|
theflyingorc posted:25 is bad, but I'm pretty sure GOTV operations wouldn't find the 5% to be very unusual Lol if the Russian hackers actually targeted Hilary's GOTV system. http://fox17online.com/2016/07/29/computer-system-used-by-clinton-campaign-hacked/ I mean, it's a single, centralized internet-accessible system. One that controls tens of thousands of volunteers reaching out to every last district and polling station. One that can deliver exactly the right votes in the right places needed to get an electoral college win. Trump somehow knew not to bother building one. If so, gg Putin, gg. There is no recount to demand, no major felony committed. Real voters really voted for Trump, it was just Democrat volunteers bussing them to the polling station. radmonger fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Nov 11, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:~$14t pa in personal income, ~350,000,000 people = $40k pp pa Can you like, explain this to me more in depth with like lots of explanation and no acronyms as if I were an idiot? (Spoilers I'm an idiot.) Because if it can actually happen I am loving stoked. I just didn't believe we had the numbers and I would like to see them! Even if it's impossible we should still talk about it and try and figure out how to make it happen because poo poo is only gonna get worse. Also I want to repost this because I feel it belongs in this thread and made the mistake of effort posting in C-Spam where there was not much discussion. (Though I did get a couple comments.) Jenner posted:Hello.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
I think a lot of people who voted for Trump either don't care about identity politics or think their issues are less important or blown out of proportion. Like my liberal white friend's mother who subsists on welfare and whose best friend is black, and still voted for Trump due his economic policies. Those who are lower educated, imho, will vote for things that affect them directly (or that they perceive as affecting them) more than on morals (see: all the evangelicals who voted for Trump). Not to say he didn't have a racist contingent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:26
|
|
|
Relin posted:I think a lot of people who voted for Trump either don't care about identity politics or think their issues are less important or blown out of proportion. Like my liberal white friend's mother who subsists on welfare and whose best friend is black, and still voted for Trump due his economic policies. Those who are lower educated, imho, will vote for things that affect them directly (or that they perceive as affecting them) more than on morals (see: all the evangelicals who voted for Trump). Not to say he didn't have a racist contingent. In an election where polls did not have the grossly disproportionate influence they had this year, I think she would have played more defensive and won. Not by huge margins, but you wouldn't see goddamn Pennsylvania going red.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
MixMasterMalaria posted:How are we 6 pages into this conversation without any discussion of the role played by the emergence of the social media/facebook echo chamber? The vast majority of us are living in discursive walled gardens that cut all of us, left and right, off from the real plight of people in disparate social networks while we operate under the illusion that we're more connected than ever before. Though the outcome is obviously a complex and multifactorial process (with faux class consciousness being an effective counter to neoliberalism dressed up identity politics being the biggest single contributor) I'd appreciate some analysis on that front. Oh yeah, this. I got told to block/unfriend my Trump supporting friend and uncle but I felt that if I closed myself out and isolated myself from opposing views without engaging them for explanation and understanding would be doing me a disservice. Still 99.99% of my Facebook is other liberals, some more moderate some far left but almost all of them liberals. I think it behooves us to challenge ourselves to go out and talk to and engage people we disagree with in discussion, have a dialog, exchange real facts (if they exist), and debate. And we should listen to them with the intent of trying to empathize and understand, not to listen just for what we want to hear or argue with them or prove our point. I think if we reach out to them we will find we have a lot of commonality. (Example: We're both sick and loving tired of getting hosed and we want change.) Maybe, by some miracle, we might even be able to find a middle ground and work together? But I tried, I legitimately tried to have a respectful dialog with my Trump-supporting friend and uncle. They were really combative and irrational! They kept spouting lies and things that simply weren't true to back up their beliefs/opinions and linking to loving Breitbart, Fox News and Drudge when I asked for proof. (Or not linking anything at all and going on tirades, or just quitting the conversation.) And when I pointed out that, while I was sincerely trying to respect and understand their concerns, their stuff was just untrue (and yes, sometimes racist) they asked for proof in turn. So I posted links to sources from like .gov sites and even links to uncut, unedited YouTube videos of Trump actually saying things and they would just say my sources were bullshit and lies and go on about how Hillary is both Satan incarnate and a criminal. And when someone is that removed from reality and that immune to facts, evidence, and reason how do you even begin to try to understand them? When everything they say is so outlandish and untrue how can you even talk about the policies and the issues? How can you even continue associating and talking to them? We live in a post-facts world now where these people have been turned against the media and shut out things that don't comply with their beliefs and while I'd like to think we're better than that we might not be immune and probably do the same thing.  