretty solid strategy out of blocking Democratic attempts to help their base, and then blaming minorities, immigrants, and distant political elites in the cities for the economic stagnation. Every time I see someone say they voted for Trump because Obama made their insurance too expensive, the first thing I do is check to see if they're in a state that rejected the Medicare expansion - the answer is usually "yes". How is the government supposed to help people who believe that the government is the problem, and actively push to reject government help even as they whine about how no one is trying to help them?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Butch Cassidy posted:Cannon runs at a defecit. It was a failed mountain, with another failed mountain given to the state and merged into it, that is run as a state park with intentionally low prices to allow area residents a chance to afford skiing. It also employs a fair number of people with state benefits. The whole thing is a welfare program and I'm cool with it. The push to charge seniors was an ill-conceived way to lose less money. Cannon's maintenance isn't un-safe, it's just intentionally minimal and adequate. And the mountain's deficit matters less than publicity from an Olympic skiier cutting his teeth there as a child, area business revenue from tourists hitting the slopes, tourists who can't afford skiing at some other mountains given incentive to make the drive into the state, and mountain employees having jobs to keep some money local. The mountain's deficit does matter when it comes time to pay employees and spend money on maintenance. Especially when Republicans are blocking deficit spending while cutting taxes, which New Hampshire has struggled with in recent years. If the mountain is going to be run at a loss, the government's got to be willing to spend money on it. If the legislature thinks cutting funding is the way to balance the budget, then every state service that runs on a deficit is in trouble. Just look at what the US Postal Service has had to put up with in recent years. New Hampshire's property taxes are on the high side, but that's more than made up for by the fact that it has no income tax and no general sales tax whatsoever, so the overall tax burden is much lower than in neighboring states. The state is funded pretty much entirely on the back of property taxes and business taxes - and last year, Republican legislators won a months-long fight to cut the latter without introducing any new taxes or fees to replace them. Admiral Ray posted:they're just saying that feels > reals for presidential elections. I disagree mostly because while Trump won he barely loving won. That doesn't mean his strategy didn't work, but it's not like he brought out 7 or 12 million extra votes. He got ten million more votes than Bush did in 2000. That's not down to Trump himself, since the Republicans pulled similar numbers in every election since 2000, but 9/11 and the Iraq War and thr media revolution polarized and energized the American populace in a way that hasn't really diminished yet, and ever since 2000 voter turnout percentages have been at levels not seen since the late 1960s. RaySmuckles posted:well, there's a lot more to this idea rather than "it does" or "it doesn't" The first Bush administration was the one that negotiated and signed NAFTA, and more Democrats voted against it than for it in both the House and the Senate. Sure, Bill was a NAFTA backer, but the deal was inherited from a Republican White House and passed on the strength of Republican votes. That's why Trump can condemn NAFTA so much more loudly than other Republicans: McCain, McConnell, Grassley, Gingrich, Boehner, and Kasich were all among the flock of Republicans who voted for NAFTA, which otherwise wouldn't have passed in the face of Dem opposition. There's certainly a perception that NAFTA is all the Dems' fault, but the reason for that perception has more to do with Fox News than with reality. boner confessor posted:solid left democrat, african american, first muslim in congress (famously swore in on thomas jefferson's copy of the quran) Why is this the best answer anyone can give to "is he qualified to run the DNC"? I would have preferred to hear about his fundraising and organization and leadership skills, which are things he would actually need to do in that job.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Not just 'reportedly.' This is the one constant based on every single person who has interacted with him - his ghostwriter, biographer, people who gave him intelligence briefings, old business partners, fired campaign workers. I can't wait to be ruled by the reincarnation of Kaiser Wilhelm II, it worked out so well the first time.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:i've been adamant about keeping plurality and social justice as a major part of the democratic platform. but the missing plank is economics. economics matters to everyone including the oppressed because when their economic conditions improve they have the capacity to advocate and fight for themselves. they're oppressed, in part, because of their economic vulnerability. but economics just LOST us the election, not (just) racism or bigotry. so its something we need to address strongly. Economics aren't missing, though. That's the whole problem with that theory. The Dems do have plans and policies to help poor white people. It's just that Fox News says they don't. Quorum posted:If your only response to the sentiment "Obama was a good president and a good person" is wordless incredulity I don't know what to tell you man. I can acknowledge the bad poo poo while also believing that on balance Obama will be remembered as one of the better presidents in recent history; if nothing else he's definitely the classiest person to occupy the Oval Office in the past three decades. Obama's presidency was pretty middle-of-the-road at best. He largely failed to overcome Congressional resistance and tended not to make the most of opportunities, and he cannibalized the Democratic machine and neglected the midterms to focus on the presidential elections. 2010 was a miserable year.