• Shake-up at Democratic National Committee, Longtime Officials Ousted
    91 replies, posted
[QUOTE=srobins;52798332]Don't worry about the fact that we're establishment hacks, we have a 20-something black transgender activist and an illegal immigrant on our committees.[/QUOTE] DNC: "How [U]dare you[/U], sir. We were host to one of the most progressive platforms in history just months ago! So [B]what[/B] if we were going to throw all of those promises out once we got into office because we don't actually care as it would've been our party platform to begin with if we did. Who [B]cares[/B] that it was merely a stunt to throw a bone to the Sanders supporters so that they would forget who we are for just long enough for us to win? The important thing is you love the establishment because [I]we're the only ones who can save you from Trump[/I]. Save yourselves from Trump at all costs; vote for us so that we can trample you underfoot! Love us because we dare even listen! Don't forget: this is a two party first-past-the-post system so you don't have any other choice if you don't want Trump because there will be [I]one[/I] candidate and it will be the one we approve of."
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52797307]What moderates? A majority of the democrats are either progressives or conservatives on a sliding scale. Nobody is moderate[/QUOTE] Sure can look that way if you paint a binary of "the good guys" and "the bad guys"
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52797307]What moderates? A majority of the democrats are either progressives or conservatives on a sliding scale. Nobody is moderate[/QUOTE] The liberal wing of the democratic party. Conservatives barely exist in the democratic party right now.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;52796620]So, are these things the [I]Democratic Party[/I] has said, or are these things you've read on Tumblr/seen screencapped somewhere comedically/watched in Tudd's videos?[/QUOTE] Hillary's campaign was pretty much founded on identity politics and accusations of various '-isms' against people who criticized her. 'Her turn', basket of deplorables, constantly deflecting criticism of her policy and history as sexism. Both the identity politics and lack of engagement with blue-collar states are symptomatic of the same issue: a party that is trying to appeal to its base rather than the American people as a whole.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52798231]I don't think Clintons policies were demonstrably more terrible than Trumps, who also ran a campaign rife with identity politics. The problem with invoking the idea that identity politics helped Clinton [I]lose [/I]is that you must tacitly concede that identity politics helped Trump [I]win[/I]. The fact that Clinton won the popular vote by a fair margin also calls into doubt the idea that specific campaign strategies that weren't related to exploiting the electoral college caused her loss. [editline]19th October 2017[/editline] It has less to do with Trump's presidency and more with frustration over the left/democrats/moderates who aren't Republicans et al to rally behind a decent candidate. Unless Trump's approval sees a massive increase over the next couple of years I really don't see him actually winning regardless of who the Democrats run, but ideally they will have learned their lesson from 2016. And my point is that if they haven't, then they deserve what happens in 2020.[/QUOTE] Hillary represented the status quo which is pretty terrible for the average American. She was obviously better than Trump on a number of issues but honestly Trump was hammering the right issue (economics/free trade) on the campaign trail that resonated with the voters, even if he was lying his ass off. This wasn't a strictly left-vs-right election, it was an establishment vs. anti-establishment election and Trump represented the latter option. The economic issues and her being an obviously corrupt, weaksauce candidate is what contributed most to her loss. I just think strategically, the identity politics part is driving a deeper and deeper wedge in the Democratic base over the long term between progressives and the corporate elites currently in leadership. If they [i]do[/i] run another milquetoast center-right candidate Trump has a decent shot at re-election.
I think you can have identity politics and good policy at the same time. The issue with Hillary Clinton is that she was all identity politics, not policy. Funny enough Trump had more policy focused adverts than Hillary. [url]https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hillary-clinton-tv-ads[/url] Hillary has good policies absolutely, but she is terrible at showing that she had good policies which is why she lost, I don't think identity politics is the reason she lost but is certainly a distraction.
I find it laughable when people accuse Bernie of hindering Clinton's campaign. If anything at all, that should have pushed her to changing her speech and focusing on the topics that really mattered to most of the American voters, as Jim Morrison pointed out. Seeing the massive support Bernie garnered in just so little time would have been a sign for any guy with at least two neurons to think "Hey...why did this guy become so popul...oh" The thing is, she could have never gone down that path. Have you read her paid speeches? GG Democrats.
