Mook?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
Mook?
Anthony Weiner because he's desperately hoping his penis didn't just break America.
balladofwindfishes
Member
It's Donald Trump
He donated it all
He doesn't want to be president and he's hoping this is a way out for him, while still claiming it was rigged and a fraud and he should have won
I feel like you might have been reading the article wrong.
This:
Is saying that the Dirtbag Left (aka the far now screaming for economic focus) are the ones who are wrong, but people might flock to them thinking they have the answer. When they don't.
You can kill the tag "identity politics", for sure, but what is derisively called 'identity politics' is in actuality civil rights.
Civil rights are non-negotiable. They will stick around forever.
I think he very well can push for trade deals that are less ambitious and more protectionist than we've seen before. For the GOP and business interests, if it is in exchange for being in power, massive tax cuts and some sort of repatriation holiday, I think most would accept that exchange.
Again, Trump knows that his position on trade is the key to the swing voters that won him the election. He has wavered on the Muslim ban, torture and the wall, and a whole bunch of other positions, but he put leaving the TPP as the first thing on his agenda, instead of trying to spin it away as he has with his other positions.
If you think he can spin anything in his favor, why not just move forward with the TPP and spin it with the walking back he has done for most every other position, and take credit for the GDP boost?
Because the TPP is a label that rubes are particularly attached to. Do you really think people know what the contents and consequences of the TPP are, even in the broadest strokes? No, they don't.
Any other trade deal won't have the same stigma, thus he is free to spin it in any direction he wants.
shinra-bansho
Member
Trump's narcissism probably has him thinking he can make better deals. And it's something easy to do. Rather than a ban that would be challenged as unconstitutional. Or an unfeasible wall now half-wall.
His appointments both announced and potential don't indicate a walk back. Jeff Sessions is not a walkback. Kris Kobach is not a walkback. Steve Bannon sure isn't a walkback.
Pretending that economic distress wasn't coupled and capitalised with and on racial resentment to drive voters to Trump is folly. There were all too readily accepted scapegoats. And in four years time he will stoke these fires again probably to similar effect.
His appointments both announced and potential don't indicate a walk back. Jeff Sessions is not a walkback. Kris Kobach is not a walkback. Steve Bannon sure isn't a walkback.
Pretending that economic distress wasn't coupled and capitalised with and on racial resentment to drive voters to Trump is folly. There were all too readily accepted scapegoats. And in four years time he will stoke these fires again probably to similar effect.
Retromelon
Member
Merry thanksgiving poligaf
Elaugaufein
Member
Is anyone actually suggesting that addressing systemic barriers based on race/gender sexuality not be continued ? Because as far as I can tell the suggestion is rather that you also need to, explicitly*, address the economic concerns of people in the Rust Belt areas that were lost. Which is a rather different proposal.
*The idea that anyone but a handful of political tragics and media paid to look at it, will actually go to your website and read your detailed policy is fairly out there.
ETA-The VP-elect would probably be Pence not Biden (who would just be the VP) in that case. The ballot is technically separate so you can have a VP-elect without a President-elect.
*The idea that anyone but a handful of political tragics and media paid to look at it, will actually go to your website and read your detailed policy is fairly out there.
ETA-The VP-elect would probably be Pence not Biden (who would just be the VP) in that case. The ballot is technically separate so you can have a VP-elect without a President-elect.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Trump and the GOP have a lot of margin to do things to bring jobs to the US, for example a lot of cars are made in Canada by US companies, then sold in the US. He could force every single one of those jobs back if he wants relatively easy, since Canada could do nothing about it. He can give all the tax breaks needed to bring iPhone production back to the US (and any other phone). There's a lot that can be done, and even if Canada, China, Japan, all made a big fuss about it, there's nothing that people wouldn't hoorah about in the US for a few years, giving him the cushion to soldier that through past 2020.
It's the longer term impacts of all that that he and his entourage won't take into account and don't want to take into account.
Trump's plan will be as stupid as "Here's all the tax credits to bring your factory back to the US!" and companies will bring them, but without bring the factories' factories, it will be short lived. In China, your machine breaks, you get the parts right away. Not in this scenario. You can't magically turn the US into China without adding a ton of problems, but those will be shoved to later, and in the meantime Trump and co. will be hailed as heroes.
