|
Bernie _______ This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| would've won! |
|
87 | 34.52% |
| has won! |
|
45 | 17.86% |
| will win! |
|
56 | 22.22% |
| is winning! |
|
64 | 25.40% |
| Total: | 124 votes | ||
|
gowb posted:Regardless of what he campaigned on, last I heard Corbs was all about leaving the EU. Yes, Leave probably won because the Brexit campaign was full of cynical liars and opportunists who ought to be guillotined. Basically the entire British press should be launched into the sea and anyone who ever ran on the UKIP ticket publicly executed. Still, a vote's a vote. You don't bring society back to sanity by subverting democracy, and liberals in Labour own a share of the blame for helping drive politics in Britain to its present dismal state where something like the Brexit campaign could resonate. They're servants to capital just like the Tories. So it goes in the US (cf "we need to shame people into voting for us" smdh).
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
Heaps of Sheeps posted:No, of course not, if by both sides you mean "the ruling class" and "everyone else". The Democrats have poo poo the bed really, really badly, but if you think the outspoken racist demographic is Democrat these days then you've gone off the deep end. I'd bet those people vote solidly R, if they vote at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:The Democrats have poo poo the bed really, really badly, but if you think the outspoken racist demographic is Democrat these days then you've gone off the deep end. Cool beans, man. 1.) Dem voters aren't actually that much less racist. quote:For example, 32 percent of Trump supporters placed whites closer to the top level of “intelligence” than they did blacks, compared with 22 percent of Clinton supporters who did the same. 2.) The Democratic Party serves to enrich and empower the ruling class, and because of that, white supremacy can flourish.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
gowb posted:Regardless of what he campaigned on, last I heard Corbs was all about leaving the EU. Nope. Per Wikipedia: quote:Despite earlier comments during the leadership campaign that there might be circumstances in which he would favour withdrawal,[258] in September 2015, Corbyn said that Labour would campaign for Britain to stay in the EU regardless of the result of Cameron's negotiations, and instead "pledge to reverse any changes" if Cameron reduced the rights of workers or citizens.[259] He also believed that Britain should play a crucial role in Europe by making demands about working arrangements across the continent, the levels of corporation taxation and in forming an agreement on environmental regulation.[260] You might be thinking of this part: quote:In July 2017, Corbyn said that Britain could not remain in the European Single Market after leaving the EU, saying that membership of the single market was "dependent on membership of the EU", although it includes some non-EU countries.[263][264] Shadow Minister Barry Gardiner later suggested that Corbyn meant that Labour interpreted the referendum result as wanting to leave the single market.[265][266] Corbyn said that Labour would campaign for an alternative arrangement involving "tariff free access"[264]
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
Heaps of Sheeps posted:Cool beans, man. That's an awesome unsourced quote you've got there. You're totally right dude, they're basically just the same. There are plenty of horribly racist people whor aren't part of the ruling class. No longer empowering the ruling class doesn't change that at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:That's an awesome unsourced quote you've got there. You're totally right dude, they're basically just the same. This is true, but I don't think anyone on the left except for a tiny, really obnoxious fringe actually believes otherwise. (Heaps of Sheeps is apparently one of them) e: That said, quote:They would have proudly voted for trump. And Heaps of Sheeps thinks we need to bring them back into the Democratic tent; gently caress that ,gently caress them and gently caress him. I don't know what Heaps of Sheeps has said he wanted, but there definitely are former Democratic voters, who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, but then either voted for Trump or didn't turn out for Clinton in 2016. If you want the Dems to win another presidential election, you'd probably better pray that they come back under the Democratic tent. Majorian fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Sep 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Heaps of Sheeps posted:308,000 DEMOCRATS- more then 3 times Nader's total voters - voted for Bush. What the gently caress is wrong with you people? The people who voted for Bush got what they wanted. The people who voted for Nader did not. How is this hard to understand?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
it doesn't matter what they wanted, politics is a fight between competing powers and factions in an oppressive class system. the democrats failed because they suck at campaigning. voters are to be won over. if you fail to win them over you hosed up
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The people who voted for Bush got what they wanted. ... and Nader should have STFU about Iraq. He gets some of the credit for those eight horrid years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
Blaming voters is the same poo poo as blaming people for societal problems. All those times when Republicans harp on about "personal responsibility"? That's the same poo poo as harping on voters for voting wrong. If 5 voters vote the wrong way then yeah, maybe they're just loving morons who don't know what they're doing. If 5 percent of voters vote the wrong way then there's something bigger going on, you can't blame it on each of those 5% individually. Either the campaign hosed up, or the party hosed up in general (maybe if Obama didn't push the TPP while Hillary was trying to distance herself from it all the mistakes she made wouldn't have lost it, who knows).
