• The Democrats' diversity challenge, aka US Democrats may be becoming the UK Labour Party
    52 replies, posted
[QUOTE=27X;51746470]And that's pretty much it, frankly. So much hemming and hawing and strategerizing ignores a very very simple very plain very obvious social construct: Santa Clara and San Jose democrats have no basis in reality. None. And that's all they are. They live in a nice insulated internet bubble where everyone can compare how progressive they are and how many hyphens they can stick next to their chosen identity for the most points in the I'm Sorry Identity Game, and the contribute [I]nothing[/I] to the furtherance of democracy and representation. Nothing. Zero. All they do is feed their favorite lobbyist so that lobbyist can then promote whatever is the flavor of the month in guilt based politics that has [B]zero basis in the day to day life of anyone actually in the party that doesn't make millions per year[/B]. Obama met with this clique twice and that was it. The rest of the time he spoke to the common man and look what happened. Complete and utter horseshit. Sanders has been for workers rights and the guy on the ground [I]since day fucking one[/I]. Day one. Portland and Washington in general need to come back down a little south and realize the hyper polarized hyper snowflake politics that govern their respective geography [B]do not exist anywhere else in the country except a pocket in Silicon Valley[/B], because no one else in the country lives off of internet startups and speculative technology. They do not even kind of speak to the masses anywhere else, and THAT is the problem. Also the author of this piece seems to have forgotten how many people turned for Sanders rallies in their exact area in their rush to start characterizing people into neat little groups that can snipe each other over twitter, which is exactly the shit that got Trump into office.[/QUOTE] Well fucking said. There's a portion of the democratic party that has no goddamn clue what it's doing, and they're pushing politics which are tangential to the plight and zeitgeist of the average American worker. And the craziest fucking thing is that they [i]still don't seem to understand how they fucked up.[/i] They're still taking snipes at Sanders and his supporters, just like they did with the [i]asinine[/i] Bernie-bro attack campaign during the primaries. They're still attacking the man for telling the fucking truth (Remember the articles that tried to skewer him for saying 'it's not enough to just be a minority if you want to get elected'?) They either need to learn how to get out of their little bubble, or they need to make way for those of us who [i]do[/i] understand what the people of America want.
Yeah, no - the progressive Democrats like Sanders are the ones actually addressing the white worker base's problems with the Democratic party. The neoliberal Clinton-esque moderates are absolutely not. Rahm Emanuel can fuck off if he thinks we need to shift further right - that's what the Clintons did in order to respond to the massive popularity boost of conservatism following the Reagan era. The white working class voter base needs to have their complaints addressed, and clearly they don't really care which party addresses them. I've talked to a number of Trump supporters, and most of the ones who aren't irrational "but hes socialist commie fuck" thought that Bernie would've made a great president and liked how genuine he was about addressing issues relevant to them. This battle is less about policy and ideology than people just wanting their needs to be addressed. Clinton didn't even try - Trump just flat-out lied about how he'd fix the issues by "bringing back coal" and stuff that'll never happen. The only way forward for the Democrats is progressive populism. Moderate neoliberalism is not a popular position among most of the country - it's the last thing the Democrats should turn back to unless they want a repeat of 2016.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51746754]Yeah, no - the progressive Democrats like Sanders are the ones actually addressing the white worker base's problems with the Democratic party. The neoliberal Clinton-esque moderates are absolutely not. Rahm Emanuel can fuck off if he thinks we need to shift further right - that's what the Clintons did in order to respond to the massive popularity boost of conservatism following the Reagan era. The white working class voter base needs to have their complaints addressed, and clearly they don't really care which party addresses them. I've talked to a number of Trump supporters, and most of the ones who aren't irrational "but hes socialist commie fuck" thought that Bernie would've made a great president and liked how genuine he was about addressing issues relevant to them. This battle is less about policy and ideology than people just wanting their needs to be addressed. Clinton didn't even try - Trump just flat-out lied about how he'd fix the issues by "bringing back coal" and stuff that'll never happen. The only way forward for the Democrats is progressive populism. Moderate neoliberalism is not a popular position among most of the country - it's the last thing the Democrats should turn back to unless they want a repeat of 2016.[/QUOTE] For the voters who voted Trump based off promising to bring back jobs and economic livelihood for them, I think this is how they saw it: 1. If Trump doesn't do as he said he would, and the working class continues to suffer more and the middle class shrinks they can hold him responsible for not doing as he promised. 2. Clinton only ever talked about Trump not being qualified, that she has qualifications, and her supporters somewhat droning on about her being the first woman president. She did not address the plight of the working class like Trump or Bernie did. [I]Therefore[/I], if Clinton were elected, because she did not typically bring up any solutions to help the working class if she were in office and does something to their detriment she can say 'well I never really did say I'd do otherwise now did I?' Remember her campaign was initially centrist and only started adopting Bernie policies to keep up and attract voters, but once she had the nomination she changed the rhetoric and did not keep addressing those policies. I can't really blame them if that is how they looked at it, because Clinton-era policies have technically contributed to the problem we have but the GOP is just as much to blame since they had control of Congress during Slick Willy's term.