I just don't know what to do about that. Are they really a lost cause? Do we really have to just give up on them? My partner, who is Muslim, explained it to me this way. Liberals like to talk up compromise and understanding but when the person you are talking to wants you to put yourself on a registry, strip you of your basic human rights, throw you out of your country, and maybe even kill you there just is no compromising with that. Where is the middle ground in "I hate everything you stand for and everything you are and I want you dead."? Do you just be like, "Okay, how about you just stab/shoot me a few times but not fatally." Or "Let's just agree to disagree." Like, there are no options. And Republicans have now gone so far to the right and far to the extreme and will not loving budge that there is almost no middle to be found. They will not be satisfied with anything less than complete capitulation. It must be there way or no way. Even on things we appear to both want like immigration reform and criminal justice reform. It's ridiculous. And so I still found myself echo chambered and bubbled. It was one of my many motivations for starting this thread. I honestly wanted to know what happened and what was going on and why it turned out this way. I understand that liberalism failed and we've touched on many of the reasons here (gently caress the establishment and gently caress the Democrats who promise the world and then never deliver, Hillary sucks and her campaign sucked, the base wasn't rallied/motivated enough and did not get out to vote in the numbers we needed to win, voter suppression and gerrymandering is super effective, and so on.) It hurts and it really sucks. I eventually get around to talking about how we need to mobilize and come back from this in my previous post. It's gonna be hard and we need to recognize that for all it's claims of being a grassroots organization the Tea Party was funded by rich Republicans. I'm not sure rich Democrats would be as willing to put their money where their mouth is for a liberal movement. Especially one that leans socialist. A more right-leaning Republican party suited the rich just fine but a more left-leaning or even socialist Democratic party might not be in the rich's best interests. Anyway, yes these bubbles and echo chambers are only hurting us and making us more divisive but what can we do when we both believe the other side is loving awful? Can you blame people for cutting toxic people out of their lives and surrounding themselves with support? Meh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:If it takes 20+ years to a court to respond to where the nation wants to go, the system makings of the court needs to go. Just think of what you are saying "wait an entire generation after you start electing people in office so you can have another generation of progressive legislation". That isn't feasible and never has been. Hence why FDR took extreme measures. There are reasons why the government is designed to move slow as molasses towards public opinion, and it isn't just to "keep the pot cool". Obviously we shouldn't have every president get a supreme court majority but there is a large in-between of that and what we currently have. you seem to be suggesting that once you start moving towards the "in-between," the other party is going to be content to let it stay in its current state when they assume power. every time you legitimize loving with the composition of the court, you threaten a race to the bottom. I have a lot of issues with the conception of the court you seem to be espousing, but I'll leave it at one main point: having an extremely politically responsive court means that constitutional rights become a football. you think populism is only going to favor good, progressive legislation? there's an excellent reason that Roe v. Wade has remained the law of the land for a long time despite being an almost obsessive target of a very substantial chunk of the electorate. I don't want "yeah, let's have stronger libel laws that let us sue newspapers more effectively for defamation" to infect the court even if a goddamn majority of the electorate suddenly wants that, or is told that is a good idea and somehow buys it. and again, you seem to be completely avoiding my original point, which is that the current system would have worked perfectly for liberals/progressives, without legitimizing endless fuckery, if people had just voted. this thread is about "what went wrong?", and I sort of see a very simple issue, which is that republicans know how to toe the line and vote for their candidate even if they hate them because they understand exactly how important the supreme court is. a contingent of leftists/democrats are unwilling to embrace that strategy despite its extraordinary effectiveness. there's still a primary system to help guide the identity of the candidate, and that's responsive to populism, as this election has shown.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
