Bruce Springsteen
Member
Doesn't matter if it worked, not the point, for 8 years I've heard liberal pundits use this excuse for everything Obama tried to do
I got tired of it very quickly, imagine what conservative voters thought lol
-
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
Doesn't matter if it worked, not the point, for 8 years I've heard liberal pundits use this excuse for everything Obama tried to do
I got tired of it very quickly, imagine what conservative voters thought lol
whyamihere
Banned
No, I know. But I think people are quick to dismiss the fact that voters usually blame everything, both good and bad, on the sitting president and his party.
Frank the Great
Banned
So apparently gaming side has several neo Nazis who are super hyped about a fake rumor from 4chan that the theme of Kojima's new PS4 game is "the Nazis were right."
I want off this planet.
I want off this planet.
jack_package_200
Banned
Ignore this post
Bruce Springsteen
Member
True, trump better be ready for that shit storm, he's going to feel Obama's pain for being blamed for any and everything
I want to see evan challenge trump again.
Veritigo_X
Member
Heidi Heitkamp is meeting with Trump. She just got into the elevator at Trump Tower.
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/804757901067702272
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/804757901067702272
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Yes. But now the man in charge is puppeted by white nationalist who have spent decades brainwashing their idiotic followers. Trump can do absolutely no wrong in their eyes.
Where the Democrats totally failed to paint the Republicans as a party that blocked progress, places like fox news and breitbart will successfully blame any failures on Democrats. And the mainstream media will continue to just parrot Trump's bullshit without challenge.
People really need to stop deluding themselves that the Democratic party will do anything but fail for the next 8 years.
whyamihere
Banned
A lot of people don't realize how cyclical politics is...
I usually here the actual RATE drop attributed to "people dropping out of the labor force" even in more reasonable media like NPR
I would not be so sure of that. Trump and republicans in general may become arrogant over the amount of power they have right now, think they are invincible and that nothing will take them down and end up like the PC's in Alberta once voters wake up. I think there is a real chance the divisions in the republican party will reappar as they govern the country and the party may eventually spilt because of these divisions.
Or history. We're seeing that "good times" seem to inevitably lead to this crap re: racism, as people get comfortable, it's no different than the roaring 20s and such in a lot of ways.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Sure, but they can't just ignore all of this stuff. If no headway is made on things like the Wall or repealing the ACA in a short amount of time, then people start getting Cantor-ed. But if they do touch these programs, then they could lose some key voting blocs that are legitimate informed swing voters (try pissing off the AARP and see how badly you can lose Florida!).
This is the biggest reason I think the filibuster is safe for awhile. McConnell needs us to use it to block the garbage that he knows will lose them seats, but he can't speak against these things himself or people get antsy.
Honestly, I don't know that I'd help them with this. People get the government they choose, at all levels. If you voted for a Republican representative or senator who then actually harms you in some way (like they said they would), you earned the consequences. If an idiot shoots themself in the foot intentionally, I have no pity or sympathy.
neurosisxeno
Member
Can't wait for Great Depression 2: Inequality Boogaloo.
Frank the Great
Banned
First they said there would never be a Republican president again and the GOP will implode.
Now they say the Democrats are fucked, broken, and will never get the House.
Humans are bad at thing.
Screw that backwards ass bullshit. The idea that it's "bad" to go to college and get a job using your brain is NOT one that should be entertained.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
It's also harder to maintain coalitions when you're in power (time to actually do stuff means each camp gets to fight). The Dems saw this recently where various factions were infighting over what to do with our seats, and now that we've lost them, it'll happen to the GOP.
The strongest coalitions are formed in defeat since all the factions just promise to do everybody else's stuff "when we take back control."
That may still happen.
neurosisxeno
Member
It's a complicated problem. Generally speaking, people like Liberal and Progressive policy, they just don't really know it. The most popular social programs in American History are those passed by Democrats amid Republican opposition. I think the simplest solution is Democrats need to stop focusing so much on the Presidency and Federal Government. I'm not saying abandon it, but we need State Governments on our side. The number of state level Republicans that run completely unopposed is a fucking joke. If we start flipping states and pushing for independent re-districting committees, Democrats have a very bright future as things like Drug Decriminalization and LGBT Rights become widely accepted--more than they already are.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The amount of young people that assumed they could get anything done just because Obama was in the oval office....seems to have been pretty goddamn high.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I agree with the strategy here, and I'll add an element of it. Dems need to take states and turn them awesome, while pointing out states like Kansas more often. It'll breed more animosity, but that's unavoidable, I think. Put this scenario to people in swing states. Do you wanna be Kansas or Virginia? Because the GOP has proved that states are in fact stronger than the feds. If you have a red state legislature or governor, no democrat in the White House can help you.
soul creator
Member
Will anyone present any evidence that the current dominant ideology of mainstream Democratic Party leaders is working when it comes to their one job of gaining power to accomplish their policy goals? Will anyone present any evidence that the notion of left/center/right pundits and party leaders often use somehow perfectly maps onto how citizens think of left/center/right? That never seems to get established in these discussions, and seems like a pretty important step!