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:the dems don't have economic changes that people believe in or believe will even help them. part of it is definitely a messaging problem (because the minute they push too hard for economic change the media jumps on them for challenging their masters) and part of it is a trust/reputation problem. new leadership and public battles will help regain that trust. focusing on messaging, media be damned, will help them too. I'm really afraid that it might just be the politics of hate are just more powerful than real messages and issues. Because let's be honest, it goes back a lot farther than just fourteen years. The reason the Clinton machine utterly dominates the Democratic Party is because in the twenty-four years preceding Bill Clinton, twenty of them had a Republican president in charge. Clinton was the first Democratic president elected to a second term since the Civil Rights Act. The Democratic machine we have today is the Democratic machine that was rebuilt from the ground up during an era of Republican domination to take back a presidency that seemed firmly in Republican hands. Eugene V. Dabs posted:So how is everyone feeling about Keith Ellison being put forward as DNC chair? I hope he'll be a good DNC chair and not just a peace offering to millennials.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Serious question do you guys have opinions on my hypothesis? White progressives, do you feel like people like Kamala Harris and Keith Ellison could lead a Bernie-style progressive movement effectively and reach out to the rural and working white poor? Minority posters, do you feel that you would be less afraid if the faces of progressivism were overwhelmingly minorities? I feel like if we could find qualified people it would do us good to have more minority candidates. If we claim to be the party of minorities we should be represented by them outside of the most inner city. Are they actually good leaders capable of running party-wide fundraising and organizing on a national level? Do they have actual solutions to minority problems? Will they have the cooperation and support of the party? I don't presume to be able to speak for minorities, but while appointing minorities to leadership positions is important, it's not going to make up for prioritizing white economic fears over black lives. Dems need more than just a progressive Michael Steele. Non Serviam posted:I don't think he'll be a good president. In fact, he'll have a presidency that will not please anyone. His base will be pissed by the lack of a wall and the fact that Hillary isn't in front of a firing squad, Democrats will oppose his traditional Republican policies. It doesn't matter if he builds the wall or not. Most of the country doesn't live close enough to the border to check for themselves, there's no way the Dems will use it as a campaign issue, the media won't make a big deal out of it, and if he's called on it he'll just blame the Dems or call the media a bunch of biased liars. Did you not pay attention to the last year or something? Truth isn't important. UV_Catastrophe posted:Thoughts about Hillary Clinton and white working class voters, from a working class white male who lives in rural PA: Doesn't this just boil down to "if your party's been in office for eight years and the economy still sucks everyone will vote for the other guy"? I mean, McCain had an economic message too but for some reason no one really bought it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
UV_Catastrophe posted:There wasn't really anything stopping Clinton from batting for the fences in her rhetoric, and talking about taking back the house and pushing through all the various things in the platform that really would have been a substantial improvement over the status quo. All the stuff Obama wanted, but couldn't get through. When the whole problem is that people are mad because the last president didn't fix the economy, promising "I'll do all the things the last president wanted to do" isn't a very good economic message. That's why Hillary had an economic message of her very own for the media to completely and utterly ignore. RaySmuckles posted:lol at all the people still trying to say the take away from this election is "change nothing and keep calling everyone racist" The previous two elections had record high turnout, that's all. Clinton got ten million more votes than Gore did - it's just that in 2008, Obama got twenty million more votes than Gore did. Sure, it's definitely worth looking at how that happened, but its pretty hard to build a consistent strategy around "make sure the economy undergoes a twice-in-a-century collapse on a Republican administration's watch a couple months before the election". Obama was a really good campaigner, but 2008 was basically the most ideal conditions possible for a Dem win, and there was no way we were going to match his 2008 numbers after eight years of failing to revitalize the economy. Suckthemonkey posted:I'm sure that some white liberals don't really take the issues of racial minorities strongly to heart and may, if they find it beneficial to them, dump them when possible. (The larger white working class as a whole certainly will.) But I'm sure that some wouldn't, and either way, I don't see how the attitude is constructive at this point. Regardless of the possibilities and our own particular interests, we need each other to make progress. The problem is that the issues of racial minorities are in many cases more important. Hundreds of unarmed black men have been outright murdered by police officers this year, most of whom went entirely unpunished. If the Democratic Party signals that black people's concerns about that aren't as important as white people's misgivings about the economy, it's going to be hard for them to work up the will to jump through all the barriers to voting the Republicans are going to erect over the next few years. Minorities aren't as worked up about the economy as white people are right now, and shifting focus and messaging in the economic direction threatens to draw attention away from police brutality, Islamophobia, and other issues that the Dems already tend to seem uncomfortable taking head on.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:She had higher turnout than every recent candidate, as long as we don't count the winner of the past two elections. And since the American electorate has remained the exact same size throughout all the recent elections, from that we can determine, uhh... Do you think the size kf the American electorate grew by 10% between 2000 and 2008? Or was there maybe something else at work? Like, say, a tremendously unpopular war and the biggest recession since the Great Depression? Nah, couldn't be! Hey guys, let's run another Carter - he beat Nixon, right?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 22:15
|
|