-
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
Hard to imagine Obama be anything but "fair and balanced" though.
I still don't like the precedent. It plays into the whole "keeping everyone in a little bubble" thing. It'd just turn into Obama News vs FOX News and would be reported as such by everyone else. If anything we need to be looking to burst the bubbles, not create new ones. It's why I didn't like it when Bernie proposed it and it's why I don't like it now.
Just need to create a bigger bubble to absorb all the smaller bubbles then. Not doing anything certainly doesn't help bursting bubbles and it's hard to imagine any media empire wanting to change as long the money keeps coming in.
shinra-bansho
Member
Politics isn't just cyclical. PoliGAF is.
And we're back to pretending there are swathes of hidden voters out there, a silent leftist majority. Without any basis. And they really want single payer healthcare and free college for all.
The less educated voting bloc came out in force greater than normal this election. For the bigot.
And we're back to pretending there are swathes of hidden voters out there, a silent leftist majority. Without any basis. And they really want single payer healthcare and free college for all.
The less educated voting bloc came out in force greater than normal this election. For the bigot.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Remember when Al Gore made a liberal news station and nobody watched it and it died?
Young Turks actually had their own show on it.
Young Turks actually had their own show on it.
soul creator
Member
So let's boil it down even more. Should Democrats keep the same dominant ideology, and try different messaging, or change both ideology and messaging/management?
This is what the status quo ideology and messaging is doing, btw.
Is all of that just a messaging/mangement problem? That seems to be the implication in a lot of takes I've read.
I'm not even necessarily saying that every single election in every single location needs to start running communists for office or whatever, lol. But I find the pushback to even basic New Deal liberalism odd. It's not theoretical that people have historically loved "universal" public programs like Medicare (though of course, it often depends on how you frame it) and Social Security, so that seems like a good base to start from, as opposed to weird means-tested public/private market-based hybrid programs and viewpoints.
In addition, in relation to the primary, since "electability" was often brought up so much as an issue and talking point, there were people that were willing to sacrifice their leftist views on the altar of a "more electable" candidate. So there isn't always a 1-1 mapping from "candidate I voted for" to "my personal policy views".
neurosisxeno
Member
I don't know what's your point here other than to get other posters to say "Yeah, I totally believe in your theory!" when there's numerous evidence against it that they choose to take the opposite stance. People here are not deciding what candidates to run. Candidates will be polled and tested to see if they are viable to the electorate.
HanShotFirst
Member
George Clooney is in the speculative candidates section on the 2020 Presidential Election Wikipedia page. B-Dubs, you got your wish.
lyrick
Member
To whoever was reading this thread and added him to that page I say this: I WAS KIDDING. Well, half-kidding.
They really won't now considering the one time they panned to the audience the dude was doing a Nazi salute.
HanShotFirst
Member
A Trump presidency was considered a joke, l look where we are now. Clooney 2020.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Maybe Clooney would pull a Franken and actually be good at the job.
Yeah, the article mentioned it.
In any case, rather than whine about people getting their news sources from Facebook, it would be pretty much necessary to disseminate information effectively through Facebook. The right has capitalized on that, the left not so much.
I doubt an Obama media endeavor would be anything real traditional, like an ObamaTV or some show as that article speculated. If he was talking to Zuckerberg, he's probably thinking more about a grassroots organizing mechanic with a savvy front end.
No, no, they should show that shit.
Was she born rich and involved in the party structure, or was Hillary Clinton born a female?
The work of building in the party is an indication of how much she had to fight to get to where she was in the party. Even white women can't waltz into a party primary having denounced said party for years and then suddenly get verbally crowned 'de facto leader' after an election loss. It's sort of astonishing to me how you can't see the manacles that "being a woman" have been to Hillary Clinton.
No, she was not a mainstream Democrat with a lot of privileges; she had to fight for all the accomplishments and stature she gained. She did not get to rise to the top through wealth or through sheer talent, Hillary had to put in work.
Wanda/Wander
Member
Obama is going set up his own Twitch stream.
And_Gignac
Member
She was the wife of a former president while running for the primary. It is hard to understand this attempt to romanticize Clinton.
It just never ends with this man.
And certainly she has no other accomplishments of her own to speak of, right?
You have no right whatsoever to accuse anyone of trying to "romanticize" Hillary Clinton when you, despite her numerous accomplishments, despite her hard work, despite the fact that it was HER paychecks keeping the lights on when Bill was between jobs, just tried to relegate her to "Wife of Former President."
soul creator
Member
What does your birth have to do with whether you're a mainstream Democrat in 2016?
Are you defining "mainstream" in some different way that I am? I'm confused. I consider Barack Obama a mainstream Democrat also (he's literally won 2 popularity contests in the past 8 years). Does his blackness and upbringing also prevent him from being mainstream?
shinra-bansho said:
Maybe there is. Maybe there isn't. Maybe it's right down the middle. Maybe people intuitively realize something is wrong, but they don't quite know the solution.
42% of eligible voters didn't vote. If 2% of them are "silent leftists' that could change a lot. And of course, it doesn't even matter if they're actually "leftists", since people don't always 100% map their political views alongside left/center/right axes in the way we always think.
I guess the difference to me is that I see that and think "more organizing and grassroots building can make seemingly bold and 'leftist' proposals eventually become policy" whereas others see it and think "let's try to split the difference somehow and propose some overly complex program that kind of sorta solves some of the problems, but becomes difficult to politically defend due to its complexity."