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
it's the political equivalent of blaming people for being in poverty because they aren't working hard enough or don't have the right skills
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The people who voted for Bush got what they wanted. So did everyone who voted for Hillary waste their vote? They didn't get what they wanted, after all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
TPP was incredible. Everybody hated it*, but Obama wanted it so loving bad he pushed it during an election year and just assumed Republicans would never win, or if they did he was fine with that too because he'd thought it'd be the usual corporate stooge who would sign it anyway. In the end he helped lose the most winnable election ever for the Dems, and didn't even get his beloved TPP and his corporate tribunal to fine countries for having environmental regulations and consumer protection  *D&D liberals excepted natch
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:TPP was incredible. As a result, Barack Obama's legacy is Donald Trump. He hosed things up so badly that Pennywise was able to succeed him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:As a result, Barack Obama's legacy is Donald Trump. He hosed things up so badly that Pennywise was able to succeed him. I think that's probably overstating things a little bit. TPP obviously hurt the Dems, but I wouldn't put it on the same level as Clinton's mountain of fuckups.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think that's probably overstating things a little bit. TPP obviously hurt the Dems, but I wouldn't put it on the same level as Clinton's mountain of fuckups. It was still pretty much an own goal for Democrats from all accounts, everyone except the rich was suspicious of it at best and Trump earned easy points by more or less literally going 'lolno' even clearly barely understanding what it was, simply because people didn't like it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 07:59
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:It was still pretty much an own goal for Democrats from all accounts, everyone except the rich was suspicious of it at best and Trump earned easy points by more or less literally going 'lolno' even clearly barely understanding what it was, simply because people didn't like it. Oh sure, it was another brick in the wall and all that. But it probably wasn't the main factor in Trump's win. Incredibly insightful and high-quality DNC strategy like this probably played a pretty drat big role though:  KNOWN FACT, MOTHERFUCKER.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't know what Heaps of Sheeps has said he wanted, but there definitely are former Democratic voters, who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, but then either voted for Trump or didn't turn out for Clinton in 2016. If you want the Dems to win another presidential election, you'd probably better pray that they come back under the Democratic tent. Go back and reread some of the 2008 election think pieces about the Racists for Obama. These people didn't like anyone in 2008 and 2012, so they voted for their economic interests. In 2016 they got their ideal presidential candidate. The only way you can win them in 2020 is if Trump doesn't run. Jesus Christ, I have to give you credit Earl Hutchinson... quote:Not long after Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama tossed his hat in the presidential rink back in February 2007, an odd, even bizarre thing happened. A hodgepodge of avowedly racist groups burned up internet sites not with rage, but glee. They were giddy at the thought that Obama might win. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/why-some-racists-like-oba_b_136862.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Oh sure, it was another brick in the wall and all that. But it probably wasn't the main factor in Trump's win. How funny is it that a third of hispanics told Hillary to get hosed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
karthun posted:Go back and reread some of the 2008 election think pieces about the Racists for Obama. These people didn't like anyone in 2008 and 2012, so they voted for their economic interests. In 2016 they got their ideal presidential candidate. The only way you can win them in 2020 is if Trump doesn't run. I'm hearing a lot of anecdotal evidence from you and Mr. Earl "What We Can Expect From President Hillary Clinton" Hutchinson, but not much data. Where is your evidence that these "Racists for Obama" made up a significant percentage of those Obama '08/'12 voters who defected to Trump? Where is your evidence that they made up any percentage of the Obama voters who just stayed home in 2016, rather than turn out for Clinton?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think that's probably overstating things a little bit. TPP obviously hurt the Dems, but I wouldn't put it on the same level as Clinton's mountain of fuckups. I would. Not only did a Democratic rebellion over it in the Senate foreshadow the problem like a canary in the coal mine, that warning was repeated with a shocking poll-defying primary season rebellion against the Democratic establishment in the critical Blue Wall of the upper midwest. To her credit, Clinton tried to change course and admit that yeah actually the lofty promises were lies and TPP is actually a disaster for workers and the environment that no one should want except the slice of the top 0.1% that controls the multinational corporations who negotiated the deal, but her tenure as secretary of state and her involvement in creating the deal and her repeated