And let's not pretend that jobs brought back from China won't be the lowest paying jobs imaginable once they do return. Laws might even be changed or created to make sure that for it to happen and be cost effective they'll need to get rid of security, environmental, and wage regulations.
That being said, unemployment is already low, so the only real way to make some drastic improvements is moving people from bad jobs too good ones. That's quite a stretch, so the reality is it will likely just constraint workforce supply for some businesses, causing their costs to rise.
There's no magic to all this, but they can make a smoke machine that will last a few years.
It's the longer term impacts of all that that he and his entourage won't take into account and don't want to take into account.
Trump's plan will be as stupid as "Here's all the tax credits to bring your factory back to the US!" and companies will bring them, but without bring the factories' factories, it will be short lived. In China, your machine breaks, you get the parts right away. Not in this scenario. You can't magically turn the US into China without adding a ton of problems, but those will be shoved to later, and in the meantime Trump and co. will be hailed as heroes.
And let's not pretend that jobs brought back from China won't be the lowest paying jobs imaginable once they do return. Laws might even be changed or created to make sure that for it to happen and be cost effective they'll need to get rid of security, environmental, and wage regulations.
That being said, unemployment is already low, so the only real way to make some drastic improvements is moving people from bad jobs too good ones. That's quite a stretch, so the reality is it will likely just constraint workforce supply for some businesses, causing their costs to rise.
There's no magic to all this, but they can make a smoke machine that will last a few years.
neurosisxeno
Member
Fuck that guy. Seriously. He was such a promising politician, then he throws it all away, and takes down several accomplished peoples careers with him over the following several years. I'm also not willing to be an apologist and say he was a sex addict who needed help, because I'm sure somebody told him--"Hey Anthony, stop sending dick pics to people on the internet."--at some point.
Who at this point probably realize Trump is the weakest and most malleable President in US History, and would take him in a heartbeat to ram whatever they could through before crashing and burning in a blaze of glory.
shinra-bansho
Member
This isn't a pure hypothetical concern. It is one that's been realised before.
US political history has multiple cases of minorities being thrown under the bus in populist pursuit of white voters.
I think you can get the white populist vote while still appealing to minorities greatly. It depends on your messaging. Yes yes yes racism and sexism play a factor in the motivations of the white popular vote. You'll have some voters who would never vote for a black man or a woman, okay. But by talking about economic issues central to the white populist vote like reforming free trade or helping with readjustment in the new economy, you can appeal to those voters while still appealing to minorities by focusing with them more on social issues. It depends on what message you're delivering and where. Hell, many poor minorities are looking for the kind of economic relief that the white populist vote is.
And no, I'm not implying that Trump voters only voted for him because of economic anxiety. But the key to being a politician is knowing what to say when and to whom. I think Hillary failed in that regard. Democrats don't have to preach that we should kill all the minorities to win the white populist vote.
And no, I'm not implying that Trump voters only voted for him because of economic anxiety. But the key to being a politician is knowing what to say when and to whom. I think Hillary failed in that regard. Democrats don't have to preach that we should kill all the minorities to win the white populist vote.
Poodlestrike
Banned
You can still pursue a populist platform while still speaking to minority issues, but it's a hell of a lot harder, since you're automatically locked out of the racist, diet racist, and to a lesser extent the colorblind segments of the white vote. Thus the various thinkpieces about identity politics and how the Democratic party has to radically reinvent itself etc. etc.
Real talk, we lost by less than 200k votes across 3 states. No reinvention is necessary or, I would argue, desirable. We need to radically alter how we approach local and state races, true, but nationally all we really need is to run a candidate who doesn't have 30 years of baggage or a self-identified socialism label. Someone who people will believe when they make impossible promises, and then put up with when those naturally fail to pan out.
We also need to do something particularly nasty to James Comey to assure that nobody does something like he did ever again. I'm talking Rome vs. Carthage. Salt the earth under the Hoover Building so no new Comeys can ever be grown there again.
Real talk, we lost by less than 200k votes across 3 states. No reinvention is necessary or, I would argue, desirable. We need to radically alter how we approach local and state races, true, but nationally all we really need is to run a candidate who doesn't have 30 years of baggage or a self-identified socialism label. Someone who people will believe when they make impossible promises, and then put up with when those naturally fail to pan out.