Ah yes I love it when my elections are between a right wing candidate and a right wing candidate. Such a variety of options we have here in the glorious USA. [editline]29th January 2017[/editline] The only thing good about that is that they aren't anti-gun like the Democratic Party is increasingly becoming.
Clinton needs to be out of the equation entirely, they need another charismatic Obama who is actually going to motivate people to get out and vote. And back that shit up with some Bernie style reforms. If the Democrats don't shape up right now the 8 year Trump is becoming a reality.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51746971]Ah yes I love it when my elections are between a right wing candidate and a right wing candidate. Such a variety of options we have here in the glorious USA. [editline]29th January 2017[/editline] The only thing good about that is that they aren't anti-gun like the Democratic Party is increasingly becoming.[/QUOTE] Gun control is one issue that the Democrats need to back down on, because they won't win it. Ever. The abortion debate has been largely in favor of the Democrats over the decades, and there's been progress in implementing pro-choice policies across the country. Guns, not in the slightest. If the Democrats adopted a progressive, class-centric, worker-focused platform centered around government services, education, healthcare, and the economy, seriously toned down their gun positions, and focused on inclusionary populism, they could reasonably pull a near-Reagan and steal most of the country against Trump in 2020. There are so many people that I've met who hold left-wing positions on social issues, LGBT and womens' rights, education, healthcare, and so on, but who [I]always[/I] vote Republican because they're gun hobbyists who want to keep their guns. Particularly rural voters. Like in the Rust Belt and the heartland. Make a few policy concessions, capitalize on the outrage and channel it into populism, and you have all of government and can fast-track institutional reforms against gerrymandering and so on in order to reverse the process of polarization in this country. The hardline stances on gun control is a detriment to the party, because support for gun control is centralized in urban areas - and Democrats already dominate urban areas. Make some fucking tactical decisions on policy and realize that if you drop that, Democrats in LA aren't going to vote for Trump instead. You'll just attract the rural voters you need to hold the rust belt and make gains in the heartland.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51747062]Gun control is one issue that the Democrats need to back down on, because they won't win it. Ever. The abortion debate has been largely in favor of the Democrats over the decades, and there's been progress in implementing pro-choice policies across the country. Guns, not in the slightest. If the Democrats adopted a progressive, class-centric, worker-focused platform centered around government services, education, healthcare, and the economy, seriously toned down their gun positions, and focused on inclusionary populism, they could reasonably pull a near-Reagan and steal most of the country against Trump in 2020. There are so many people that I've met who hold left-wing positions on social issues, LGBT and womens' rights, education, healthcare, and so on, but who [I]always[/I] vote Republican because they're gun hobbyists who want to keep their guns. Particularly rural voters. Like in the Rust Belt and the heartland.[/QUOTE] I've always found that strange since I've seen polls that indicate, broadly speaking, Americans would approve of some gun control legislation, like eliminating the gun show loophole. But any attempt at sensible control gets boogeymanned into liberals taking all yer guns.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51747095]I've always found that strange since I've seen polls that indicate, broadly speaking, Americans would approve of some gun control legislation, like eliminating the gun show loophole. But any attempt at sensible control gets boogeymanned into liberals taking all yer guns.[/QUOTE] They just need to stop wasting their energy trying to pass sweeping gun legislation. Let the states hash it out if they so desire. Stricter background checks is fine, but gun registries, prohibiting specific types of firearms, restricting ammunition types, that's all just feel good measures. Now I'd be interesting to see how far left voters would feel if the democratic party softened their stance on the issue, I wonder if that would alienate part of their own voter base? Where would they go?