A rich reality tv show star just won an election pandering to white nationalism and talking about how terrible trade deals are, claiming to be a voice of the people, and bragging about not being bought off like other politicians. Maybe the common wisdom of "we must stay in the center to win elections!" doesn't always apply?
And of course this isn't even getting into the tons of people who don't vote at all, and apparently don't find anything appealing in either the Democratic or the Republican parties. So maybe the "reasonable center" is actually further left than we think it is, and is one possible reason why so many people don't participate in the political system at all?
Or maybe the reasonable center is further right! But considering that the right-wing space actually does get national media attention, and right-wing framing constantly dominates our political discussions, that seems less likely. The left-wing seems like a more likely "blue ocean" so to speak to look for political ideas.
Of course, this isn't a guarantee that moving left in and of itself, is a solution to every single election, or that it's a simple thing that can be done in one election cycle. Elections involve more than just throwing out a policy platform by itself, and the mood of the country and other external factors can affect people's acceptance of various political views. But the resistance to the idea of it I've noticed sometimes (even after the so-called "reasonable and pragmatic" candidates have been losing for years now) is strange. Sure, a lot of "Berniecrats" lost, as you've noted in other threads. But so did a lot of mainstream Democrats, including the most mainstream Democrat! I find it interesting that when people further left lose, it's always damning evidence of their ideology, but mainstream Democrats losing for the past 6 years, even with all the institutional and systemic advantages they have, is no reflection on their ideology at all. Mainstream Democrats get the benefit of "our messaging was bad, but our ideology is basically fine" but for leftists, it's obviously just an ideological problem.
"Haha, you couldn't instantly overturn 40 years of rightward ideological drift in all of our political and media institutions in 1 year, losers!"
balladofwindfishes
Member
Because the two ran against each other, one won the primary and the other didn't.
our economy collapsed under bush and the republicans managed to sweep 2010, then proceeded to publicly gridlock so our country couldn't recover quickly. and almost managed to shut down our government, which became a public event. then they swept 2014. now they have total control of our government thanks to our country electing a fascist realty show star.
the republicans have been playing a disastrous game for eight years now and have been rewarded for it time and time again, each time poligaf taking an L for saying "They're destroying their own party now!"
the republicans have been playing a disastrous game for eight years now and have been rewarded for it time and time again, each time poligaf taking an L for saying "They're destroying their own party now!"
neurosisxeno
Member
Not to mention Republican's are a few states away from being able to call for a Constitutional Convention. That would be the absolute worst case scenario. I blame the DWS strategies for some of the massive losses Democrats have suffered. Not entirely her, but I noticed an increase in it. Democrats problem is that they only fight battles they think they can win, and sometimes even then they don't give it 100%. Fight all the time, for everything. Republicans have been doing it and often we see Republican's slip into office against great odds, but rarely do we see Democrat's do it because the system doesn't bother even trying in many districts/counties/regions.
balladofwindfishes
Member
If the country is in ruins, the party in power during the ruin is never being re-elected, ever. It's not happening. That's not how our country works and that's not how voters work.
The GOP isn't some wall that is immune to everything.
I'm not really worried about Republicans blaming Obama for everything bad that happens over the next 4 years. I'm more concerned about Trump taking credit for the great things that will happen due to Obama's policies. The damage from cutting taxes on the rich or deregulation will take years to materialize, while Trump will continue to enjoy the great economy and relative world peace that Obama handed him. Basically, Trump needs to unambiguously break the law or get involved in some major scandal for the Dems to win in 2020. The good news is both of those things are highly likely.
Because if a majority of liberals don't want the dog food, what makes you think a majority of America does?
The reason there's such heavy resistance is THAT WE GET DECIMATED EVERY TIME WE HAVE TRIED IT (see: Corbyn for a present day example.)
The reason you can get far left parties in nordic countries is simple: They're more heavily urbanized because it's cold as shit, and they don't have large minority populations.
neurosisxeno
Member
That's not true at all. Should Trump miraculously stay in office until 2020, I see almost no way he wins a second term. There's no way Democrat's are stupid enough to run a Clinton-esque candidate against him in 2020, and without someone they spent 30 years attacking there's no way they win. They have only won the Popular Vote 1 time in the past 5 elections, and it took the worst terrorist attack in US History to ensure that happened.
they will, and it'll work. and during this economic collapse they'll push through even more awful policies disguised as plans for "economic recovery" and if the Democrats make anything more than a peep the Republicans will attack them for gridlocking our economic recovery. and that attack will work this time around because Republicans know how to push a narrative and attack their opponents.