We also need to do something particularly nasty to James Comey to assure that nobody does something like he did ever again. I'm talking Rome vs. Carthage. Salt the earth under the Hoover Building so no new Comeys can ever be grown there again.
Team Alucard
Banned
I don't really think the Dems even need to change their platform at all, just alter the attack strategy to shine more light on how awful your average Republican is when it comes to workers rights, corporate interests, and wealth inequality.
Midwestern whites may be as racist as Southern whites, but if they actually prioritized their racism over the money in their pockets like the latter do, the midwest wouldn't have been a Democrat stronghold for the past 30 years.
Dems need more attacks ads like this the next time around and less of the "think of the children" type stuff that Hillary ran with. She and her team tried to appeal to the decency in humanity and found that there was none. They let Trump portray himself as a working class hero (barf) thinking that people would be too smart to fall for his BS and they were wrong.
Midwestern whites may be as racist as Southern whites, but if they actually prioritized their racism over the money in their pockets like the latter do, the midwest wouldn't have been a Democrat stronghold for the past 30 years.
Dems need more attacks ads like this the next time around and less of the "think of the children" type stuff that Hillary ran with. She and her team tried to appeal to the decency in humanity and found that there was none. They let Trump portray himself as a working class hero (barf) thinking that people would be too smart to fall for his BS and they were wrong.
The party shouldn't be satisfied with barely losing or barely winning. It should continue to adapt and play more focused politics. We shouldn't need a unicorn.
We don't fully know why we lost the election. Could it have all been racism? Sure. Sexism? Sure. Comey? Sure. But you can't really adapt your political platform or strategy around those (and they shouldn't, though they could just push a white male as the candidate). They should take the possibilities that the loss was based on a lack of focus on an economic message or similar things and run with fixing that in the future.
We shouldn't throw our hands up saying that it was because of racists and there was nothing we could do and just hope next election that minorities vote more and whites vote less.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
People are blowing out of proportion the significance of the Dem loss. It mostly falls on Hillary being a bad candidate considering her past, that people have been asking for change since Obama won (and he won on that himself in 08), and a western-fueled resentment against globalism not because people lost jobs but because they feel non-white countries are rising while theirs diminish in superiority status.
And more than anything it's because of the EC system, voter suppression, that kind of stuff.
Now post-Trump win, things are different, because Democracy is now more in jeopardy. But the reasons behind the loss are way bliwn out of proportion and risk leading people in the wrong direction.
And more than anything it's because of the EC system, voter suppression, that kind of stuff.
Now post-Trump win, things are different, because Democracy is now more in jeopardy. But the reasons behind the loss are way bliwn out of proportion and risk leading people in the wrong direction.
I think its also that people are recognizing with Obama out of the White House soon, how much of this country will be controlled by republicans. Not just the 3 branches of the federal government but also how many state congresses and governorships. Democrats are not setting the agenda or controlling legislation in this country at all right now.
Elaugaufein
Member
Someone linked a study showing Trump voters correlated with poor economic conditions, sexism and racism individually. Which should surprise no one because Trump pitched on those three things more than Clinton did. Clearly you don't want to appeal to the sexist / racist vote but there's no reason not to appeal to the economic voter.
I think the consensus on NeoGAF that the corruption angle will be ignored by the electorate is wrong. I follow a military Facebook group that is fairly right wing and anything critical of trump was always followed by a strong defense (plus Hillary is bad). Posted today about the Argentine president phone call that resulted in his building permit moving forward and was met with defeating silence. There is no way to defend the parlaying of the presidency for personal business favors.
The corruption attacks worked in 06 when it was just Abramoff, this time it's the President openly enriching himself. The Democratic strategy should be to obstruct and attack Trump's business dealings. He has already made it clear he is going to continue to have a large role in his business and we should let him hang himself over it.
The corruption attacks worked in 06 when it was just Abramoff, this time it's the President openly enriching himself. The Democratic strategy should be to obstruct and attack Trump's business dealings. He has already made it clear he is going to continue to have a large role in his business and we should let him hang himself over it.
Actually if I remember the 538 numbers right, Trump voters were fairly well-off middle class whites.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Maybe Democrats need to return to Dean's 50 state strategy. The party could make incremental improvement in states that could pay off in 2020.
They don't think income was the main driving factor: it was education and race.
