|
Condiv posted:there's only one minority group dems really care about poo poo like this isn't helpful; please stop.
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 02:33 |
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Lets suppose I am a working class man in Michigan. My family is struggling financially and I am economically anxious and I want to see what she will do for me. I go to HRC's website and click "issues" that takes me here: We already know that she hugely overestimated the intelligence of Americans and treated them way too respectfully, Kingfisher. Well, except Crowsbeak, who in between spouting Nazi propaganda is still saying the voters were 100% logical and rational in choosing Trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Masochism =/= Intelligence Otherwise this nation would probably be run by those guys who get hit in the nuts for womens' self defense courses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Masochism =/= Intelligence Reading anything over 300 words - the peak of torture. Hey, looks like we've got a supporter of Herman Cains "only small bills" proposal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Reading anything over 300 words - the peak of torture. Regardless, he's making a pretty valid point about how to effectively communicate one's policy platform to voters. Clearly Clinton's way of doing it was not effective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Regardless, he's making a pretty valid point about how to effectively communicate one's policy platform to voters. Clearly Clinton's way of doing it was not effective. We are aware of this. In fact, the bulk of people claiming that communication was not a problem are progressives who claim that the policies and ideas were communicated clearly and the election was a rejection of those ideas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:poo poo like this isn't helpful; please stop. Condiv doesn't want to help. It's clearly the exact opposite and quite blatant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Lets suppose I am a working class man in Michigan. My family is struggling financially and I am economically anxious and I want to see what she will do for me. I go to HRC's website and click "issues" that takes me here: Someone frame this post and deliver it to the DNC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
The DNC doesn't hire a candidate's campaign staff or dictate strategy, strangely enough
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
The problem was not that Hillary had a poorly designed website, the problem was that she directed people to it at all. That said for god's sake any young liberal people with web design skills need to get up in some goddamn campaigns and give them better site organization. Also lol that MIGF wants to enact tariffs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I agree 100% with the point about the New Deal and other widespread left-populist bundles of legislation in the past, and I think there's a lot of truth to the point about Bernie's campaign as well. But I also think that Sanders course-corrected on race a lot more quickly than non-Sanderistas give him credit for, too. A big part of the reason why it ended up hobbling him was because the Clinton campaign did a pretty effective job of convincing Dem primary voters that Sanders was, definitively, "bad on race." I disagree. Because right after the election, Sanders went right back to sticking his foot in his mouth when it came to racial issues, telling me that he in fact didn't learn poo poo. Such as when he says its not enough to be a woman or PoC, when for many, we never get that chance. Obama ran as a centrist but I would give some definite side-eye to someone who said that about his candidacy. The language minorities are allowed to use when on the national stage is far more limited than their white candidates sadly enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:We are aware of this. In fact, the bulk of people claiming that communication was not a problem are progressives who claim that the policies and ideas were communicated clearly and the election was a rejection of those ideas. I think the complete lack of direction in the HRC campaign was an accurate communication of her policies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I disagree. Because right after the election, Sanders went right back to sticking his foot in his mouth when it came to racial issues, telling me that he in fact didn't learn poo poo. Such as when he says its not enough to be a woman or PoC, when for many, we never get that chance. This is such horse poo poo. Please tell me what exactly you object to about this response quote:Let me respond in a way that the questioner may not be happy with. It goes without saying that as we fight to end all forms of discrimination, as we fight to bring more and more women into the political process, Latinos, African Americans, Native Americans– all of that is enormously important.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I disagree. Because right after the election, Sanders went right back to sticking his foot in his mouth when it came to racial issues, telling me that he in fact didn't learn poo poo. Such as when he says its not enough to be a woman or PoC, when for many, we never get that chance. Obama ran as a centrist but I would give some definite side-eye to someone who said that about his candidacy. But Sanders was ultimately right - one of Clinton's campaign points was, "I'm a woman," and it didn't generate nearly the same response as the guy with Hussain as his middle name. And the idea that women and PoC will never be president again is a total eye-roll. What it showed was that what helped Obama win in 2008 wasn't just that he was black, but that he promised post-partisan change, while Clinton's campaign ran on her being experienced, not Trump, a woman... and representing nothing really beyond herself. That ended up costing her hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Sanders shameful comment about how candidates need to have strong progressive policies...
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Dude's been in office like three days and you're ready to string him up. C'mon man. We wanted Little Richard and got Pat Boone. Sure, it's still rock and roll, but we're allowed to be pissed about it for a while.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:We are aware of this. In fact, the bulk of people claiming that communication was not a problem are progressives who claim that the policies and ideas were communicated clearly and the election was a rejection of those ideas. When did anyone say that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
it was a rejection of those ideas, in that it was a rejection of having no ideas
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Yes, if there was any candidate in the election who had no loving idea what the hell they were talking about, it was totally Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
A lot of bad stuff can be said of trump on campaign. Not having any ideas is not one of them. Third Way is unsavory to the modern public. It's effectiveness has decreased as the "say and do anything it takes to Win" ideology has gained visibility. People want you to have a clue beyond "whatever is safe".