The thing with gun legislation is that Democrats, especially progressive populists, usually draft up kneejerk reaction bills or go overboard with their laws. e.g democratic states being the most restrictive and essentially redtaping guns out of existence. A woman in NJ was waiting for a permit to go through for months(and the maximum wait by law is a month iirc) after she put a restraining order on her ex but the application never went through and she was eventually stabbed to death by said ex in front of her house iirc. You can send in a permit application but it will never be processed here. We're already one of the most restrictive but the increasing progressive demographic wants to tighten the laws even further.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51747198]The thing with gun legislation is that Democrats, especially progressive populists, usually draft up kneejerk reaction bills or go overboard with their laws. e.g democratic states being the most restrictive and essentially redtaping guns out of existence. A woman in NJ was waiting for a permit to go through for months(and the maximum wait by law is a month iirc) after she put a restraining order on her ex but the application never went through and she was eventually stabbed to death by said ex in front of her house iirc. You can send in a permit application but it will never be processed here. We're already one of the most restrictive but the increasing progressive demographic wants to tighten the laws even further.[/QUOTE] So you're essentially saying they're treating guns like Trump is treating Muslims? Christ, is it illegal to use the thing between your ears over there if you have any shred of power? It makes sense to limit firearms making it to criminals and the black market as a whole, but you need to make sure the law-abiding citizens who are role models when it comes to firearms ownership and handling are affected the least. Give those legally owning enthusiasts who'd actually fight to make a difference so gun owners don't get tarnished some extra benefits instead, if they help report the various ways guns makes it to the hand of people who definitely shouldn't have anything potentially lethal in their possession. Or in short, a "you scratch our back, we'll scratch yours" deal. But they'd definitely need some time and effort to build up trust among those who feel persecuted.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51747095]I've always found that strange since I've seen polls that indicate, broadly speaking, Americans would approve of some gun control legislation, like eliminating the gun show loophole. But any attempt at sensible control gets boogeymanned into liberals taking all yer guns.[/QUOTE] Americans generally approve of reducing gun violence, but it's the specific means proposed by Democrats that get opposed. Case in point, the 'gun show loophole' is a boogeyman term for ordinary private sale, which research shows is a very minor source of the guns used in crime. People support 'let's ban a loophole criminals use to get guns' until it's revealed that it's actually 'let's ban being able to sell your friend a gun or inherit one from your grandfather, with probably minimal results'. The Democratic Party is in the position of trying to push legislation so disliked that they have to dress it up and disguise it as something it's not just to get people to support it at all. They've reached the point where even the most minor and otherwise reasonable of proposals get vocal opposition, because people know that any minor legislation is by design a stepping-stone to more sweeping proposals. I agree with Isak that this should be clear proof that they're wasting political capital on an issue the people don't support, and that they'd do a lot better if they toned it down a little and stopped alienating people who would otherwise agree with them.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51747317]Americans generally approve of reducing gun violence, but it's the specific means proposed by Democrats that get opposed. Case in point, the 'gun show loophole' is a boogeyman term for ordinary private sale, which research shows is a very minor source of the guns used in crime. People support 'let's ban a loophole criminals use to get guns' until it's revealed that it's actually 'let's ban being able to sell your friend a gun or inherit one from your grandfather, with probably minimal results'. The Democratic Party is in the position of trying to push legislation so disliked that they have to dress it up and disguise it as something it's not just to get people to support it at all. They've reached the point where even the most minor and otherwise reasonable of proposals get vocal opposition, because people know that any minor legislation is by design a stepping-stone to more sweeping proposals. I agree with Isak that this should be clear proof that they're wasting political capital on an issue the people don't support, and that they'd do a lot better if they toned it down a little and stopped alienating people who would otherwise agree with them.