|
Lastgirl posted:I would much prefer grassroot money than big bank for sure, but is it viably competitive? Maybe it's really the media collusion that put him at a disadvantage, but Bernie seemed to certainly do that when he was able to raise quite a lot of money during the primaries as an example (this is not primary chat) At the very least, if the next new candidate(s) can't bring in a lot of small donations, it's going to be a sign that we're still ignoring the people we need (and who need us) most.
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
Peel posted: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 Yeah, I'm worried about this too. Overcorrection is in our nature, after all. I've thought about the voter suppression thing a bit and I honestly think the only reliable solution (since legislative remedies clearly aren't going to happen any time soon) is to throw a poo poo-ton of money at the problem. Set up foundations to help people get IDs and deal with paperwork to comply with restrictive voting laws and hire fleets of vehicles to transport people to polls in places where they're being closed down, that sort of thing. So, uh, how exactly does one go about setting up a SuperPAC?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Also, how does one go about getting a poo poo-ton of money?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Cubey posted:sanders is good people and if he feels he's the only hope for the dems in 2020 i think he will do it even if it literally kills him I think he would, but I think he's also trying his damnedest to set things up so he won't be. Trying to pull the party* back together and back on point, championing Ellison (rather than himself) as DNC chair, even if he's doing it all out of ambition it feels more like ambition for influence in the Senate (which I would feel really good about him getting) than for taking another stab at the big chair in 4-8 years. ___ *I notice that no one's shouting BUT HE'S NOT A DEMOCRAT these days. Good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:black turnout was way down in Flint/Detroit for reasons that are not voter suppression, the rust belt did not give a gently caress about Clinton no matter what race The election was close enough that any one factor changing could have resulted in a different outcome. Running a campaign that doesn't completely ignore the existence of an entire region is certainly the bare minimum that needs to happen next time around. Other problems shouldn't be ignored, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Question: Do independents and the working class even give a poo poo about Progressiveism? Doesn't going balls deep progressive also potentially turn off swathes of voters? I doubt they care about the term 'progressivism' but they would probably enjoy 'hey we would actually like you to be able to take care of your families' a fair bit. The question becomes how to win what would ultimately be a war of 'the other side is lying to you' narratives, which is something we have not really been great at for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Gringostar posted:actually loving do it in states like NY and CA where we have majorities Whatever happened to that ballot initiative for single-payer health care in Colorado, anyway?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
The way I've started summarizing the question of relating economic justice and social justice is, broadly, "class/economic status/urban vs rural upbringing are identities too". Or, when I'm feeling more strident: there is no social justice. There is no economic justice. There is only justice, and we ignore any of the thousand faces of injustice at our peril because those who face that injustice will not forget our ignorance.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:great candidate, A+ work If Gary Johnson being pretty much the only reason she didn't lose Minnesota of all places doesn't tell you how badly she hosed up in the midwest, nothing will.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
I have no real idea if Bernie would have won or not. He would not have faced the same challenges Hillary did, though, and would probably have been more aware than she was of the challenges he was facing. He's kind of winning right now, though. If the Democratic party survives the next few years as anything other than the token resistance to the Trumpenreich, we'll have (among other people) Bernie Sanders to thank for it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
loquacius posted:also while googling podesta because I couldn't remember his first name I saw this article on a right-wing blog If this were true, and had happened like a week before in public, she'd probably have won.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
I think the point of highlighting potential (and actual) cases of voter suppression and the effect it had on the election isn't so much about reversing the election results (which is even less likely than an electoral college upset, and that's basically in Seth Abramson BERNIE IS TOTALLY GOING TO WIN FOR REAL AND I WILL PROVE IT pipe dream territory). And it's not about absolving the Clinton campaign for their hubris. It's more about making sure that voter protections are a big part of our big populist progressive uprising or whatever the gently caress we're doing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:Start adding poison pills to every bill to slow stuff down. I assume this is actually going to be the Republican tactic to stave off the 'support Trump on good poo poo and fight him on bad poo poo' plan some Democrats are suggesting. Expect the 2016 Infrastructure And Also Muslim Concentration Camps Act and the Paid Maternity Leave For All P.S. gently caress Medicare Act.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:It'd be cool to have an advanced alien species save us by allowing us to join a galactic federation The bad news: They just voted Gul Dukat in as their president.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
