|
Thoguh posted:Harry Reid can gently caress off. that's uh, not the main thrust of that statement
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
Zikan posted:jesus if O'Malley is running, that means multiple establishment candidates. the fact that they couldn't get schumer is still hopeful because to give you an idea of how much of a clintonite schumer is holy lol decently-off suburban republicans aren't going to vote for the party of blm dude we talk about getting back white working class voters not because that's trump's or the republicans' mainstay but because it's the only part of it theoretically winnable
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
w/r/t the Bad Tweet i am concerned about the islamophobic line on ellison, particularly from an authoritarian president and party with control of the fbi be prepared for the resources of the security state to be directed to suppressing the democratic party and the progressive movement (and remember this when deciding what to do with it after you take back power)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
w/r/t the wwc, it won't surprise me if after/if the worst slash & burn impulses of the radical right are stymied, they end up passing relief targeted exclusively at struggling whites. poor relief sells better in america when it's a white thing. in which case you'll be outflanked with that demographic in particular.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Hilario Baldness posted:Here's a guide to the watching television for the next 4 months: it would actually be quite a bad idea to engage in this sort of purity, on account of the fact that he, his campaign, his party and his most vocal and aggressive supporters are white supremacist, and due to racial polarisation of the electorate will receive substantial political benefits from continued white supremacy it's a good idea to build a coalition to overturn neoliberalism, and doing so gives a shot at winning back some poor white areas, but you must absolutely take white supremacy seriously, both for reasons of political expediency (minorities can abandon a party just like whites can) and as a matter of concrete need because a whole lot of racism is coming down the line
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
i just get antsy whenever i see a 'don't mention the klan'-type post because my main fear about upcoming elections isn't poor whites backing trump, but minorities backing nobody because they're barred from voting
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:its lovely, but it was gonna happen even if he canceled it. they would just wait for trump to do it. plus obamas legacy is hosed already, so what the hell. he could at least force trump to do it and take the hit Dapper_Swindler posted:will there even be a civil war? the clintons were kinda the central pilar of the centrist/neoliberal left and they were loving destroyed. i mean Chelsea and a few of the hangerson are still around but everyone either bends the knee to bernie/ellison or they will die to trump. the neoliberals will rally and will have an unlimited amount of money with which to pay people to care about their opinions. they won't go away quickly. they won't go away at all. a populist democratic party puts their money and social status at stake and by the same token, don't assume some of the wealthiest liberal types won't defect to trump and the republicans if you win
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
remember those ridiculous articles from rich people about how fearful and oppressed they felt when people were correctly blaming them for the financial crisis this is a class used to deference. some will be cool, in fact many will be cool, but there will be freakouts, just like with whites facing anti-racism and men facing feminism. some of them will come from people right now buying red paint and feeling the bern but who just haven't actually dealt with a real class threat yet
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
'you sound optimistic but what if you only get reforms equivalent to the civil rights act and the creation of medicare and medicaid' is a kind of weird line
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:In discussing this with others I found out more people than I thought had actual loyalty to the Democratic Party than I thought. To me they are just a service organization: they deliver candidates who I want to vote for and who can win elections (or they can completely blow it and lose to an amateur). I don't have any particular feeling about them beyond that. I need to get in touch with the touchy feely feelings that some people have about that organization if I'm going to argue about its future I guess. this is why the 'make a new party' talk is so weird coming from generic progressives rather than actual communists the neoliberal hold on the party is at its moment of greatest ever weakness, at the moment a genuinely short-term dangerous man and party have seized power in the united states. it's the worst possible time to ignore all current institutions and start on the decadal task of building a completely new party with all the loyalty and prestige a national party can command
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
there's a good argument that the comey letter and their hyping of it is an immediate cause of trump's victory lol fixing the democratic party is the proper topic for the democratic autopsy thread but don't let anyone (media particularly) forget that the national media are directly responsible for every awful thing that happens in the next 2-8 years
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Extremely Hot Take incoming: Alienated people who voted for Trump were absolutely right to do so, because if Clinton had won the establishment would claim to be validated (despite losing Congress, and downtickets) and then nothing would have changed. Their lives would still be mired in the poo poo while every woke pipsqueak confidently asserted that they don't matter. cold water take: no
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
it's going to be extremely cool when trump invades iran
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
in the context of a democratic politician it's fantastic
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Kilmers Elbow posted:He's 70, he's fat and he's orange - the job will kill him before he gets a chance to gently caress things up. it has 70 days left in that case so it had better get cracking
