|
Schizotek posted:I voted Bernie you insufferable piece of poo poo. And then I voted for the candidate that wasn't going to rape my future and hand me back over to the slavering evangelicals on a silver platter because I'm not a loving idiot. There are many countries in this world.
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
negromancer posted:You have it backwards. Don't wait for that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:He doesn't need you to play the boogeyman, he's got a ton of sheriffs, police chiefs, bosses, politicians, and now a President-elect already doing that. He is moving soon, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted: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. Voter suppression is going to be an even bigger issue come next election and Democrats need to do a much better job of communication with minority voters on issues of actual importance. At the same time, they can reach out to blue collar workers, so long as they avoid PC lecturing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I'm not the one blaming an electorate for losing the election. The electorate elected someone that an outdated system did not.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Both candidates went in knowing the rules, and claiming that Trump couldn't have beaten her in the popular vote if that was the objective is about as unprovable and irrelevant as people saying that Sanders would have won. Are you implying that the Trump campaign was well-organized enough to have meticulously planned how to win the electoral college the way they did? Despite the fact that even the RNC was shocked he won? No, he couldn't have beaten her in the popular vote. A non-incumbent Republican presidential nominee has not won the popular vote in a while, for reasons evident to anyone who knows where people live in this country. The fact that both candidates went in knowing the rules is irrelevant to my claim that the electoral college is outdated.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Yes, although it doesn't take very meticulous planning to talk about poverty in the rust belt while your opponent acts like it doesn't exist. Then you are simply wrong. As the latter part of your post hints at, the Trump campaign did the absolute minimum.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:He did the absolute minimum and she did absolutely nothing. The minimum wins in the rust belt. No one denied this. Do you even know the discussion you are participating in?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:And it was enough, how can you not get that into your head? I never contested the notion that it was enough. I am contesting the notion she'd win the popular vote, you tool. They'd have to do far more than they did and we're talking about a campaign that tried their best and achieved the absolute minimum necessary. Get this through YOUR head: A Republican non-incumbent has not won the popular vote since 1988. TWENTY EIGHT YEARS AGO! Judakel fucked around with this message at 13:29 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Bush won the popular vote in his second election. He didn't win a popular majority but that's not the same thing. I know, I am talking about non-incumbents only.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:When it has never actually mattered. There is a way to know and I just explained it. No, they haven't held completely different position over the past 28 years. Even 36 years.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:"You see although the democrats and republicans have been playing chess, and the dems just lost, the democrats used their pieces more like checkers pieces so they would have won if they were playing that instead." You understood nothing of what I said. I was as clear as one can be, and you still missed it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:I understood 100% of what you said, and I think you're a retard. Do not underestimate Republicans. They won. If the rules were different you can bet your bottom dollar they would be too. You don't understand this subject well enough to be arguing with me on this. You have not made a single counter-argument to my point. Republicans did not carefully plan the electoral college win they got. They catered to a certain demographic and hoped for the best. That demographic is not enough for a popular vote victory. Stop repeating the same thing without an actual argument supporting it. Judakel fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Women are a majority of the country and I'd rather see another female candidate than a second Bernie run. You cannot be this stupid. Tokenism is what sunk the democrats this year. You need that archetype - a man of the people - or you will lose again.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:So you're arguing we literally need to run an old straight white dude because of the appeal of the ~archetype~? No. You need to run a good candidate REGARDLESS of whatever label you can attach to them. I didn't say straight white guy, I said someone who appeals to the working class. Kamala Harris is seen as part of the democratic establishment and she won't win. For someone surely obsessed with getting past labels, you sure see them as a huge factor in picking candidates. Learn from this defeat. Don't just come back here and repeat all the same mistakes you made the first time. Don't pick unappealing candidates due to pedigree or tokenism. Are you traumatized by this?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That was my experience as well; my feeling was that people just weren't excited about Clinton. I'm not sure if there's anything that she could have done to change that, though; her scandals, even when they were completely meaningless, have been the focus of the entire year, and progressive felt like her somewhat-progressive platform wasn't authentic. She withstood scandals just fine. Nothing really stuck or dissuaded people. The problem seemed to be, as another poster mentioned a few days ago, that no one could figure out why she was running in the first place. It was just "her time".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:No. Biden is not what I have in mind, but so what if he fit? So what if it is a straight white guy? Jesus...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:What the gently caress? What is the problem?