This Dunham stuff is the real world equivalent of "I JUST PUT YOU ON IGNORE I AM IGNORING YOU IGNORE IGNORE IGNOOOOOORRRRRREEEEEEE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT EVERYONE KNOWS HOW LITTLE ATTENTION I AM PAYING TO YOU" isn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:Cal will #calexit over that poo poo if he tries Oh well, I'm sure that no one in the Republican party has been dreaming about sending the army into California to
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 19:18
|
|
my bong
|
WE'RE GONNA UNBUILD THE WALL (STREET) AND BANKERS ARE GONNA PAY FOR IT
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Man, if the Progressive Takeover of the Democratic Party seriously gives up after a week, before Trump is even president yet...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
jackofarcades posted:Hillary talked about policy, esp in like swing state small gatherings, but she didn't advertise on it. She made a point of talking about policy in the debates, too, but it was all ultimately in venues that only the people who were already kind of tuned in were likely to see. There was policy, and there was (some) outreach, but there was drat little combining of the two.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Make privatized infrastructure illegal on the federal level. Destroy Public/private partnerships and prosecute the sitting boards for corruption. This is a drive-up federal cheeseburger redistribution center, Comrade.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Can't believe it took me so long to come across this: And if Gary Johnson hadn't run, she'd have lost Minnesota too, which is a lot more damning than any of the above.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
Like, I'm happy to hold voting for Jill Stein against people in general, because you could have supported a more effective candidate by simply setting your ballot on fire. But let's be realistic here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:if the democratic party cannot have it no one can Well, I mean, if it's gonna work out as 'Democrats win or the world burns' anyway, why fight it?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
Condiv posted:cause the dems wanted it that way and pushed for it to be that way? The Democrats didn't actually make the Republicans be super-evil, they just failed to provide a better argument than 'hey, the Republicans are super-evil, vote for us instead for, uh, some reason'. You can hate Hillary Clinton and think she ran a lovely campaign (I don't, and do, respectively) without accusing her of making it always winter and never Christmas in Narnia.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no, hillary specifically adopted a strategy to radicalize the right-wing: That's one interpretation, I suppose.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Webb was part of ending George Allen's political career, and for that reason alone I can't hate the guy. The main thing I remember about Chafee is that fishmech liked him a lot. Draw what conclusions you will.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:The reign of terror was a good thing. ...for Napoleon
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Also it's not actually okay to murder people even if they're rich.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:or if they knew a rich person, or if they ever say 'maybe it's hosed up you're just murdering people in the streets', or if they looked at a Jacobin crossways Or if they're a poor person who said "hey, this revolution isn't actually helping us the way they promised it would".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Setting aside the bold correctness of "killing people is bad" as a position, Isn't it more satisfying to take their power and money away and make them watch it happen?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
It would be hilarious(ly awful) if Trump were to stake out every prominent Democrat who even remotely has a chance in 2020 and offer them positions in his administration. Even if they turn him down, that'd probably be enough to poison them in some folks' eyes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Al! posted:yeah but theres something about those starbelly sneeches that gets under my skin far more than the guys building the sneechmulcher Yeah, and say what you will about Republicans, but they're pretty drat good at uniting a couple of different coalitions that don't share very many common values. (By lying through their teeth to their various bases and then doing whatever the hell they want anyway.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
If anything, truth is more important than ever, but the delivery mechanism for the truth needs to change from "lol you ignorant racist hicks, get woke and CTRL-F Abuela and blow your mind" to something more like "YOU ARE BEING LIED TO". Maybe arrayed around a picture of Sonic the Hedgehog or a big dog or something, I don't know, I don't really speak meme.