Jenner posted:Anyway, yes these bubbles and echo chambers are only hurting us and making us more divisive but what can we do when we both believe the other side is loving awful? Can you blame people for cutting toxic people out of their lives and surrounding themselves with support? My brother never unfriends/blocks anyone on social media, even people who've completely fallen into the RWM hole. I do, because reading about all that poo poo is stressful, and I consider it a form of self-care to cut out things from your life that are only going to raise your blood pressure. Your partner is absolutely correct that there's no room for "compromise" when it gets to the point where they're just calling for the death of Muslims. There's probably SOME room for dialogue for someone who's genuinely uninformed or confused and is still in the "asking questions" stage (and I don't mean the ironic "just asking questions!" sly debating tactic), but it's very much a case-to-case basis if you can find common ground.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Qualifications are meaningless when being part of the establishment is bad. So true and so hilarious when you consider no one replaced anything in the GOP legislature really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
Jenner posted:So it seems that liberal ideals, plans, and agendas largely failed to resonate with the majority while conservative ideals, plans, and agendas did. And Republicans were able to claim and maintain a stranglehold on the government. And they have been doing this for years while Democrats have been being increasingly pushed out and swept under the rug. Clinton won the popular vote. She ran on the most progressive Democratic platform in history, and more people voted for her than her opponent. However, she was not a credible progressive to a lot of voters, and these people stayed home. Because of this she lost. The lesson to take from this is definitely not that "liberal ideals" need be abandoned, unless by "liberal ideals" you are speaking specifically of the triangulating New Democrat, Third Way, Clintonite liberalism of the 90s. That needs to be shot into the loving sun and never brought up or spoken about again. If you want a silver lining to this election consider this: there is a giant gaping hole in the Democratic party where the Clintons used to be, and the only thing the Democrats even have that can fill it are the Progressives. They own the party now, utterly. I think that was going to happen eventually anyway, during or after Clinton's term - the writing has been on the wall for a while and Sanders achieved success few people thought possible and this already was forcing the DLC crowd to take Progressives more seriously. Now the DLC is loving dead and everyone knows it. Chuck Schumer knows it. Donna Brazile knows it. They are not the future of the party, full stop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
Retromancer posted:I love the think pieces about how "the democrats ignored the plight of poor working class whites!" when Trump beat Hillary in every economic demographic except < $50,000. This was middle class white America wanting to be told it was still in charge. The rich voted for republicans as usual, a bit less than for Romney actually. However Trump gained the most in the <$50k segment, even though it was still below 50%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 11:21
|
|
|
The complacency brought on by the election of Barack Obama is very heavily to blame for the current failures of the Democratic Party, agreed. We can rally together for a big, obvious goal at times, but we just fall apart without one because the majority loses interest so quickly. Meanwhile the Republicans have spent decades building up an empire of propaganda that unites them in sheer hatred of a world changing. They press their advantage at less exciting local elections to ensure that they can screw over the chances of Democratic voters even managing to get to polls in a way that few will pay attention to, making the most of their smaller base. Once elected, they know how to hobble the projects of their opponents thanks to their absolute dominance of local elections and can just wait for blame to be shifted to the programs themselves. Using their propaganda wings, they anger heir voters more into blaming all failures on not giving them more power. This is especially effective if any kind of social change manages to occur despite their efforts, since they know that a majority fears losing status so much that they'll agree to almost anything they demand to stop it. This builds until they reach situations where demagogues like Trump arrive and grant them unchecked power. This is a mixed blessing for them as despite the obvious, it's the only way their tactics and failures to actually govern come to light enough to motivate real opposition. Even then, they know to entrench themselves so deeply that even when they fail, their opponent is hobbled and they can continue to expand the influence of their base. Meanwhile, they increase the extremes of their rhetoric to keep the base good and mad for next time, knowing that the media is toothless to refute them. As any kind of coherent government, Republicans are abject failures, but their ability to take and hold power is unmatched and we need to somehow make Democrats see that if there is any hope of changing this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 11:21