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:But Sanders was ultimately right - one of Clinton's campaign points was, "I'm a woman," and it didn't generate nearly the same response as the guy with Hussain as his middle name. And the idea that women and PoC will never be president again is a total eye-roll. What it showed was that what helped Obama win in 2008 wasn't just that he was black, but that he promised post-partisan change, while Clinton's campaign ran on her being experienced, not Trump, a woman... and representing nothing really beyond herself. That ended up costing her hard. Yeah, she pushed it crazy hard which made it not only seem inauthentic but the lack of any other good message to fit alongside it really laid stark how empty the whole thing was. Yeah, whoops. It's so easy to autopsy the Hillary campaign you don't even notice sometimes  vvv
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
listen i hate hillary as much as ya'll do, that loving trashcan idiot, i hold her personally responsible for trump but this thread is about her creepy hobglobin minion, tom perez, who likes to suck wall street dick. hillary is, at least for now, banished to martha's vineyard or wherever rich people go when they arent trying to destroy america
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/michaellarosadc/status/836785907894267904
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
Thank goodness for the return of Teleprompter Meme, that went really well against Obama.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
I mean, it's a fine point. Trump doesn't deserve credit for doing what everyone else in Washington can do just because he's usually not capable of staying on message for more than a sentence at a time. Every time Trump makes a fifth grade level speech the media slobbers all over his dick like he's the second coming of JFK.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, it's a fine point. Trump doesn't deserve credit for doing what everyone else in Washington can do just because he's usually not capable of staying on message for more than a sentence at a time. Yup. It's something that the Dems absolutely need to push back against. Trump doing the bare minimum in terms of decorum should not be applauded, and media pundits need to get called out when they act like "OH poo poo HERE'S THE PIVOT YOU GUYS!!!" blackguy32 posted:I disagree. Because right after the election, Sanders went right back to sticking his foot in his mouth when it came to racial issues, telling me that he in fact didn't learn poo poo. Such as when he says its not enough to be a woman or PoC, when for many, we never get that chance. Do you have any other examples? Because that could have been stated better on his part, I agree, but it doesn't strike me as particularly damning. e: Also, not to be too rules-lawyerly, but I was talking about the direction of his campaign, not about poorly-worded things he said after the election. His campaign did make the course correction during the primary, and the Clinton campaign still kept suggesting that Sanders was somehow bad on race. Majorian fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:A lot of bad stuff can be said of trump on campaign. Not having any ideas is not one of them. "So much winning" is not a loving idea. It's not even a loving concept. It would barely qualify as a loving goal!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:A lot of bad stuff can be said of trump on campaign. Not having any ideas is not one of them. Errrr...I think this is going a bit too far. Dude didn't really have too many concrete ideas, as opposed to vague platitudes that turned out to be better at mobilizing his base than Clinton's promises were with hers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
plz do not praise trump itt tia
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yup. It's something that the Dems absolutely need to push back against. Trump doing the bare minimum in terms of decorum should not be applauded, and media pundits need to get called out when they act like "OH poo poo HERE'S THE PIVOT YOU GUYS!!!" Everything from this very thread to the DNC election and what most Democrats in Washington are up to, is pointing to 2018 being a disappointment and Trump winning in 2020. Democrats can't even get past the "do we need some new ideas or not?" stage, and meanwhile tonight shows that all Trump has to do to look Presidential "enough" is string together a few coherent sentences every four weeks. Democrats really don't have the frame of reference or the vocabulary to comprehend just how much trouble they're in. They're not even losing the game - they don't know what the game is that's being played (hint: it's more substantive than you think). The GOP have a terrible platform and most people understand that, but they do have a platform and they do stick to the script - no one even knows what the Democrats even stand for anymore including and especially Democrats. You don't win elections that way. I do think that the efforts at the state and local levels will bear fruit, but 2018 is not looking good nationally and 2020 is slipping away as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Harping on "decorum" all the time plays right in to their hands because it distracts from their lovely policies and the consequences thereof. That's why this "rely on Trump being unpopular" strategy put forward by unimaginative crazy people like JeffersonClay is so loving dangerous: he's not going to be as unpopular as you're counting on, and the people who support him to the last will be the most reliable voters in the next election for either side. I agree the Democrats need to be more than "not Trump" to win. It honestly feels like they have already convinced themselves they are going to win and have to do nothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