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It doesn't have to be delusional counter-propaganda, but it needs to carry it's own message. Carrying the opponents message, annotated, is a surefire path to disaster. Again, this is actually pretty well studied at this point, at least for fringe-science false news propagation. "Corrections" absolutely do not work and actively make the problem worse, because you have to be a vector for the misinformation to do it, and you're always playing catch-up, and it propagates much less effectively. Yeah, I agree one hundred percent with this. There needs to be something in addition that combats the idea that the Trumps of the world are the only people who care about folks and their problems, though, especially since the next election is likely to be a referendum on Trump's empty promises, but also on Why The gently caress Should We Trust You Assholes Who Completely Ignored Us In 2016. We need a solid answer to that question, and "that was just the Neoliberals, we're the Progressives" isn't going to cut it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Optimus Subprime posted:Also, inviting Tulsi Gabbard was probably Bannon's idea of loving with the progressive/Bernie bro base by having one of Bernie's supporters (who has her own issues) showing up and talking to djt. I don't recommend getting too caught up in any personality cult worship, just focus on the actual progressive movement itself. I half-believe that the early cabinet proposals being a collection of almost cartoonishly racist warmonger lunatics are a bit of a troll designed to get people riled up now so we're out of steam in January and the comparatively 'reasonable' group of cabinet members that gets rolled out instead will feel like a minor victory. (A slate who will still do all the same things that Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard The-South-Shall-Rise-Again Sessions and Secretary of Defense Forums Poster muslimstomper69 would).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Why are people mad at Tulsi Gabbard? If the President-elect called her up and said he wanted to talk to her, what was she supposed to do? "I'm busy working out how to dethrone you that day."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
I would totally hug Hillary Clinton if I had the chance. I know I'd need a hug right now if I'd hosed up that badly.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Yeah, it's true. Hillary's message, at it's best, was more one of "things are actually going pretty well, let's not lose the progress we've made, and here's how I will keep that progress going". Which is great if you accept the central premise (that things are actually going pretty well). While I would argue that it offers hope of a sort, it doesn't (and didn't) offer much of anything to people for whom things aren't going well at all, and that was a big problem. Hell, just look at how any discussion of the ACA almost immediately devolved into a war between 'it's better than things used to be/I can actually get insurance now' and 'I CAN'T AFFORD MY USELESS HIGH-DEDUCTIBLE INSURANCE WHICH IS ALL I CAN GET HOW THE gently caress IS THIS BETTER', with no real answers aside from complicated proposals that may never see the light of day forthcoming for the latter group. The thing I think GlyphGryph is missing (and I mostly agree with their assessment otherwise) is that our future message can't just be one of HERE IS HOW I WILL FIX THINGS FOR YOU, it needs to include a solid answer to what I'm sure will be the big question of 2020 (and possibly even 2018): "Why should I believe you now, when you completely ignored my problems in 2016?" I think most of Trump's promises (aside from the ones about gently caress Muslims and gently caress Mexicans) will be shown as empty by that point, but that doesn't mean people in the Midwest will start believing that the 'coastal elite' Democrats'suddenly care about them now, and it's gonna take more than "those were the Neoliberals, we're the Progressives, we're completely different, trust us" to win them over no matter what message we give them. The other thing is that we need to absolutely acknowledge that, while Clinton's incompetence and hubris lost this election, that there were other things happening too that are just as important to address. We can't keep shouting down reports of voter suppression or (sigh I know) Russian interference or the media being useless or polling being useless with YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO ABSOLVE CLINTON YOU NEOLIBERAL CULTIST YOU. No. We're not. She hosed up. Other bad poo poo happened too, and those other things are problems we can't ignore any more than we can ignore the mistakes Clinton made, and that might mean we have to do two things, or even three.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
So why should anyone believe our message of hope?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
First magic genie lamp I find, y'all's guns are GONE. I agree there are probably other political priorities to focus on, though. loquacius posted:e: new topic, say that the Internet's current long-shot obsession actually comes to pass and it's proven that the election was hacked by Russia and the real results favor Hillary. What does that mean for the Democratic Party going forward? Do we shake off the nightmare of the past few weeks and pretend they never happened, or do we retain the lessons we learned from our soul-searching and strive to Get Better even though we're not doomed to suffer under a dictatorial buffoon for four years? In the unlikely event that Hillary somehow gets put into the Presidency after all either because Russian shenanigans are proven and/or the Electoral College does a thing, and the even more unlikely event that we survive the resulting civil war, I think there's absolutely a danger that we (as in the larger Democratic coalition who are all in this together) get complacent in our relief at dodging the apocalypse through no fault of our own. And also a danger that the lesson we learn is gently caress THE MIDWEST ANYWAY. I do think that recounts/vote audits are a good idea (both as a matter of routine course and in this specific instance as things start to look more and more fishy). Not because the election will (or should) be overturned, and certainly not to absolve Clinton of her campaign fuckups, but so that we can determine what happened and how to prevent it happening again, since there's at least a theoretical chance that there will be elections again in 2018 and 2020.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 19:22
|
|