|
Grand Fromage posted:Yes. This is stupid as poo poo because in a primary the party (as in, the organization itself) should not be trying to influence voters to vote for one of their candidates over another. Their sole job was to facilitate the primary from a functionally administrative POV. That's it. That's where their involvement begins and ends - it doesn't extend to brainstorming up poo poo for one candidate to hit another with. That's scummy as poo poo and pretty much the definition of un-democratic - they're honestly pretty lucky that Hillary didn't even need the help, to the point that the favoritism likely accomplished next to nothing. But it was still there and folks should be pretty annoyed by it. To reiterate, Hillary is not the candidate because of any loving cheating - hell, if anything she was probably annoyed at what a collection of loving dunces decided they had to do. But folks in the DNC did try to play kingmaker and influence the result of their election, and that's super lovely. Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Oct 16, 2016 |
#
¿
Oct 16, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 01:41 |
|
|
He's blaming democrats for being widely incompetent and continuously blowing off a large chunk of the electorate for decades at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:Haha, okay. Thanks for demonstrating the attitude that continues to push them to republicans every time. Keyser S0ze posted:Didn't they lose those people to the GOP/Trumpenreich forever when they embraced "brown and gay people rights" and "social programs" in the 1980's? I don't see them ever coming back and we already know they'll cut off their hands and feet to spite their "neighbors." No one actually knows because the democratic party literally makes no effort to appeal to them and any attempt at doing so (a la Bernie using economic populism) is met with complete contempt from the party. I mean I know it makes educated democrats feel good to think of poor whites as folks who just deserve to wallow in poverty but, well, they don't. Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Keyser S0ze posted:I am 48 years old and I've lived all over California and now (from the Bay Area) east of Sacramento in Roseville (Placer County) which is basically Texas and a massive massive GOP stronghold (McClintock is their senator for fucks sake) and when you see largest Bass Pro Shop outside of Arkansas and the State of Jefferson signs on Hwy 80 from SF to Squaw Valley you'll know you've arrived! Every democrat gets demolished here and Dems are most definitely trying to appeal to the under $75k white folks with economic initiatives and these folks don't want to hear it. Dems only get any support in the more minority friendly areas in Sacramento county. So which income demos there actually vote. 'Cause looking around on census.gov congressional district section, about 47% of households fit into the $75k+ category. Population also seems to be pretty old - median age of ~45, and ~63% of the voting-aged population is over 45. Bass Bottles posted:So the party actually putting forward policies to help these people thinks they "deserve to wallow in poverty." I mean, I sort of agree with you that the left has a tendency to look down on these people as being ridiculously uninformed, which comes across as elitism. But it's also true. It's a bunch of things. I think the democrats lean much more on the social than the economic these days when it comes to actually putting their ideas out to the voting public - I can't think of any actual, concerted economic appeal the democrats have made on the national stage in a long time. I'd be unsurprised if there's a feeling among poor whites that unless you're a poor minority, democrats couldn't give a flying gently caress about you. Also the "but it's also true" comment is loving bullshit and, yes, elitist. Why are they "ridiculously uninformed?" It's because they're loving poor. Pretty sure I've said jack poo poo about shifting to the middle so not sure what you're talking about here. Economic progressiveness is purely leftist, there is no shift to the middle for it. It's entirely about putting that message out there to the demographic and seeing who you can grab with it. The democrats as a party largely don't do this and, again, any push to actually make that appeal is largely looked at with contempt for wanting to bring "those racist poors" into the fold instead of leaving them out entirely. But that's largely due to the A+ job rich whites did in setting poor whites and minorities against eachother to keep them from joining up against affluent interests. Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:-Economic appeal: Like, literally everything??? This entire election? Bernie Sanders' one issue? Better education, higher minimum wage, shifting the tax burden to the rich, etc. I'm not sure what else you could call all of that. It was Bernie's big thing, sure, but he was also the only real voice for it - when he bowed out, the voice of economic interests went functionally silent. The democrats as a party do not push this poo poo (I personally don't think they even want to). His poo poo might live on in elements of the platform, but they're not what the party puts front and center: that's social issues. Has been for a while, and will continue to be so at the expense of the economic end because that works much better for affluent leadership. My stance is that there's no reason to sacrifice anything in terms of social policy - nor do I even want the democrats to do so. That's not worth it to me. But there has to be something there from the economic end other than the usual anti-reaganomics platitudes. They have to actually look at poor whites, tell them they understand the situation they're in, and that this is how they're going to fix it. Are they going to grab every poor white? gently caress no. That's not the point. But it puts their ideas out there, it puts them in conversation and in thoughts, it makes it clear that the demographic is not forgotten. You put that poo poo out there and sell it worth a poo poo, and you get at least something, even if it has to be a bit further down the line. "Unrealistic?" How the gently caress? I mean if you want to say it's unrealistic in the sense that the party flatout doesn't want to do this for a variety of reasons, sure, but "you can't just shift gears!" is a really lovely excuse for continuing to not give a gently caress about a demographic and then whining when they don't vote for you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
No, the focus of the election since it shifted into the general has been "Holy poo poo Donald Trump is an awful human being" with an addendum of "primarily because he's awful towards women and minorities." Which he is. I really recommend a read of that Jacobin article that was linked. It's a good one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Hillary won because she spent decades building a network of surrogates to tell Democratic primary voters how good she is. She was helped and Bernie was hindered by other things (such as registration deadlines well before the primary was actually held in some places), but those aren't the core reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Do you live in a world where nuance doesnt exist or something because boy is "Bernie lost because more people wanted Hillary, that's all!!!" is a literal fart of a thought. I'm also not sure what your point even was to begin with in bringing the subject up, because the topic at hand is expressly "people who don't vote" and you answered with "a primary that by nature only targets people who vote. "Then again, you did tout the "actually if we just wait a decade or two, we won't have to give a poo poo about poor whites at all!" line of thought without a single iota of awareness as to how loving awful that is. And his reddit was half alt-right Trump voters trying to stir poo poo for their own ends, which is why the actual Bernie supporter mods closed the thing down. EDIT: Actually forgot about this, but Full Frontal also also did a thing on this that is also fairly illustrative of the problem: the democrats are still a party of elites. It's telling that the person they interview with the best actual idea of how to go about this is someone from an actual working class background. Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Nov 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Donald Trump clearly entered a console command to prevent Hillary from campaigning in the Rust Belt, and to force her to talk about putting the people there out of work the few times she did.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Thing is the median income for voters was higher for Trump than HRC. The narrative of this being a working class rebellion is objectively false. I think it's fairer to say that the working class gave up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Are we pretending that the field wasn't largely cleared of any potential threat to Hillary in the leadup to the primary 'cause yikes if so. There's a reason Bernie was both a surprise contender an an early warning sign that things were not going to go well for Clinton.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
Say one thing about Obama, say he was thinking clearly when he taught Muslim children to fear the blue sky/expanded the NSA's surveillance powers/loaded his administration with Wall St. execs after purging the populist members of his economics team/tried to gut social security and medicare as part of his Grand Bargain.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Framing the Obamas as this poor family that's just barely going to be scraping by after being displaced by Trump is definitely my favorite reaction to displeasure at his Wall St. ties that's come out of this.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Populists like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner? Austan Goolsbee and Karen Kornbluh. Both had a hand in his '08 campaign's more populist tendencies only to get purged from his inner circle once he won. Matt Taibbi wrote on it a bit in this article from 2009 Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 03:01 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:We are never going to escape this circular firing squad are we? Oh gently caress off with this poo poo. This insistence that we shouldn't call out democratic politicians when they do awful poo poo is a loving cancer.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Won't someone please think of the poor multi-millionaires whose bad behaviors actively make life worse for millions upon millions of people, including but not limited to outright killing them.
Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 21:50 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
If you try to gut the social safety net you deserve to be named and shamed. Particularly when you're a part of the party that is supposed to be defending those things. also lol the loving ~purity~ bullshit line again. That hasn't gotten old.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:Fine, sure, if anyone does that please call them out 
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
You may have your beliefs but the common trait among everyone who belts out the ~purity~ line is a complete lack of conviction in them - everything can and will be sold down the river just to secure a largely pyrrhic victory that will in no way improve lives. It's literally what leads to poo poo like dems gutting social security, medicare, and welfare. But somehow, the people who actually want to fight for that poo poo are the problem.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
If you think the democrat's current economic direction of "capitalism is extremely good and all problems can be solved by status quo'ing even harder" is a good and winning strategy then I frankly don't think we have much in common. The democrats have reached a complete dead end on the economic level and everyone knows it - they have no credibility on it, and their policies serve no one but their special interest groups. Which is why they go so hard on identify politics: they essentially hold a gun to the head of minorities, women, and LGBTQ folks and dare actual leftists to not vote for them. And somehow that's supposed to be fine and leftists aren't supposed to get loving mad about that.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
Like please remember that the dems had Michael "Stop and Frisk" Bloomberg speak at their loving convention. They don't give an actual poo poo about minority issues and those get thrown under the bus just as easily as economic issues do if they see a gain to be made.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:Obama saved the economy from dire straights and saves who knows how many lives with Obamacare. Yea, the Republicans are doing their best to dismantle it now, but it's a lot harder than they expected and there's a good chance the final product will end up worse, but not dramatically different. And then it will probably destroy them in the 2018 primaries. You strike me as a person who does extremely little critical reading because lol this is literal propaganda bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
 they aint gonna vote for this poo poo either "Listen, Liberal" is an extremely good book and I recommend it quite a bit.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:lol yeah this is about what I expected from your "critical reading." It speaks volumes to me that this is your response instead of abject disgust at that quote from Summers.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Super Deuce posted:I'm actually so confused about anyone who watches this show but was upset by the joke. 70% of the entire show's history, and Bill's entire career has been about how you need to get over it. What do you watch the show for? lol on what loving world do white people get to tell minorities to "get over it" when they use a racial slur good loving god
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
lol when I think leftists or even just people leftists should coddle I definitely think of a bigoted piece of poo poo like bill maher who never met a muslim he didn't want exterminated
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The weirdest thing is that making a lovely joke that used the n-word could actually end him more plausibly than any of the other poo poo he's pulled. Let's face it: that "joke" wasn't even the most racist thing he said on Friday night's show. This is partly why, despite my general reaction being "lol what a piece of poo poo", I couldn't help but find it kind of grimly funny that Maher has a long loving history of being a bigoted gently caress toward Muslims and yet largely gets a pass on it outside of moments that just blow up (like when Affleck was on). I'm sure a lot of folks angry at this also clued in on his Muslim hate-boner as well, but there's some specific voices where I can't help but wonder where they were on his other bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 10:00
|
|
|
PT6A posted:There was the whole thing where Cornel West went loving nuts and attacked Ta-Nehisi Coates, so maybe let's not pretend there aren't some very good reasons he should be excluded. Holy poo poo are folks still mad about Cornel critiquing a fellow academic on their blindspots?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 01:41 |
|
|
Imagine getting morally owned by a person that responded to sexual harassment in her organization by outing the victim who had the temerity to report it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2018 23:43
|
|