[/QUOTE] Basically yeah. I've had a ton of conversations both in real life and online over the years where people have expressed that they'd be more or less fine with non-invasive forms of gun control in exchange for the removal of pointless import restrictions and revocation of AWB type legislation on stocks and rails and so on. I'd be fine with requiring licenses. You can sell your son the family car, but he can't use it without a license. As should be true for firearms. Most people I talk to don't necessarily disagree with that if implemented properly - they disagree with the idiocy around the AWB, cosmetic bans, import restrictions, vilification of hobbyists, and so on. There is such a thing as reasonable gun control measures. I'm hardly a "pro-gun Democrat," but I understand that there's a lot of bullshit going around just to get these bans passed. My dad didn't know the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic until I explained it to him, and he's a vocal supporter of wide-ranging gun control measures. Gun control is not at all a moral issue (like, say, abortion rights) and should be dealt with through reasonable compromise and cooperation instead of polarized party politics.
I find the "democrats need not exclude da moderates" thing very weird. I thought people had agreed that one of the main reasons the democrats did poorly this election was that they were TOO moderate? I don't see how a sharp turn in the direction of social democracy will leave the moderate boogeyman scared and gone away, especially in times like these and with the likelihood of a recession during this administration. Is it because people think that the only direction further left to go is into crazy SJWland? If so I'd probably tell them to watch less youtube.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51747856]I find the "democrats need not exclude da moderates" thing very weird. I thought people had agreed that one of the main reasons the democrats did poorly this election was that they were TOO moderate? I don't see how a sharp turn in the direction of social democracy will leave the moderate boogeyman scared and gone away, especially in times like these and with the likelihood of a recession during this administration. Is it because people think that the only direction further left to go is into crazy SJWland? If so I'd probably tell them to watch less youtube.[/QUOTE] It's because The bubble has gotten horrible. to the point where ordinary thing's become conspiracy theories, and that at rural America the moderate democrat was far-left. Compromising is what pulls people closer,
[QUOTE=Van-man;51747283]So you're essentially saying they're treating guns like Trump is treating Muslims?[/QUOTE] yeah pretty much. Both sides of the aisles have their idiots with kneejerk reactions, but they can come together to fuck over the people with huge tax hikes when they dry up the treasury funds.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51747856]I find the "democrats need not exclude da moderates" thing very weird. I thought people had agreed that one of the main reasons the democrats did poorly this election was that they were TOO moderate? I don't see how a sharp turn in the direction of social democracy will leave the moderate boogeyman scared and gone away, especially in times like these and with the likelihood of a recession during this administration. Is it because people think that the only direction further left to go is into crazy SJWland? If so I'd probably tell them to watch less youtube.[/QUOTE] the issue isnt that they were too moderate in the issues, its that they were too moderate in how they presented themselves no one has ever been elected on promising baby steps in the right direction, they get elected by promising hope and change
You need moderates to win the south on some issues, but far left to win the west/north east states. Although Bernie was an interesting mix despite his "you can be progressive or moderate but not both" comment, because while he supported gun control legislation he was someone who understood that blaming manufacturers for shootings was obscenely stupid and pointed that out to someone at a conference he spoke at and he himself is a Senator from a relatively pro-gun state and as such understand where the pro-gun side comes from and their concerns. Too often far left Democrats just pull the trigger without bothering to understand why their legislation is so vehemently opposed. That's why they have such a hard time with most of the south.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51747856]I find the "democrats need not exclude da moderates" thing very weird. I thought people had agreed that one of the main reasons the democrats did poorly this election was that they were TOO moderate? I don't see how a sharp turn in the direction of social democracy will leave the moderate boogeyman scared and gone away, especially in times like these and with the likelihood of a recession during this administration. Is it because people think that the only direction further left to go is into crazy SJWland? If so I'd probably tell them to watch less youtube.[/QUOTE] To add on to what Judas said, the Democrats basically promised 'we'll do far-left things... maybe, someday, if the winds are right, it'd be nice wouldn't it? really just vote for us to stop Trump' when the message they should have been pushing was 'we're going to aggressively pursue measured and reasonable reform'. Committing to reasonable ideals appeals to everybody. Suggesting extreme ideals without convincing anyone that they're actually accomplishable appeals to nobody. Imagine a candidate like Sanders promising the same basic things but without the ~socialism~ boogeyman or hyper-focus on economic issues- that would basically be the perfect candidate.