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The rich voted for republicans as usual, a bit less than for Romney actually. However Trump gained the most in the <$50k segment, even though it was still below 50%. Please read and understand this post because its important to understanding what is meant when people say Hillary lost at the <$50k level. Elections are very narrow, marginal kinds of things. It's a very shallow analysis that just looks at the demographic breakdowns and weighs each side on a scale. Hillary was crushed at this level compared to what Democrats are ordinarily expected to achieve, or least what Barack Obama had prepared them to expect. She lost 10 points in this bracket compared to 2012 and Trump gained 10 over Romney. This is an insanely bad look for a formerly working class party. Edit: lecturing people about interpreting stats and got them wrong myself. Hillary lost 10, Trump only gained 5. Its still an insane result, though. spotlessd fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
Clinton massively outspent Trump. Does Citizens United still matter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 12:03
|
|
|
Kubrick posted:Clinton massively outspent Trump. Depends how much free air time you get, with the internet from here forward, probably not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 12:05
|
|
|
Kubrick posted:Clinton massively outspent Trump. We can talk about the republican propaganda machine but the media was firmly in Hillary's camp. They did what she wanted it to do. It just also happened to play right into Trump's hands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:We can talk about the republican propaganda machine but the media was firmly in Hillary's camp. They did what she wanted it to do. It just also happened to play right into Trump's hands. The only reason the media focused on Trump is because it got them readers, watchers and ratings. He got countless amounts of free air time without needing to spend a penny simply by being outrageous and detestable. Good for him I guess. Well done, etc. But as the election neared to a close most of the media stopped paying attention to Trump and started harping on Clinton's email scandal (thanks Comey!) And Trump stopped tweeting because he didn't want to rile Clinton voters up. So we are flooded with more loving email scandals that we are all just so goddamn tired of and Hillary is already failing to rally and motivate us so why even loving go out. Low voter turn out = conservative victory. Was it a plot or conspiracy? Probably not but if the media really was on Clinton's side and in her pocket or whatever they probably wouldn't have criticized her or published such news so close to the election. You know, like how the Onion won't make jokes about Clinton because they were bought out and are now owned by people supportive of Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
lmao @ any optimism that there will be any meaningful change to the DNC when they're going to vote in Howard Dean as chair again and he'll say 'do what we just did for the next four years, but more racist this time' The US is kinda hosed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Manifisto posted:and again, you seem to be completely avoiding my original point, which is that the current system would have worked perfectly for liberals/progressives, without legitimizing endless fuckery, if people had just voted. this thread is about "what went wrong?", and I sort of see a very simple issue, which is that republicans know how to toe the line and vote for their candidate even if they hate them because they understand exactly how important the supreme court is. a contingent of leftists/democrats are unwilling to embrace that strategy despite its extraordinary effectiveness. there's still a primary system to help guide the identity of the candidate, and that's responsive to populism, as this election has shown. I agree with you. This was a pretty close election and the difference was Clinton getting less votes than Obama in '12 and not really Trump rolling up the vote count. Those missing votes for Clinton were from people voting third parties or just not voting at all. For well over a year, people have been bashing Clinton for not being more charismatic (a very fair but also overstated point) and being equally as horrible as Trump (are we for real?). In the end, her missing votes were from people who decided they just didn't care. Some of these people just took the polls for granted. Some took Nate Silver's "80% chance of Clinton winning" banner at the top of his website as an excuse to be lazy. Some really are disenfranchised depressed people who have been apparently abandoned by both parties at equivalent levels (not equivalent IMO but that's what these people will say). Some decided to just be selfish assholes and not take this seriously by just protest voting for "Harambe" or whatever nonsense. Some just didn't realize that letting Trump win meant GOP control of the entire government which is something I was screaming out for well over a year. At the end of the day, I'm holding these people more accountable than the people running Clinton's campaign and her party. Look, don't get me wrong. Hindsight is 20/20 and I wish Clinton had done more in Rust Belt states and maybe tried to come up with more zingers and catchy phrases for her. Whatever it took to not have Trump become president and the GOP control every branch of government was my motivation from the beginning. I thought we were all on the same page there, but apparently about 6 million missing votes said otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