Reminds me of some of the people that think or thought that Alberta was some conservative utopia destined to be ruled by conservative parties and that the Alberta NDP is an anomaly. Any political party can be taken down even if they rule a region/place for 40+ years. The GOP may eventually be vulnerable at the local,state or federal level.
Well this ought to be fun.
These are the 16 CEOs whove agreed to serve on Trumps new "Strategic and Policy Forum"
These are the 16 CEOs whove agreed to serve on Trumps new "Strategic and Policy Forum"
The Republicans have been trying to publicly steer the country into the ground for almost a decade now and been rewarded for it time and time again. They're going to keep following this pattern that rewarded them while figuring out how to further rob us of democracy and will blame anything bad on Obama. They are not rational people of a different perspective, they're villains.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I blame DWS's lack of action, not her actions, if that makes sense. And these states losses are the fault of us winning at the federal level in '08. Once you win, the winners determine the party line, and you get less regional.
Obama was a great President, but he's not Kander and his type of Dem won't win in those places. This is true of any candidate that wins. If in an alternate universe Bernie got the nomination and somehow won, we'd see different regional voices get stomped out (in his case, center-left diverse states would likely not get as much attention).
Gilded age, part 2.
So I should invest more in stock and then bail at the first sign of the bubble bursting right?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Thanks, this is exactly the lesson I think democrats need to learn. The median voter theory with the assumptions of the left-right spectrum we have today just doesn't work.
We should do a 50 state strategy, but that doesn't mean every red state candidate should be republican lite on every single issue.
This also doesn't necessarily mean we can get away with a candidate that has policies that will noticeably raise taxes on anyone but the uber rich.
Oh, no, not this again.
The lesson learned from 2016 should be not to put all our eggs in one basket, aka the presidency. There's no other actual evidence that running to the left or to the right is better and saying we should do one thing because of feelings is putting more eggs in one basket.
The lesson learned from 2016 should be not to put all our eggs in one basket, aka the presidency. There's no other actual evidence that running to the left or to the right is better and saying we should do one thing because of feelings is putting more eggs in one basket.
soul creator
Member
I'm having a hard time figuring out when the primary counts as a data point for general elections, and when it doesn't!
But yes, the primary shows that when a mainstream Democrat with 30+ years of history with the party and many institutional advantages within the party structure runs against an insurgent unknown with views further to the left of that mainstream Democrat, the mainstream Democrat is likely to win...unless there's another mainstream Democrat who can inspire people (but also has institutional support) comes along.
And the primary doesn't even show that voters (never mind that the actual number of voters in a primary is super low...) somehow dislike moving left. Preference for Clinton and her policies isn't the same as a dislike of Sanders and his policies*
*As usual, Clinton/Sanders is just a proxy for the different views of policy going forward, which is an important long-term discussion. The specifics of their personalities is less important than what they represent politically.
You're still treating identities like "liberal" and "conservative" as if it's this 100% perfect summation of regular citizen's political views, which I think is the primary mistake a lot of people make. There are plenty of people who identify as "conservative" but still like leftist programs like Medicare and Social Security, are/were members of unions (another primarily left-wing concept). Again, a Republican presidential candidate made "leftist" views (anti-trade deals) a major part of his campaign, and won.
Never mind the fact that if people were so anti-left, why did those views increasingly get support from the candidate in the primary? By your logic, he would've faded away as soon as his views became more well known. Instead, support and favorability kept going upwards. So sure, it obviously wasn't enough to win, but it shows that it doesn't scare people off as much as people think it does.
And of course, the "reasonable moderate" still lost the general election, so maybe the primary isn't always a 100% predictor of future events...
Again, it wasn't enough to win a primary in 2016, but you're basically doing what I said at the end of my previous post:
And this idea of "decimated every time we've tried it" seems weird, because that implies there's been some wave of leftist political candidates running all over the place for the past 40 years. Even though it's actually been Third Way politics dominating the Democratic Party for that time. Or that somehow the political conditions in 1972 or the same political conditions in 2016.
dramatis said:
Wait, you think her gender solely overrides all the other privileges that Clinton has as a rich white person who's been involved in the party structure for 20+ years, and has held numerous high-level positions in the federal government?
The most basic of intersectional analysis would of course show that she's a mainstream Democrat with a lot of privileges. That was one of the main arguments for her candidacy! "She's done the work of building up the party for years, why should some rando come along and try to claim it"
Because one data point exists and the other side is simply theory. Test the theory at local or state level elections before saying we should adopt it for the presidency.
neurosisxeno
Member
That would be something.
I can't say I like the idea of a lefty Fox News, so I'm happy he's seemingly cooled on the idea.
balladofwindfishes
Member
What a twist. It was Obama who was planning a media empire off the back of the presidency, not Trump!
- Status