Weren't the democrats the same as labour since Clinton/Blair? They have both been neoliberal (socially centred, fiscally conservative) for 2-3 decades now.
I hope to god that democrats in 2020 won't be left wing nut jobs, and be moderate.
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;51748291]Weren't the democrats the same as labour since Clinton/Blair? They have both been neoliberal (socially centred, fiscally conservative) for 2-3 decades now.[/QUOTE] Well Blair era was over in 2015, But not yet with Clinton age/New Democrat age of Democratic Party is still not done yet put with 2016 reveal that they are also corrupted unlike Blair's Labours. [editline]29th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tasm;51748480]I hope to god that democrats in 2020 won't be left wing nut jobs, and be moderate.[/QUOTE] Being [very lazily corrupted] moderate was major reason Trump won in first place.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51747768]Basically yeah. I've had a ton of conversations both in real life and online over the years where people have expressed that they'd be more or less fine with non-invasive forms of gun control in exchange for the removal of pointless import restrictions and revocation of AWB type legislation on stocks and rails and so on. I'd be fine with requiring licenses. You can sell your son the family car, but he can't use it without a license. As should be true for firearms. Most people I talk to don't necessarily disagree with that if implemented properly - they disagree with the idiocy around the AWB, cosmetic bans, import restrictions, vilification of hobbyists, and so on.[/QUOTE] Pretty much. I'd be supportive of requiring training, akin to what you already need for a concealed carry license, and I have no problem whatsoever with background checks. I'd also be receptive to something similar to Canada's storage laws, especially considering how many guns on the street were stolen from legal owners. Outright banning possession of military-looking rifles and "high capacity" magazines? Closing the machine-gun registry, so you have to pay $40,000 and wait six months if you want a worn, battered Uzi? Fuck that shit. Every other political issue, I'm liberal as hell. Give women access to legal abortion, have a solid welfare system, give minorities a fair deal, have strong, healthy unions and so on. I just can't get over the anti-gun crap. That being said, I did vote for Hillary.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51748541]Pretty much. I'd be supportive of requiring training, akin to what you already need for a concealed carry license, and I have no problem whatsoever with background checks. I'd also be receptive to something similar to Canada's storage laws, especially considering how many guns on the street were stolen from legal owners. Outright banning possession of military-looking rifles and "high capacity" magazines? Closing the machine-gun registry, so you have to pay $40,000 and wait six months if you want a worn, battered Uzi? Fuck that shit. Every other political issue, I'm liberal as hell. Give women access to legal abortion, have a solid welfare system, give minorities a fair deal, have strong, healthy unions and so on. I just can't get over the anti-gun crap. That being said, I did vote for Hillary.[/QUOTE] Pushing silly firearm laws is the one reason I can't vote democrat. If it weren't for the "guns r bad lets ban them all" type pandering and lawmaking I would vote democrat up and down. I just cant trust them to make reasonable gun laws instead of """""""common sense""""""""" gun laws.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.