I'm socially liberal but hold a lot of conservative viewpoints. People like me are who the dems need to win, because there are lots of people like me who feel a bit lost, or disowned even. For example, I am bisexual and am all for lgbt rights and equality and all that jazz. However, I am in the military, and am a very staunch second amendment supporter. So, the right keeps screwing with my rights and has a lot of closed-minded viewpoints, but the left actively threatens my paycheck and abhors me for owning guns, and a lot of em are unfriendly to military people. There's no realistic middle ground here, and don't say libertarian because they can't attract a vote considering the amount of whackadoodles that claim the label. Me and a lot of other people are lost. The dems need to relax their view on certain issues. If they stopped trying to ban guns and destroy my career, I would vote blue every time. I can't in good conscience do that though. I don't like voting red, because of the socially conservative viewpoints. It's a fucking mess.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;52799704]I'm socially liberal but hold a lot of conservative viewpoints. People like me are who the dems need to win, because there are lots of people like me who feel a bit lost, or disowned even. For example, I am bisexual and am all for lgbt rights and equality and all that jazz. However, I am in the military, and am a very staunch second amendment supporter. So, the right keeps screwing with my rights and has a lot of closed-minded viewpoints, but the left actively threatens my paycheck and abhors me for owning guns, and a lot of em are unfriendly to military people. There's no realistic middle ground here, and don't say libertarian because they can't attract a vote considering the amount of whackadoodles that claim the label. Me and a lot of other people are lost. The dems need to relax their view on certain issues. If they stopped trying to ban guns and destroy my career, I would vote blue every time. I can't in good conscience do that though. I don't like voting red, because of the socially conservative viewpoints. It's a fucking mess.[/QUOTE] Unless you live in the three swing states that allowed trump to win, the democrats don't need you at all
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52799723]Unless you live in the three swing states that allowed trump to win, the democrats don't need you at all[/QUOTE] Jesus Christ, I can't imagine a more apathetic and pointless attitude and [B]stupid[/B] than this. You do know that there was a time that it was inconceivable that California would be a Democratic stronghold, or that Texas would be the Republican bastion? Or that, y'know, Hillary's warmarch actually projected they would flip multiple Republican states, scoring key victories in entirely winnable races for Governorships, Congressional seats and Senatorial positions? Oh, and then they blew it, and the Republicans went from having virtually no chance of controlling house and senate to... Mike Pence casting record tie-breaking votes, over and over again, with their lean 50-senator halfjority. Oh no. Forget those. Those are ancient history. Those are depressing Clintonite failures that are all Sanders's fault. Let's buckle down and focus on fundamentals. So goodbye moderates! Goodbye complex voters! So-long army man, factory worker and day laborer! You aren't needed by the wise liberals. Bottom-Up politics didn't empower the Republicans to seize more state-level control than they have since the 19th century. Gradual political chipping and a patient focus on attracting and then indoctrinating moderates did not, in any way, propel the Republicans to overcoming the Democratic juggernaut. The Democrats just need to win the Presidency by controlling the swing states, so if you aren't a swinger, you don't count. Don't worry, just blame the losses on Republican Gerrymandering (while conveniently ignoring Democratic Gerrymandering) and call it square. Political Apathy works!
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;52799675]I find it laughable when people accuse Bernie of hindering Clinton's campaign. If anything at all, that should have pushed her to changing her speech and focusing on the topics that really mattered to most of the American voters, as Jim Morrison pointed out. Seeing the massive support Bernie garnered in just so little time would have been a sign for any guy with at least two neurons to think "Hey...why did this guy become so popul...oh" The thing is, she could have never gone down that path. Have you read her paid speeches? GG Democrats.[/QUOTE] The sad thing is, I noticed that she seemed to start parody-ing Bernie once he started to surge in popularity. It seems SNL also noticed this: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3iBb1gvehI[/media]
I guess it's inconvenient to point out a fact. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;52799769] Don't worry, just blame the losses on Republican Gerrymandering (while conveniently ignoring Democratic Gerrymandering) and call it square. Political Apathy works![/QUOTE] Of course Democratic gerrymandering exists but the republicans were the last one to draw the lines and it's the republican gerrymandering that's been struck down by courts. [QUOTE]The Democrats just need to win the Presidency by controlling the swing states, so if you aren't a swinger, you don't count.[/QUOTE] This is unfortunately how the political system that america has operates. Republicans and Democrats both spend a great deal of money in those 7 or so swing states. [editline]19th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;52799769]So goodbye moderates! Goodbye complex voters! So-long army man, factory worker and day laborer! You aren't needed by the wise liberals. Bottom-Up politics didn't empower the Republicans to seize more state-level control than they have since the 19th century. Gradual political chipping and a patient focus on attracting and then indoctrinating moderates did not, in any way, propel the Republicans to overcoming the Democratic juggernaut. [/QUOTE] This little bit of your rant confuses me because I thought the common criticism of Hillary is that she was too moderate.
Lambeth isn't entirely wrong, but the main thing is that what is and isn't a swing state isn't static. Anyone who thinks the country can be cleanly divided into democrat states, republican states, and then swing states long-term is quite an idiot.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52799970]I guess it's inconvenient to point out a fact. Of course Democratic gerrymandering exists but the republicans were the last one to draw the lines and it's the republican gerrymandering that's been struck down by courts. This is unfortunately how the political system that america has operates. Republicans and Democrats both spend a great deal of money in those 7 or so swing states. [editline]19th October 2017[/editline] This little bit of your rant confuses me because I thought the common criticism of Hillary is that she was too moderate.[/QUOTE] Couldn't it be argued that both sides of this argument are true to varying degree? By that I mean, it was the combination of a lack of a bottom-up, grassroots campaign strategy that reflected the real perceived issues of the electorate combined with the lack of campaigning in important swing states, particularly in the midwest where those perceived issues were most relevant, that lead to the failing of Clinton's campaign? It can be a combination of both. It doesn't have to be one or the other. In this sense, it could be argued that she was too moderate in some aspects, particularly when it came to being an establishment politician with no real perceivable will to change things for the better, and too out-of-touch in others, in particular when it came to relying on the low-hanging fruit of identity-based politics (which works well for conservative candidates or democratic candidates that come across like they mean it but not for an insincere sounding establishment politician).