lavish praise for it in print associated her too closely with TPP and made her midnight hour change of heart look unfortunately like political opportunism. It opened her to devastating flanking fire from the left which Trump was only too eager to exploit. And it sure didn't help that she had no coherent position on trade at the debates, and her only counterargument to Trump hammering her on NAFTA was "well that's your opinion"  And in the end, the states that TPP aimed to gently caress over lost Democrats the presidency so E: Yeah she certainly made a ton of mistakes on her own, and the election was close enough that you can pin it on anything from Comey to Russian psyops to Tim Kaine to basket of deplorables to overlycomplex Rube Goldberg schemes to trick Trump into campaigning where she wanted, but man TPP is up there with the rest of them and probably more important than most. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Sep 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Oh sure, it was another brick in the wall and all that. But it probably wasn't the main factor in Trump's win. whose idea was it to hire a bunch of loving marketing and communications majors to formulate strategy for a national political campaign and can we guillotine that dumb rear end in a top hat first
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I would. Well, but you're alluding to a far bigger problem without mentioning it, and it's one that's been discussed pretty frequently in this thread: a complete lack of a positive message for the voters she needed. You're right that she changed course on the TPP, but it was a halting, gradual, not-quite-180. Like I said, Obama did the Democrats no favors, but there's no reason it had to be fatal for Clinton. Major party candidates support unpopular policies all the time. They just cover it up by having good obfuscating answers about those policies, and then spouting feel-good bullshit to eclipse them. Clinton's biggest mistake was in...well, not ever learning how to do this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:So Democrats just neglected to point out that Gore was to the left of Bush, right? And those 300,000 became confused? vice president joe lieberman
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
 oh my god They  ed their way to imagining that hispanic people are an idealized New Dem voting bloc: fanatically brand loyal automatons who will mindlessly bequeath their votes as lifelong tribute to anyone with a D by their names no matter what they do, freeing the party to pander solely to donors and fight only to get invited to swank Georgetown cocktail parties.Most AD&D campaigns have a more recognizably realistic premise than that memo 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:jesus christ  "Hey, remember when we used to call consumers 'voters'?" "Remember when we used to have a voter base to sell to?""It's fine you guys, we just gotta get a little more racist!" 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
They really, really, really want to be Republicans. And they can't even get that right. It's been amazing watching political classes all over the world seemingly run out of remotely presentable candidates all at the same time and be down to the equivalent of the cast of Arrested Development while desperately, furiously trying to stop outsiders who are at least one step up in competence and charisma from hijacking the process.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm hearing a lot of anecdotal evidence from you and Mr. Earl "What We Can Expect From President Hillary Clinton" Hutchinson, but not much data. Where is your evidence that these "Racists for Obama" made up a significant percentage of those Obama '08/'12 voters who defected to Trump? Where is your evidence that they made up any percentage of the Obama voters who just stayed home in 2016, rather than turn out for Clinton? In October 2016 everyone was writing about President Clinton. In regards to Obama '08/'12 voters who defected to Trump there is the Voter Study Group. https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond#ii-what-shifted-from-2012-to-2016 This is the destination they use for populist. quote:Liberal (44.6 percent): Lower left, liberal on both economic and identity issues quote:Among those populists who voted for Obama, Clinton did terribly. She held onto only 6 in 10 of these voters (59 percent). Trump picked up 27 percent of these voters, and the remaining 14 percent didn’t vote for either major party candidate. For every 2012 Obama voter that didn't vote in 2016, 2 voted for Trump. I'll let you have the last word on this, I need to work in the morning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
karthun posted:In October 2016 everyone was writing about President Clinton. Well, first of all, I take issue with them defining "populist" to mean "liberal on economic issues, conservative on identity issues," since social conservatism is hardly a given in populism. Secondly, the study you're posting pretty much proves my point: Clinton did not have a positive economic message for the constituencies that she needed to win. Obama did, in both of his campaigns. Given how many of these so-called populists turned out for Obama previously, we can safely deduce that there is a point in which a positive overall message, bolstered by promises of economic renewal and prosperity, can override disdain for identity issues in many of these voters. Clinton and the Democratic strategists of 2016 did not hit that mark, and what's more, they didn't even try to hit it. That is why they lost. VitalSigns posted:
Demographics are destiny, VS! ACCEPT IT! 