Perez done anything yet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:This is such horse poo poo. Please tell me what exactly you object to about this response Please reread my post. We would be having this conversation about Barack Obama if this was 2008. He says Identity Politics doesn't matter if you don't stand up to the oligarchy. I am saying that as a black man, there are plenty of things that he cannot say that a white man can, and for many of us, that mattered a lot. I mean, we sat through his "conversation on race" about Jeremiah Wright, and we knew that he couldn't say what he wanted to. But yes, Identity Politics do matter even if you aren't going to attack the "oligarchy." But please tell me how my feelings on the matter is such horse poo poo. Probably Magic posted:But Sanders was ultimately right - one of Clinton's campaign points was, "I'm a woman," and it didn't generate nearly the same response as the guy with Hussain as his middle name. And the idea that women and PoC will never be president again is a total eye-roll. What it showed was that what helped Obama win in 2008 wasn't just that he was black, but that he promised post-partisan change, while Clinton's campaign ran on her being experienced, not Trump, a woman... and representing nothing really beyond herself. That ended up costing her hard. I am not talking about Clinton. I never mentioned Clinton. There were things Clinton could say about race that I don't think Obama would ever be able to say on a national stage. Majorian posted:Do you have any other examples? Because that could have been stated better on his part, I agree, but it doesn't strike me as particularly damning. Here is the thing. Sanders is so concerned about pushing his economic message that he ignores that diversity is about accepting people even if they don't share his agenda 100 percent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:As president, Hillary has a five-point plan to meet these challenges An underrated part of Clinton's failure is that even her policies don't actually sound exciting or good. The 100-day-jobs thing is insanely boring. It's just a list of things that she would allegedly invest in. Even if people love hearing there'll be jobs, it doesn't sound particularly convincing or appealing (this is because Democrats hardly believe in this poo poo). And broadly speaking, no one is against jobs in these industries, anyway. The debt-free college thing isn't bad, but 'refinancing your loans' is too vague for anyone to really be excited about. The thing about companies is largely uninspiring and not very different than what Trump was saying anyway. The part about the corporations paying their fair share is boring; it also mentions fighting for "The Buffet Rule ", which most people reading that will have no idea what it even means. The meeting the challenges families face is also incredibly boring, although it's probably the best part: guaranteed pay leave is concrete enough to be appealing. Besides the fact that a lot of this stuff is actually boring, vague, and not even necessarily good, the language itself is way too positive and passive. It says the political system "is doing too little to help working Americans", "the economic system "encourages short-term profits over long-term investment", and workplace policies "don't meet the needs of American families because they're outdated". That TPP "doesn't meet a high enough bar". The companies need to pay their "fair" share. It's so passive. It's like they're talking about a machine that needs some oil or some poo poo. There is no legitimate attempt to actually position themselves against concrete agents and be open about the fact that there are actual forces to fight against. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 11:46 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Here is the thing. Sanders is so concerned about pushing his economic message that he ignores that diversity is about accepting people even if they don't share his agenda 100 percent. Sanders correctly understands that there is a difference between not sharing an agenda 100% and being actively against it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
Huge slam on the Perez children outta nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
it's sad the dem establishment still believes themselves to be good leaders the dem party is on life-support thanks to their astoundingly idiotic leadership, and yet they will not even try a new direction. not one bit. gotta keep sucking up to big banks, and having lobbyists squirming through the party, and picking ineffective leaders who get nothing worthwhile done. how much more power do you suppose the dems bleed in 2018? they'll probably lose even more states so the repubs can call a constitutional convention
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
I laughed a little bit. It's the "you can say that on TV" version of "All he managed to do was not poo poo himself on TV, why are you applauding him?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It was a thought experiment about how even if somebody actually did look at her website, all they would find is an unorganized mess. To be completely fair, there's a bunch of different concerns different people have and I'm not really sure how to make a website in such a way that anyone visiting it will immediately see information about the specific issue they're interested in. The only real improvement I can think of is to make that page into a more standard "table of contents" of sorts rather than a bunch of boxes you have to search through to find the issues you're interested in. Granted, this is why sending people to a website isn't really a good idea in the first place. I just can't think of any obvious improvements that would make it easier for the hypothetical person you mentioned while also giving accessible content for other interest groups. edit: Another improvement would be to make the more common concerns (the economy, LGBT/race, etc) more "front and center" than stuff like addressing the opiate addiction epidemic (and I say this as an opiate addict so that's kind of a major issue for me personally). You can maybe include the addiction stuff as a point under a more general "Healthcare" section that begins with the stuff that the most people are concerned about. So actually I guess it kind of is easy to make this website a lot better. Instead of having so many boxes, have a smaller number of more general points that each begin with the biggest issues (but still include other issues below). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 02:33 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Errrr...I think this is going a bit too far. Dude didn't really have too many concrete ideas, as opposed to vague platitudes that turned out to be better at mobilizing his base than Clinton's promises were with hers. Trump had lots of concrete ideas that were boiled down to a fine essence and delivered up as solid bedrocks for his voting base. Granted they were horrible, terrible ideas, but he did have them. 'Build the wall' 'Take the oil' 'Win against China' 'Bring back jobs'. Those were all concrete ideas Trump made sure to mention in every rally and appearance. People laughed because he sounded like a broken record, but he was building a brand. Trump isn't a complete idiot. He knows how to market and how to manipulate the media. Meanwhile, what did Clinton build her campaign around? How many solid campaign issues can you recall that could be expressed in five words or less and *didn't* revolve around the configuration of her genitalia? What causes did Clinton consistently and loudly champion at her every appearance until it became just bound up in who she was?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 21:30
|
|