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:there was a line, pushed by the alt right and kremlin trolls, that clinton = war with russia it's not an 'alt-right' line to be wary of confrontation with an increasingly paranoid and desperate nuclear power over something they consider a vital strategic interest. the person i know who was most 'holy poo poo, what did she just say??' about the no-fly-zone talk was a socialist with an IR masters. you're absolutely right that the trumpeters who thought he'd be any way less hawkish were delusional though. with regard to dem rebuilding though, be prepared for an anti-military line to be difficult to push. one of the strongest demonisations of corbyn is based on his deviating from established foreign policy, and there's jobs as well as profits wrapped up in the war industry. but it's hard to say too much when trump is possibly about to throw everything into chaos
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:There's no reason for anybody on the Left to treat this reactionary nonsense with kid gloves. It's torches and pitchforks time. 'torches and pitchforks' is the attitude people should have in general the right took a torches and pitchforks attitude of massive opposition to the illegitimate usurper obama, who was a dangerous authoritarian. this paid dividends in 2010, 2014 and ultimately 2016 yet obama won his elections fair and square, by large margins with no irregularities. trump & the republicans won with a minority in a lopsided map, after an unprecedentedly dishonest campaign and criminal election interference by foreign intelligence and a republican fbi director, both magnified by a craven news media that sold the country out. his legitimacy is genuinely compromised and this should not be forgotten or normalised. it should be used to mobilise resistance and overthrow. maybe challenging the legitimacy of the president is bad for the republic. but guess what: so is trump, ten times more. the case for decorum in the face of right-wing extremity applied while it looked like clinton would succeed obama and relatively normal politics would continue. in that situation you can make an argument (challengable) for maintaining standards of discussion until demographic changes force the republicans to reform. that's not the case any more. white supremacy is still capable of taking power in america by mobilising at moments of liberal-left weakness. don't give them any more until you've put them to bed forever. your country has been stolen from you. feel free to get mad about taking it back, imo
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
also don't be too worried about the whole 'hermetic partisan media bubble' thing, given that the mainstream media is going to be unable to deal with a trump presidency. they were bad during the campaign, and now trump & the republicans have all the resources of the federal government and the security state to pressure corporate and independent outlets. never forget to look outside your own house, particularly while resisting the attempts to mobilise anti-racism in service of classism, but you're going to need something of an independent information infrastructure just to keep a grip on the truth remember the projection rule from the campaign: everything trump & the republicans accused obama of, they are actually guilty of themselves
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Clinton also ran a comparatively dishonest campaign, rife with issues of corruption and media collusion. Whether she lost fair or square, depends on how much can be proved that Republican voter suppression measures actually suppressed the turnout. He sure as gently caress doesn't have a mandate like they claim they do, but it's doubtful just how much the legitimacy of his claim to the presidency can be questioned. you can certainly take questioning it as an ethical and rhetorical stance, though. i actually came back to the thread to append voter suppression to the list. legitimacy is a constructed concept - a choice to give a kind of internal assent - and liberals have both means and motive to deny it to trump. quote:The question I would ask is, why aren't we challenging the legitimacy of the republic? We got into this mess because the entire system was designed top-down to pre-empt any kind of meaningful change which wasn't spurred on by a crisis. We haven't had a meaningful amendment to the constitution since the voting franchise was extended in the 70s. It's a decrepit system of government which was designed by slaveholders and aristocrats with the express purpose of insulating their power from the masses. i'm under no illusions about any inherent legitimacy of liberal capitalist regimes, but strategically i don't think the space to question america as such is there yet - this is a liberal thread and i'm writing for liberals. in a few years, it might be, depending on what the white supremacist takeover in a country with a plummeting white population share ultimately yields.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
Condiv posted:can someone cut and paste? nyt has a paywall now you can use a private/incognito window for nyt
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
looking forward to the woke progressive tech ceos bending the knee to trump
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:Democrats had their chance in the 2008 congress. They had gigantic almost super-majorities in both the house and senate and the presidency. They proceeded to use this overwhelming mandate for change and an economic crisis to be what ralph nader predicted: corporate stooges. They spent their 'political capital' licking the boot of wall st and the health and pharma corporations. i'm sympathetic to this point of view but you do actually have to reckon with the existence of the filibuster if you want to take this line, rather than just taking a percentage like a power level. i find the decision not to remove it understandable even if it turned out an error in hindsight. but of course, when they passed the healthcare law it was via a procedural trick to avoid the filibuster, which should have been taken as an opportunity to make it less corporate and more effective since they no longer needed every single vote. and so on. there's no escaping the compromised nature of the 2008 congress Captain_Maclaine posted:1) They will blame the dems regardless, and even if they didn't, 2) they'd blame whichever minorities are that moment's most convenient scapegoat. this is key imo, be prepared for racists you think should be listening to you doubling down on how minorities haven't been harassed enough yet and that's why things are still bad again: improving margins among the wwc may well not come from directly converting trump voters, but getting people who stayed home because clinton = oligarch and trump = oligarch clown bigot rapist back to the polls
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:the bush presidency never had as large of a majority in congress and were able to successfully push their agenda. yeah, because the democrats didn't systematically filibuster and in fact many voted with the republicans on key issues like iraq. which is another revelation of their true colours well before 2008, of course. but republican awareness of and willingness to use every procedural lever is an element of their strength and it's something post-obama democrats should emulate now that the arms-limitation treaty has been torn up
