|
Mind_Taker posted:I tend to agree with this. But how do you ensure that the most viable Democratic candidate in a general election wins the primary election? How do you prevent someone like Hillary, who obviously failed to turn up her based in the general election, from becoming the next Democratic nominee for president? Despite claims from many Bernie supporters saying that the DNC rigged the system, didn't Hillary actually win the nomination fair and square? (honest question, I'm not well-versed in the whole DNC scandal) "Fair and square" Media messaging was taking their cues from her campaign staff. Incredibly regressive rules about internal primary voting in states she did well in. In New York you could not change party affiliation to vote in the primary in April 2016 unless you did so in October 2015. You know, like way before Sanders actually announced his campaign I think. So a lot of enthusiastic youth, independents, and republicans that wanted to cross the aisle because of understandable disgust with establishment status quo in both parties got shut out of the primary voting process. Also going by ground floor experience in the NV state caucus they ignored their own rules to rubber-stamp Hillary's delegates. The primary this season was supposed to be a formality instead of a selection process. Good things Nevada does: Early voting and same day party affiliation change for district caucus voting. We managed to hold on to Harry Reid's seat and legalize weed. Grognan fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Nov 10, 2016 |
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
rum sodomy Rainbow Dash posted:I disagree that you can't win off minorities. Clinton did not perform as well as Obama did in 2012 when it came to a lot urban areas for the states that decided this thing. A lot of Obama voters stayed home, and while Republican turnout was also poor, it's pretty bad when you consider the huge GOTV effort by the Clinton campaign. People did not like Clinton. THAT IS ONLY RACISM TALKING NOTHING ELSE
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:The people who treat any direct outreach to rural American whites as "coddling racists." Acknowledging them as basically people with the same rights has been problematic in some of the threads in the forums. Check out that rural poverty thread for some hot takes. Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:I think the time for small towns in the middle of nowhere has come to an end. We need to talk about whether or not these towns should exist. If there's a way to buy out everyone in a town and just bulldoze/let nature take its course and start clumping people into ever-larger towns until there are swaths of gorgeous countryside and parks between commercial/industrial hubs of cities, that would solve many problems, such as people in need of urgent care being far from hospitals.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:You defeat racism in part by eliminating the catalysts of fear and anxiety which racists exploit. Income insecurity, healthcare, housing. Of course there will always be racists who fear and hate minorities but you don't need them. You only need to win the white people who are voting primarily due to economics and resentment towards the establishment that has forsaken them. So you win the portion of the white vote you need to pass progressive legislation at a national level and in doing so you help them, you help POC, all without coddling racists. The KKK looks pretty silly when they don't have an economic blame game to exploit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
Bates posted:And all you have to do is end capitalism! Nah man, last time when peeps had good jobs they just loving published their secret handshakes on the superman show and it wasn't cool to be part of them anymore. A bit harder to sell that again when people can't cash in #woke to pay rent. This is not to say that their stances have any merit, but that economic security was like really helpful in strangling support for it. Hard to double down on an panic scenario for the existence of white children when it was like "lol I can have kids and I don't have to give no shits about blacks or grand wizards." People are moving in poo poo directions because of economic pressures that have peaked over multiple decades. Edit: Capitalism is pretty poo poo and I think it is bad, but when you keep the loving plates spinning it works. I think enough plates fell down that we saw it in the EC system. Grognan fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:It's a phase in life where they're generally fixated on stupid poo poo (to the rest of the adults) and don't really care about anything except getting laid, having experiences, getting laid and maybe making some money in the process. And there is no great existential or literal threat to them in a meaningful way to have them become a strong, civically involved, bloc. The ones that are already civically inclined/involved (many in college or just luck-of-the-draw like to be committed to community activity) are already voting. Just pointing out, a proper look at actual history and political theory with relation to current events at a young age is pretty loving emotionally toxic to someone given the massive problems and dysfunction that works because people tend to confirmation bias past the worst of it. I can't really blame younger people for taking the emotionally healthy option during formative years instead of staring into the goddamn abyss of unaffectable systemic problems that, when you look at history, will continue regardless of whatever individual agency exists. You pretty much have to have a good foundation for your planned family and a planned retirement to really start giving a poo poo about the direction of the future because you actually can. Speaking personally, children was way out of our possible lifespan given the fiscal and emotional costs.