I think people tend to get annoyed when you try to blackmail them into voting a particular way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
medchem posted:Hillary words There should be a big and honest debate within the Democrats over whether what you've just said is true, which is that Hillary's campaign was fundamentally sound but she lost out on peripherals and complacency, vs the idea that her campaign was fatally flawed from the outset and neoliberal ideas no longer have enough appeal to win an election. Personally I think it's the latter, and that the former will just lead to "one last heave" thinking which will just cause votes to continue slipping away. The Dems really need to reorganise from the bottom up and find some kind of message that can actually win them an election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:We can talk about the republican propaganda machine but the media was firmly in Hillary's camp. They did what she wanted it to do. It just also happened to play right into Trump's hands. While the talking heads might have been anti-Trump that didn't stop the producers from covering his rallies end to end. There was days when I would see 30-90 Mk minutes of Trump rallies simultaneously on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox. It is worth pointing out that Megan Kelly just admitted that Trump was bribing members of the media for coverage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Relin posted:I think a lot of people who voted for Trump either don't care about identity politics or think their issues are less important or blown out of proportion. Like my liberal white friend's mother who subsists on welfare and whose best friend is black, and still voted for Trump due his economic policies. Those who are lower educated, imho, will vote for things that affect them directly (or that they perceive as affecting them) more than on morals (see: all the evangelicals who voted for Trump). Not to say he didn't have a racist contingent. They're too loving stupid and uneducated to understand what affects all, affects the one. The DNC ain't even trying to explain it to them in a way they can understand, either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Venomous posted:lmao @ any optimism that there will be any meaningful change to the DNC when they're going to vote in Howard Dean as chair again and he'll say 'do what we just did for the next four years, but more racist this time' I think Dean is a good candidate for DNC. He oversaw the DNC in 06 (took back the US House and US Senate) and 08 (even more gains in House and Senate, and presidency, and a good number of governorships and other state wide offices). You won't be able to build a bench of people who can start in lower offices until you have those people running in elections up and down the ballot. Even if they don't win, it means Republicans may have to pay attention and compete in a deep red township, deep red city or county, or red state legislative district. This makes for stronger candidates when it comes time to run for US House, US Senate, Governor, etc...
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Jenner posted:Oh yeah, this. I got told to block/unfriend my Trump supporting friend and uncle but I felt that if I closed myself out and isolated myself from opposing views without engaging them for explanation and understanding would be doing me a disservice. Still 99.99% of my Facebook is other liberals, some more moderate some far left but almost all of them liberals. If Echo chambers are the problem some kind of neutral ground needs to exist where ideas can be debated and people can actually be informed, but where can you find those? Facebook isn't neutral, Twitter isn't, Gab certainly isn't, so what is even left? TV hasn't been neutral for ages if ever, radio and podcasts have the same problem. Whenever a new forum or venue is created it always fills up with one particular political leaning and the rest get pushed out or shouted down because people don't write to make a point, they write to be proven right. The only solution is a completely awful one that no sane person wants because of all the baggage that comes with it, and that is consequences for discussions, via the loss of anonymity on the Internet. Forum Warz was right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
medchem posted:At the end of the day, I'm holding these people more accountable than the people running Clinton's campaign and her party. This isn't really directed towards you in particular, but I've seen this sentiment pop up more than a few times, and I thought I'd address it. First of all I fully understand why you would feel like this. However, it seems counterproductive to view things this way for two reasons. First, the vote or non-vote of any individual voter is negligible. So to put the lion's share of the blame on the individual doesn't seem proportionate. It's the job of a politician and their campaign to convince people to go out and vote, and if they fail to do that then the repercussions are far more severe than if some rando doesn't care to vote. Therefore the blame should and must fall on Clinton and her team, because their fuckup is far more damaging than the fuckup of some lazy fucker who didn't vote. Second, it doesn't help move the party forward. It's now clear that the third-way Clinton wing of the Democrats is incapable of delivering anything except disaster at the ballot box. Therefore they need to be removed from power and replaced with people who aren't completely out of touch. However, neoliberals aren't know for giving up power unless they're absolutely forced to, so if we put the blame on the voters it will help the aforementioned fuckups wriggle away from their own responsibility, which is pretty bad for the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