Majorian fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Sep 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
This is the eternal debate over Obama->Trump voters. Liberals say they switched because of racism. Leftists say they switched because of economic reasons. The thing is of course, that both statements are true. So liberals don't want to appeal to these voters because they think that would require racism, but the left really wants to appeal to them because all it requires is economic changes they want to make anyway. Then the big arguments start where leftists get called racist because liberals don't believe in leftist economics so when they hear "we should appeal to these voters" they can only believe you want to get more racist. A lot of people also seem to have trouble with nuance. They can't see the degrees of racism so they can't see that some Trump voters are so softly racist that they can be peeled away with non-racist things. They hear you say we could peel off Trump voters and they picture the most racist of his supporters and conclude it would never work. It never comes through that you want to overcome the racism of the soft racists by offering them something they value even more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
Futuresight posted:This is the eternal debate over Obama->Trump voters. Liberals say they switched because of racism. Leftists say they switched because of economic reasons. The thing is of course, that both statements are true. So liberals don't want to appeal to these voters because they think that would require racism, but the left really wants to appeal to them because all it requires is economic changes they want to make anyway. Then the big arguments start where leftists get called racist because liberals don't believe in leftist economics so when they hear "we should appeal to these voters" they can only believe you want to get more racist. A lot of people also seem to have trouble with nuance. They can't see the degrees of racism so they can't see that some Trump voters are so softly racist that they can be peeled away with non-racist things. They hear you say we could peel off Trump voters and they picture the most racist of his supporters and conclude it would never work. It never comes through that you want to overcome the racism of the soft racists by offering them something they value even more. The thing that amazes me about the liberal argument is that it's not like left-populist politicians would have to go out of their way to pick up those "winnable" Obama->Trump voters. If we're right, and we appeal to those folks who voted for Obama, but stayed home in '16, to the point where they turn out for the Dems, then we're probably going to be able to peel off some of those Obama->Trump voters as well. And if we're wrong, well, poo poo, we'll still have gotten out more of the Obama coalition than Clinton did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So Corbyn has been consistent on it and that's bad?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
Liberals at fine with appealing to racism and/or religious bigotry tho. See the 2008 Clinton campaign: "look at Obama in Somali garb, as far as I know he isn't a Muslim Muslim Muslim he just dresses like a big ol Muslim Muslim omg Muslim, Hillary represents the white working class unlike some half-Kenyan Muslims we know not naming anyone in particular." See the 2016 "don't forget to remind everyone Bernie is an atheist Jewy Jew Jew" DNC strategy. See the 2017 DNC chair race which was "omg Muslim" forever. They're cool with pandering to racists, it's the economic stuff they don't want to do to appeal to Obama->Trump voters but they know it would play badly to admit it, which I guess is a little progress over "single payer will never happen, eat poo poo poors and sicks"
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
gowb posted:Regardless of what he campaigned on, last I heard Corbs was all about leaving the EU. He said he accepts the result of the referendum, he still wants to maintain as much of the European relationship as possible, because he is aware that the Hard Brexit which Theresa May is pushing for would gently caress over the poor much harder than the rich. Even while campaigning to remain, he was asked to give (on a comedy show interview I might add) his enthusiasm for remaining in the EU out of 10, and he gave it a "7, maybe 7 and a half". Which is an honest answer - the EU has problems, and Corbyn recognises that while also recognising the benefits of EU institutions. It's not the flip-flop you're making it out to be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
It's weird that yronic hates the guy rejuvenating the Labour Party, but that's not really on topic for this thread Could you guys take all corby chat that can't be tied to the dem party to the U.K. thread?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
I only felt the need to clarify as it had become a line of argument. That said, the Washington Post is questioning if Corbyn is the herald of a western political alignment. Additionally Corbyn credited his success in June with Bernie Sanders' campaign, from which he borrowed tactics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 11:51
|
|
|
The feeling I get from Democrats and liberal pundits is they really don't like it when people try and point out that things can be less lovely and then become popular based on that since it makes them look really bad and ineffectual. They are really invested in the idea that everything is fine (both economically and socially) with slight tweaks. Regardless of how well their policies work or not Bernie and Corbyn definitely screw them by becoming popular on ideals that aren't "X is already great!" so I can understand why they hate them so much. It's about power they think they are deserved because their resumes say so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:jesus christ It was the idea of "competent policy wonks" like Clinton and other technocratic Dems, who surrounded themselves with "experts" and "highly qualified" staffers and consultants, and brought various corporate marketing practices into their campaigns as "innovation".
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
As a marketing person (former CMO) I can assure you that the Clinton campaign has nearly nonexistent branding and messaging. I’m With Her vs. Make America Great Again? WTF??? Not to mention that “Trump Sucks” isn’t exactly a good message either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Maybe the candidates are more important than individual voters, and hence maybe your lot should take some responsibility for pushing the only candidate bad enough to lose to Trump?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 01:49
|
|