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
recently i've been wondering if the 'polarisation' of american politics isn't somewhat due to the decline of the white population share, making certain certitudes of implicit or explicit white power less viable as a consensus around which to negotiate 'centrist' policy. feels a bit mushy and idealist of an idea thoughPatter Song posted:Total vote count update: what will this come to in terms of percentage turnout though? turnout will always increase over time generally
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Is Minnesota not in the rust belt? only rural white christians get to have economic anxiety
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
on the popular vote: it's a flawed measure of how people would vote in a popular vote system, but the non-swing-state extra vote benefits both parties. it still forms a rough proxy that can be deployed as a rhetorical bludgeon to undermine the legitimacy of the extremely dangerous man about to occupy the white house, and of the electoral college system which should be abolished or reformed anywayJenner posted:Welp. You know we got really close to going full on Facism during the Great Depression. FDR saved us. they could have abolished the filibuster afaik but i understand why they were hesitant to do so. mistake in hindsight though
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
also americans who make their main focus voting systems come off a bit parochial when there are FPTP countries with 3+ relevant parties (one just north of you) and a ton of european countries with proportional parliaments and all the same neoliberalism and neofascism problems you guys have
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
yeah i've just been reflexively assuming the republicans will torch the filibuster day 1 would love to be wrong, if i am a lot of simpering liberal proceduralists will be vindicated
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
LmaoTheKid posted:https://twitter.com/breakingpol/status/797515757068447745 this is one of those things which is true, but you really shouldn't have been in a position where it was enough to stop you
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
nachos posted:I'm trying real hard not to think accelerationist thoughts but everything I'm reading about the incompetence of the Hillary campaign is stunning. Maybe it's better to take the L now and regroup for critical 2020 rather than the almost guaranteed wipeout 4 years after a Hillary presidency which would have been obstructed to hell and accomplished nothing anyway. i might agree with this if it wasn't trump and trumpism winning at her expense this year really was different
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
anyway, the heavy focus on reforming democratic economic stances, while important, imo continues to obscure a point itt: that the #1 threat to democratic success in future elections, and one of the key causes of the disaster on election day, is republican attempts to prevent minorities voting. they already have met with success and now they control more state governments, the justice department, and might have more of the supreme court. on the face of it making sure their base is allowed to vote at all in future elections is the most important task for the democratic party right now. hopefully obama will still try to do this even though his position is much worse this is one reason why i keep dragging things back to race itt. no matter how important advancing a positive economic message is, this was the core issue of the last election, will be of the next, and the democrats neglect it at their peril
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Grognan posted:like are you a caricature of a liberal or something? the man who said that, and his wife, spent a whole lot of time and effort working with and building support among black people and that delivered said wife success in the primary this year 'your supporters are literally not allowed to vote' is not a marginal concern
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
incidentally, is there anything being done about the upcoming senate runoff in louisiana i'm aware louisiana senate is probably a lost cause, but so was trump and here we are
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
he posted a correction, this was actually an email from the parliamentary labour party
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
i've said before i don't mind complaining about comey because i think denormalising trump and getting angry are good strategy and 'the election was hosed with' is a good angle for those, but if it's the end of her private analysis of loss then lol i hope venom snake is right
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
'white trash' is a term of class abuse and shall be burned in the sancti
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
i normally thump a tub about race itt but i have definitely seen some nauseating poo poo from Sensible Liberals Who Are Definitely Good And Smart Look At This Graph I Have talking about poor white people and it's surreal how they manage to finish their thoughts without realising what they're doing. it's the same creepy feeling you get when pleasant europeans suddenly become klansmen when discussing roma it's not racist (poor whites, not roma), but because it's not racist the filters they're used to applying to what they say don't apply
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
i think if people are going to rail against 'identity politics' they're going to need to specify what they mean and how it played into the last few years of big-d Democratic politics, because the complaint could be anything from astute to asinine like i'm legitimately not sure how 'identity politics' is distinguished from general anti-X-ist politics and i suspect there's several different answers i could get in this thread
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
oh yeah, since we're doing minority voting shares, the latino decisions people who were predicting stronger clinton numbers than a lot of other polls have criticised the exit poll crosstab the 'better than romney' claim is based on. i haven't scrutinised it myself
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
the list of post-eisenhower republican presidents is a real doozy nixon, ford, reagan, HW, bush, trump ford and HW are the only ones that aren't outright laughable and ford is only there because nixon had to resign, while bush had one term trump maps decently onto nixon + reagan + bush
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 05:43
|
|