The problem isn't who voted, it's who didn't. It's a perfect storm of depressed turnout and a populist nationalist hitting the right keys. Nobody gives a poo poo that they won poor votes because even in states without active voter suppression poor turnout went down in most demographics. If they run Booker or, god forbid, another Clinton in 2020, we'll keep seeing this repeating itself. And by the time it has proven to be succesful, the plutocrats will just figure out that you can take off the smiley faces and go hog wild because fascism isn't going to gently caress up their bottom line, just their workers (and lol if you think any company is going to give a poo poo). And yes, fascism is primarily a movement of the nationalist petty bourgeoisie, nobody's really arguing otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
I really think Booker or someone who could put a pleasant face on neoliberalism, with less baggage, could have won. Hillary sucks, but she was still close enough to turn it if she had had a better last few weeks. I hope the Dems do go more progressive next time though. Also, presumably, he wouldn't be revealed to have rigged the primary a month before the general election. The Dems gotta stop doing that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It's now clear that the third-way Clinton wing of the Democrats is incapable of delivering anything except disaster at the ballot box. Therefore they need to be removed from power and replaced with people who aren't completely out of touch. However, neoliberals aren't know for giving up power unless they're absolutely forced to, so if we put the blame on the voters it will help the aforementioned fuckups wriggle away from their own responsibility, which is pretty bad for the future. Nobody of any stripe gives up power unless forced to. But here's the thing: if you can't get elected, the party doesn't give a gently caress about you. Clinton's huge influence was predicated on the assumption that she would get elected and reward people with appointments and access and pork and poo poo. If you can't win nobody gives a gently caress about you in party politics. She's just a liability to everyone in the party now. I don't think the Democratic party will be sincerely super socialists now, but they will at the very least move more towards the rhetoric of Obama that was built on the promise of big changes (even if he personally didn't/couldn't/wouldn't/whatever do it) simply because they got more votes that way. Clinton had a nice platform nobody read, no charisma at all, and a public image that was radioactive to both the left AND the right. The Democrats might try something else hugely stupid, but it will probably be a different kind of idiot failure we haven't even thought of yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Manifisto posted:our constituency had not just a chance but almost a mathematical certainty of making positive changes via the system, but were too stupid/petulant/"disaffected" (lol) to vote. time to burn it down! Well the threat to put in a court more evil then the Lochner court is quite concerning. I say if that happens its time for no prisoners and a time to pretty much be ready to paly hard ball by stacking the system. sean10mm posted:Nobody of any stripe gives up power unless forced to. This. UP AND ADAM posted:I really think Booker or someone who could put a pleasant face on neoliberalism, with less baggage, could have won. Hillary sucks, but she was still close enough to turn it if she had had a better last few weeks. I hope the Dems do go more progressive next time though. Also, presumably, he wouldn't be revealed to have rigged the primary a month before the general election. The Dems gotta stop doing that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Nobody of any stripe gives up power unless forced to. Clinton's influence was predicated on her building up networks in the party for decades. It's not guaranteed that this influence will just disappear overnight. To this we also need to add the common self-delusion of the neoliberal, i.e. that the solution to every problem is to move further to the right. It's almost certain that Clinton herself is toast, but the rest of the fuckers could very well convince themselves that the problem was that they ran on "the most Progressive platform in history", and that they should instead swing hard to the right to chase republican voters. And if they get away with that we all will be standing here in four years wondering how the gently caress Trump could have gotten a second term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Clinton's influence was predicated on her building up networks in the party for decades. It's not guaranteed that this influence will