Elaugaufein
Member
Trump got traditional Republican voters too, thats going to skew his averages way up (Clinton won lower incomes overall) but there was a correlation between Rust Belters in poor economic conditions and voting for Trump.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Wwhat was his strategy?
It seems I was beaten but I already spent a lot of time on this so I'm going to post it anyway - I think literally every reasonable person understands this and agrees with this. Obama was good about doing this. The issue is:
- As Shinra has already posted, there is a distinct history in US politics of the concerns of PoC getting thrown under a bus in the name of economics or other similar issues when a roadblock is reached. Put in that historical context, there is concern that if we aren't very careful we might head back in that direction.
- 99% of the time "identity politics" is invoked as a term, its used to denigrate and diminish the concerns of PoC, Women, LGBT, etc. It's fucking annoying for all the reasons in that article I posted earlier. Whenever I see that term, alarm bells go off in my head. I know others feel the same.
- Clinton is gone and right now Sanders is understandably making a lot of noise (I invoke their names basically because they represent "wings" of the party right now). It's clear the Democratic party needs a balanced, multi-faceted message. Sanders was incapable of delivering that sort of message in the primary and he hasn't shown he has improved (or improved enough) since then.
Take for example that encounter with that young Latina woman mentioned this morning. When she asked him "how do I become the second Latina Senator?", he could have just said something akin to "just prove that you will stand up for the lower/middle class and fight for the important issues like economic opportunity, healthcare, etc." Instead he made a point to specifically call out "identity politics" and knock down a strawman (as if anyone has ever argued that JUST because they are a minority they should be elected). Why do that? What was the point? Things like that reveal a messaging issue and how certain priorities are ranked. It's a big part of why, even when he tried to speak on issues of race and had good things to say, it didn't do a lot to engender him to AAs or most other minorities.
I know Sanders is a good man at his core but he keeps doing things like that and it really, really bothers and worries me. If other Democrats or potential future Democrats mold themselves after Sanders but don't correct his weaknesses, that is a big problem.
- Clinton HAD an economic message. She didn't spend enough time in the Midwest, that's on her, but there has to be an admission/understanding that its a harder to deliver a message through emotional appeals of White Nostalgia & White Fragility and when both sides have been saying "free trade is the devil" and you don't have a spotless record on the issue.
- In the end it feels like the corrections that need to be made at the presidential level are obvious and small in number (though not necessarily easy to do) - find a candidate who has few scars who can communicate to wide swaths of voters well with targeted messages and don't take any state for granted. As such, it is concerning that some are interpreting the election results as a mandate to jolt leftward despite some of those more leftward positions being untenable or even unpopular in the current political environment or how factors other than income influenced voting (or where even more important than income). It's also important to remember those last points if/when we try to move towards a new 50 State strategy.
Elaugaufein
Member
Run suitable candidates everywhere for everything and fund them. The logic being a Blue Dog is better than a Republican. Which I think is solid logic as long as you don't play it too conservatively.
I don't get that last part because it's a thing that always happens win, lose or draw someone will propose moving left and someone to the right and its been a really long time since the economic left have even looked like winning that argument in the US so the panic that they aren't automatically losing for once seems kind of overblown. Especially given that vast parts of the party machinery will resist significant moves to the economic left even if they do win some concessions. I suspect you vastly overestimate the actual change that will happen and the purity threshold desired.
NobleXenon
Member
A Mathematician's Perspective on the Divide
I didn't want to make another thread about Urban vs Rural, College Kids leaving their Home States, etc. So I'll just post it here.
I didn't want to make another thread about Urban vs Rural, College Kids leaving their Home States, etc. So I'll just post it here.
We are all talking hypotheticals here. I can't say with certainly what will happen in the near future. I'm just expressing some of the concerns I have having followed the dialog that is going on across the internet within the Left. I'm hoping we can get all the quarreling out of our system by the time Trump et al start signing laws so we can be unified in our critique and opposition.
If Cooper isn't sitting in the Governor's mansion this time next year then every single Republican controlled state will implement a similar law and we're literally one step closer to a dictatorship. After all, if it works on the state level why not the national? It needs to fail here. If it doesn't then the republic will be living on borrowed time--and I am not kidding in the slightest.
No, it would fall to whoever had been named Speaker in the new Congress when it's seated on January 3rd (i.e. Paul Ryan).