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:She had decades of public service and working for liberal causes. Like progressives might hate her but Hillary Clinton was not in it for the money or the fame. She may have sought such things out to further her career but if you look at the arc of her life and say she didn't believe in her politics you're a fool. I don't agree with her politics or her methods but I believe in her sincerity. No, I don't think you're a fool for questioning exactly what Clinton stood for besides "being president". Sorry. She tried to be all things to all people and was accurately mocked for this. She "evolved" quite a bit. How many slogans did her campaign have? I believe there is an image floating around containing over 30 that were tested during the campaign. This was not a campaign with a clear message and people need that. quote:We've been ruled by straight white dudes for nearly three centuries in this country. Straight white dudes have been oppressing minorities for that time too. Do you really not have enough empathy to see why minorities might want to see someone like them in power for once? Do you have any concept of what the Obamas meant to black Americans? I get why they might want to see someone like them in power. It isn't a factor for me, but good for them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
botany posted:"It is incredibly tone-deaf to promote anti-racist policies now that we've voted a racist authoritarian into office who might threaten me, a white voter. You can still care about these issues of course, but for the love of God stop displaying minorities! We need to combat the actual danger, the one that threatens white people!" I don't even have the energy anymore. Why would you even think that simply putting a minority in a position of power will be enough to fight racist policies? Hell, why would you think an establishment democrat would be enough to achieve this?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:That's never been the argument. The argument - and there was a reason for choosing minority candidates besides inclusiveness, if you had read - was that minority candidates project an image that we care about minority issues and just because we're talking about class doesn't mean we won't care about race too. Or LGBT issues or women or what have you. Obama wasn't a great candidate on race issues, but that projection is important because part of Bernie's problem was a difficult appealing broadly to older minorities who rightfully distrust white progressives. I did miss that part. My apologies. I will seize on this moment to point out how stupid it is to think we have to worry about minorities not turning out for democrats based on image rather than substance. Thank you for this opportunity.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Let's strategize on ways to get the minority vote even as the Republican party becomes the white nationalist party.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean it's not like that's the only thing I wrote in that big dumb post, much as the thread seems to have decided otherwise. You just mentioned that you wanted a bullshitter as the candidate of the left.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:White working class voters don't vote for us yet. In the meantime the Republicans are aggressively enacting voter suppression. We need to fix both of these problems. If you think one of them is undeserving you're going to keep losing elections. I don't, but that has nothing to do with winning minority votes. quote:I said I want a bullshitter who will enact the platform when they win. They don't have to lie, but they can't go for Hillary's schoolteacher act. Regular people don't like listening to policy dumps. They want to feel special because they heard a cool speech. So, not a bullshitter?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I already said we could do better outreach to Hispanic and Asian voters. Only pulling in 60% of their vote is weaksauce. Apart from the overall disgust I feel at the notion of figuring out how to best manipulate minorities "for their own good", 60% is pretty drat good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:When you're losing ~40% of them to a party that actively and openly wants to poo poo on them from on high, it's not great. There are a lot of Hispanics that aren't in the same boat as Mexicans/Nicaraguans/etc. with regards to how they are treated in this country. You're throwing them all in the same basket and it is a lot more nuanced than that. Ditto for Asians, too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Um, what? I'm not sure why you think we would be manipulating them. There are actual issues that specifically affect those communities that we could address, from immigration reform to affirmative action, that would help to get them to the table. I am not advocating lying to them, nor for that matter to working class white people. I actually think we should attempt to offer them something to vote for us, and there's plenty of things to offer all oppressed groups if we're willing to fight for it. Because you've been talking about doing just that in this very thread? Manipulation does not have to involve lying, but you're still eager to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:How so? When did I argue that we shouldn't deliver on issues that matter to people? Are you mad because I said we need someone who can bullshit still? I don't think you understand just how little you know of the Hispanic and Asian population when you find 60% unacceptable. That 40% benefits from white supremacy in some way, and you shouldn't expect much a shift there. And yes, I think you're pretty condescending towards minorities, ironically enough. Work along labor lines, whatever is left of that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/13/trump-s-man-stephen-bannon-flirts-with-a-le-pen.html Hate as business.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I didn't say it was unacceptable, I said we could do better. Working class whites benefit from white supremacy too, doesn't mean we aren't going to reach out them. Pedantry. Those Hispanics and Asians that benefit are not in the same economic boat as those working class whites.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 01:18
|
|