just disappear overnight. Those networks were sustained by the assumption that participating would have rewards. If she can't get elected she can't reward for poo poo. I mean, every rear end in a top hat won't go away in the party structure obviously, but they won't be loyal to her anymore, and most will jump ship for anyone who looks like they can win now because they're generally self-interested jerks with no principles. Crowsbeak posted:Which is why all he should ever get to be is a governor or a vp. We need Neoliberalism dead. I think this conversation in general (not you specifically) tends to mix two mostly unrelated things. One is ideology, what we actually want to happen in politics. I pretty much agree with everyone that more left would be more better. The other is what wins elections, which is almost entirely about image and has nothing to do with substance, because the electorate is dumb and has never given a poo poo about substance. Put another way, a Democrat with the exact same ideas as Clinton who was charming and knew how to run a campaign would have won walking way. That's not GOOD but I think that's the reality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Those networks were sustained by the assumption that participating would have rewards. If she can't get elected she can't reward for poo poo. I mean, every rear end in a top hat won't go away in the party structure obviously, but they won't be loyal to her anymore, and most will jump ship for anyone who looks like they can win now because they're generally self-interested jerks with no principles. Yeah, but it's not Clinton herself who's the problem, it's the rest of the network of neoliberal fuckers who occupy the positions of power in the Democratic party. Even if Clinton herself is forced out in disgrace they still remain, and if they act in typical neoliberal fashion they'd rather try to sabotage the left wing of the party even if it means losing another election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Yeah, but it's not Clinton herself who's the problem, it's the rest of the network of neoliberal fuckers who occupy the positions of power in the Democratic party. Even if Clinton herself is forced out in disgrace they still remain, and if they act in typical neoliberal fashion they'd rather try to sabotage the left wing of the party even if it means losing another election. That sounds like an argument for dismantling the Democratic party and building something better with the bones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
John_A_Tallon posted:That sounds like an argument for dismantling the Democratic party and building something better with the bones. Unfortunately FPTP makes that sort of thing kinda hard, so it would probably be a better bet to try and purge the neoliberals first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Unfortunately FPTP makes that sort of thing kinda hard, so it would probably be a better bet to try and purge the neoliberals first. Putting Congressman Keith as DNC chair would be a good first step. He's going to face opposition tho Over in C-Spam we've gathered information of how to fight if you want to try party politics: http://www.glyphgryph.com/index.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Maybe stop pretend to have high ground and adopt regressive voter suppression tactics and turn it back on the republicans if possible. Before people take this the wrong way just trying to look at the idea from a different angle. Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
So which of you was this https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g-donald-trump/quote:In a press release Thursday afternoon, the Lafayette Police Department said that during the course of their investigation into the woman’s complaint, she “admitted that she fabricated the story about her physical attack as well as the removal of her hijab and wallet by two white males.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:So which of you was this https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g-donald-trump/ Yeah I am fine with corpral punishment for all people who file outrageous police reports. Like the stocks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Jenner posted:Meh. There wasn't talking to Trump supporters. They were right, everybody else was wrong, and they'd just yell until you gave up and walked away. Then they'd declare victory and congratulate themselves for a job well done. I've been cutting Trump supporters out of my life because, for better or for worse, a hell of a lot of them are irredeemable people who refuse to listen. In most cases it was a long way coming anyway because I found them toxic and insufferable. Every slightest shred of disagreement was part of the vast liberal conspiracy dedicated to destroying America because reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:There wasn't talking to Trump supporters. They were right, everybody else was wrong, and they'd just yell until you gave up and walked away. Then they'd declare victory and congratulate themselves for a job well done. I've been cutting Trump supporters out of my life because, for better or for worse, a hell of a lot of them are irredeemable people who refuse to listen. In most cases it was a long way coming anyway because I found them toxic and insufferable. And here we are, with Trump as president.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 02:34
|
|