[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52799607] Hillary represented the status quo which is pretty terrible for the average American. She was obviously better than Trump on a number of issues but honestly Trump was hammering the right issue (economics/free trade) on the campaign trail that resonated with the voters, even if he was lying his ass off. This wasn't a strictly left-vs-right election, it was an establishment vs. anti-establishment election and Trump represented the latter option. [/QUOTE] So what you're saying is that the Democrats should push further to the left and that appealing to moderates with a middle of the road candidate is determined to lose? [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;52799769] So goodbye moderates! Goodbye complex voters! So-long army man, factory worker and day laborer! You aren't needed by the wise liberals. Bottom-Up politics didn't empower the Republicans to seize more state-level control than they have since the 19th century. Gradual political chipping and a patient focus on attracting and then indoctrinating moderates did not, in any way, propel the Republicans to overcoming the Democratic juggernaut. [/QUOTE] So what you're saying is that the Democrats should abandon their further left positions in a bid to appeal to moderates? Also, sort of funny for you to be calling anyone else apathetic. [editline]20th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;52799970] This little bit of your rant confuses me because I thought the common criticism of Hillary is that she was too moderate.[/QUOTE] Many of these posts are confusing me. Democrats need to rally behind a progressive, anti-establishment candidate without pushing away moderates while at the same time abandoning identity politics while also appealing to the white native working class that pushed Trump to victory.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52800229]So what you're saying is that the Democrats should push further to the left and that appealing to moderates with a middle of the road candidate is determined to lose?[/QUOTE] Yes.
[quote]They needed this loss to knock them off their high horse, honestly the campaign hillary ran was down right fucking offensive. "its HER turn", oh so that's how we do things in America? We just take turns regardless of qualifications? We just let anyone do things because "its their turn". Shit when is it "my turn" to make a fuckload of cash? Never? Ah, ok.[/quote] "it's her turn" is literally a meme lol. At best their staffers said they considered it as a slogan. I hear more about "im a woman" from anti-hillary people than hillary herself. She mentioned her gender a few times ofc and did dumb shit like the woman card, but there's a lot more to focus on if you care about policies instead of how someone looks. [QUOTE=ilikecorn;52801183]Dems need to realize that everyone that they've attempted to pander to (sans what bernie was doing), already votes for them. Young educated people? Check. African Americans? Check. Latinos? Check. White blue collar workers? Uh.. fuck them? White white collar workers? Uh.. fuck them too? [/QUOTE] Interesting to see you do what you accuse them of doing. There's so many half-truths in this. It's also retardedly racist to assume that Hispanics are stuck to the democratic party. The margin is not super strong and even in 2004 it came close to being equal. Same with african americans but less so, they are much more fixed in their habits for now. Among educated and uneducated voters the difference also isn't that large and it is liable to close & flip much like it closed for the 2000 and 2004 elections. We see the [B]massive[/B] education discrepancy largely among white voters only, with it being much less significant for POC. Trump beat clinton even among white college graduates. You're also assuming white blue collar workers and white collar workers have similar concerns that align with progressivism. Which really isn't true, the two largest issues by far amongst trump voters were illegal immigration and terrorism, and economic concerns among tons of voters didn't revolve around welfare, but trade. Policy-proposals to ameliorate the structural unemployment problems suffered by certain communities might reach some people, but it's not an instant win button.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52800229]Many of these posts are confusing me. Democrats need to rally behind a progressive, anti-establishment candidate without pushing away moderates while at the same time abandoning identity politics while also appealing to the white native working class that pushed Trump to victory.[/QUOTE] You're overthinking it. People who complain about Hillary and the DNC ignoring some silent majority are usually people that don't want one or more other demographics influencing the party. It's "my way or the highway" with a lot of these people.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52796238]Seems like they're trying to kick out as many anti-perez/pro-bernie members as possible to wriggle out a more "unified" party. Say hello to Trump 2020 I guess[/QUOTE] Nah, there's so much ammunition and hate against Trump there's no possible way he'd get reelected. I bet if he went up against a crippled cat he'd lose. Like so much that it makes the 2016 race look like a joke, and we're only 10 months in, imagine another 3 years worth
[QUOTE=TheTalon;52803734]Nah, there's so much ammunition and hate against Trump there's no possible way he'd get reelected. I bet if he went up against a crippled cat he'd lose. Like so much that it makes the 2016 race look like a joke, and we're only 10 months in, imagine another 3 years worth[/QUOTE] See, I don't like this line of thinking because Trump already got elected once. He was already the completely unfit for office retard that he is now, it was already painfully obvious that electing him was a bad idea, for whatever reason people still did it. Why wouldn't they do it again?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.