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Tom Clancy is Dead posted:When you phrase it like that, maybe. Another way of framing it is to point out that things have generally gotten better over time, mostly as one generation dies out and the next takes power. So young people can either wait for the old people to pass away or they can proactively take power and realize the benefits earlier. I'm glad you can personalize that view of history as a comforting one. I think we may have seen some of the friction of a younger perspective yearning for a change in the democratic primary but we also saw the inertial snare of an establishment hell-bound on making sure their expected offices would not be contested. Party managers that have spent their whole political career being social-friendly brand of standard American politics probably are not going to roll over and change simply because it helps people. Edit: if you get people woke too soon in their life and they ain't doing so well and they have no future you get death cultists. Edit2: Well poo poo this helps explain suicide bombing. Grognan fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I feel like every American politics thread needs a PSA at the top of every page for the next eight years: Source your quotes? Opposing being able to shuffle the manufacturing of base economic commodities to countries that are labor/human rights disasters to save a buck, putting it out of sight, and also destroying the economic and political voice of the working poor (that would normally be doing that work under proper regulation) is somehow supposed to be racist? At least my I-phone is *fab, all our cast metal is **cheap, and my new outfit is ***affordable and fly * headquarters in Ireland to avoid taxes, installs suicide nets at Chinese factories ** imports from china, wonders why steel industry died in the US, global warming is up, and there is no EPA in China *** watches another garment factory making wal-mart clothes in Bangladesh fall over because we blessed them with jobs from the job creators at the cheapest possible rate Grognan fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:"gently caress whitey" is a non-notable bullet point on a list of pointlessly divisive rhetoric. This bullet might not matter by itself, but I really have to wonder why the left is so willing to shoot its foot for no reason. because the poor are the acceptable target of pretty much anyone Grognan fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
going to laugh when not having enough money/good enough job is grounds for being deplorable. (it already is, monied places of society just prefer not to talk about it)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I'm glad to see that neoliberalism has joined socialism in the category of words that have no meaning in mainstream America anymore and now just signify "stuff the speaker hates." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#United_States Aka, all that third way poo poo that stretches from reagan to bill clinton
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Actually people will take handouts, they were just gutted back in the nineties by President Bill Clinton. That dignity bullshit sailed a long time ago. Makes a nice excuse out of sympathy for the poors' frame of mind to avoid doing anything for them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:So when you say we need to appeal to racists what you really mean is that we need to make the message more about wages and jobs? Isn't that what everyone is telling you in the first place? How is that appealing to racists and not appealing to the economic concerns of the working class? Because helping the poor is undesirable. And racist. Raising Taxes on the rich is racist also sexist because women earn less than men. If we handed out the living amenities the poor would be more miserable than scrabbling to live, of course. I am totally not a caricature of the gilded age.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I watched both rallies (Trump & Clinton) for Ohio and I must say it was very clear after that why Hillary lost the election. Not only did he devote more time but he also actually spoke to the electorate on their own term while connecting them to national issues. (the wall and corrupted establishment) Hillary by comparison mostly roasted Trump's businesses dealings why only focusing on policy decisions affecting 20-30 year old's. She did not capture the worries present within the region. Remember when her plan for student loans was to delay repayment if you started a small business? She really didn't hit the 20-30 year olds either.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Honestly think that was just rhetoric, can't even believe the Secretary would actually do it. Obama had to walk back his red line.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:So we're getting a Sec of Education that doesn't even believe in the concept of public schools. Yay! Hillary's platform was very pro-charter school, which isn't very great for the concept of public schools anyways.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 19:14
|
|