U.S. Const. amend. XX said:
The law in question is the same one that provides for Presidential succession after the POTUS has taken office:
3 USC § 19(a)(1) said:
radios shipping overview
Member
The identity politics theory seemed to start to take hold about a week after the election, and it really feels like part of the Bernie or Busters getting in their I-told-you-sos and reiterating their cases on why Hillary was awful etc, etc. There was some very good hard-hitting postmortem analysis in the two days immediately following the election, and since then there's been a lot of folks speaking up and pushing their pet demons as the reason she lost.
Hyperactivity
Banned
Yup, it feels like everyone was united and had a reasonable idea of how and where to improve immediately post mortem before things started to go to shit
They are pretty much going to have to employ a 50 state strategy or something similar to it if they want to win back parts of the midwest and win some of the republican states that may flip to democrats in the next election like Arizona.
Fragamemnon
Member
McRory's taking a giant dump on every county board of election here and that isn't a position he can hold without finding something (so far itsfuckingnothing.gif). He has no real legislative support for his claims and people are nodding and playing along in the hopes that maybe he can find enough stuff that they can pass even worse voter suppression laws. But he's done, just being a total ass about it because he can.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Is there anything people can do to support Cooper?
shinra-bansho
Member
Cook seems very bullish on seat holds in the 2018 Senate races. Not sure why.
Other than incumbency advantage.
Other than incumbency advantage.
RastaMentality
Banned
Elaugaufein
Member
Yup. Democrats who don't like losing and Republicans who feel good about total federal control / Trump. I doubt it's a massive shift in the electorate. Though there probably is the usual honeymoon bounce too.
Bubblicious
Member
What would happen if the EC elected Clinton (270+) assuming there were enough faithless electors? Does the House still have a say/objection?
I don't think people were united and had a reasonable idea of where to improve immediately after the election.
For starters, not 'everyone' was in that discussion. Two, what sort of post-mortem is good without more clear data and results, which was incomplete in the two days after the election?
Nope. If the EV votes for a president that's the president.
neurosisxeno
Member
Race Riots. Probably.
ultratruman
Banned
So, Robby Mook was chosen as the Clinton campaign manager because he:
1. Was Hillary's state director in the 2008 primary, which she lost.
2. Was in charge of expenditure for the 2010 Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which saw a historic 64 Democrats lose their seats.
3. Was the DCCC'S executive director for the 2012 House of Representatives Election, where the Democrats failed to get even close to retaking the house.
Mook seems extraordinarily good at failing up.
He hasn't posted anything or really been mentioned at all since November 8. This is surprising to me, given all the criticisms of how Hillary's campaign spent so much time trying to flip deep-red states, catastrophically neglecting to solidify the 'blue wall'.
1. Was Hillary's state director in the 2008 primary, which she lost.
2. Was in charge of expenditure for the 2010 Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which saw a historic 64 Democrats lose their seats.
3. Was the DCCC'S executive director for the 2012 House of Representatives Election, where the Democrats failed to get even close to retaking the house.
Mook seems extraordinarily good at failing up.
He hasn't posted anything or really been mentioned at all since November 8. This is surprising to me, given all the criticisms of how Hillary's campaign spent so much time trying to flip deep-red states, catastrophically neglecting to solidify the 'blue wall'.
I think he hasn't been mentioned because until November 9, everyone thought he was doing a great job. Post-loss recriminations usually smear assholes first, and Mook certainly seems to be if nothing else a nice guy.
He was chosen because Plouffe (who also is a bit quiet, right?) recommended him.
Also your data is pretty shitty. First, he was state director for Nevada, Indiana, and Ohio. Clinton won those states in 2008. Then he managed Shaheen's campaign, which she won. So there's some stuff in there you are missing.
He was chosen because Plouffe (who also is a bit quiet, right?) recommended him.
Also your data is pretty shitty. First, he was state director for Nevada, Indiana, and Ohio. Clinton won those states in 2008. Then he managed Shaheen's campaign, which she won. So there's some stuff in there you are missing.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/503316125405700096
can't believe I hadn't seen this until today lmfao
can't believe I hadn't seen this until today lmfao
shinra-bansho
Member
Mook was the state director for three states which she won in '08. Not all states. He ran successful Senate and Gubernatorial campaigns.
This is like a thirty second Google.
You already bumped a year old thread just to post this?
This is like a thirty second Google.
You already bumped a year old thread just to post this?
- Status