I figured the former would seem like a better way forward, especially considering the performance of the "pragmatic" approach over the past 6 years not really solving as much. Sure, maybe that is also a wrong way forward, but at least it would be trying something different, rather than just "everything's basically fine". But I'm surprised that this gets painted as some sort of leftist fever dream. Or that the national political dialogue is some sort of static thing that can never be changed.
You keep harping on the performance of the pragmatic approach. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I'm waiting for you to defend your side.
Show me some far left success. Who's the example? Whose victory can we look to as a guide?
And_Gignac
Member
Mess you quoted me with the ex wife typo I edited.
she being the wife of a former president is a very efficient form to express how much of an establishment democrat she was during the last 24 years. In no way it was a form to minimize her very own prolific political career that even surpasses Bill's.
Trump's, for instance.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Breaking news? howard dean is dropping out of DNC chair race
Nobody is arguing that the left shouldn't organize and put forward leftist proposals. Jesus. The question is whether national politicians should campaign on them absent compelling evidence that people want them. The ACA was passed because leftist proposals failed to convince Americans that other forms of universal healthcare were good policy goals.
It's fine, the quicker everything gets on the same boat with the DNC the sooner we can actually start mobilizing. Repeating the primary style bickering over the DNC head was unnecessary overall.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Hillary Clinton fucked up healthcare reform in the 90s, was an advisor and advocate for some of Bill's shittier policies, was mediocre to average in the Senate, and was the main advocate for probably Obama's biggest foreign policy blunder and would have gotten us more involved in the Syria mess if she had been at the helm.
Had she not been the wife of a foreign president, with a "first woman president?" mystique erected around her with every bit as much fervor as the anti-Clinton conspiracy nonsense, she would not have been as known as she was, period. You can romanticize her all you want. I said she was a bad candidate from the start of the primary, based on her record and on her terrible and nasty campaign in 2008, and I unwisely let myself drink the Dem Kool-Aid after she got the nomination and the Repubs' repugnance became clear. Trump buried the Bushes and the Clintons in one election cycle, and whatever else his ills, I will be gratified that he did that, at the very least.
Had she not been the wife of a foreign president, with a "first woman president?" mystique erected around her with every bit as much fervor as the anti-Clinton conspiracy nonsense, she would not have been as known as she was, period. You can romanticize her all you want. I said she was a bad candidate from the start of the primary, based on her record and on her terrible and nasty campaign in 2008, and I unwisely let myself drink the Dem Kool-Aid after she got the nomination and the Repubs' repugnance became clear. Trump buried the Bushes and the Clintons in one election cycle, and whatever else his ills, I will be gratified that he did that, at the very least.
This is some major revisionist History.
I was just posting this. Jesus Christ, he's in a rush to piss off China.
No, it's true. In retrospect, it was really dumb of Hillary to think that America would ever accept single-payer healthcare. Thank God we learned that lesson!
He cares as much about the Taiwan-China rift as much he did on Pakistan-India. There's nothing we can do about the leaders of those countries wanting to get angry.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
No, it was unwise of her to construct a massive, convoluted reform of the healthcare system in effective secrecy, shutting both sides out of the process and dooming it to political purgatory once it finally saw the light of day. Part of being a leader is being able to anticipate the probable effects of your actions on others and their perception of you, and Hillary has shown, time and again, that she does not have that insight.
aspiegamer
Member
Apparent lower turnout at the Trump event makes me feel a little better. If anything I thought it'd be even more full with people from the broader region wanting an excuse to celebrate. Perhaps losing the PV is demoralizing? A victory tour at all is ridiculous, but especially after losing the PV it's an extremely odd expedition.
If someone asked him what Chinese Taipei was he'd short-circuit. I'd bet 10:1 against Trump having any idea what the history is there. Man doesn't even know why Japan doesn't have an army, for similar trivia in the same region in roughly the same time frame. Not getting the India/Pakistan rivalry is a harmless joke compared to botching China/Taiwan.
Dominican Power
Member
Al Jazeera America was a god send and America blew it. Biggest mistake they ever did is use the name Al Jazeera.
Since we're in a mood of talking about Hillary again.
Democrats Shouldnt Count On An Unpopular Trump To Win Back Governorships
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...an-unpopular-trump-to-win-back-governorships/
Democrats Shouldnt Count On An Unpopular Trump To Win Back Governorships
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...an-unpopular-trump-to-win-back-governorships/
...wut?
Anyway, I find it hard to take seriously the idea something that is reasonable for insuring millions Americans each year is a fuck-up worthy of being hung around someone's neck.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
My "ideological prior" was that Hillary was a bad candidate. I wasn't a big Bernie guy, nor do I think the country is ready for a second FDR, like soulcreator seemingly does. I think he probably could have won in this particular election because of the oddness of the electorate, but he showed a distinct cluelessness when it came to actually being an effective political operative, on a number of levels. My position, from the beginning, was that the DNC had shot themselves in a foot by not spending 8 years finding and grooming a charismatic center-left candidate to succeed Obama, rather than clearing the way for a candidate with the second most baggage of any candidate in modern political history, next to the PEOTUS himself.
Intheflorsh
Banned
Of course he does. Does no one do real reporting anymore?
I mean this is coming from the guy who sold people hats made by his son in law's company wasn't it? Of course he had a vested interest in Carrier, why wouldn't he.
More reading:
Why Trump Might Win (Called shot from May)
The 2016 Election Disaster (goes over Clinton & Sanders weaknesses and how the Democratic party can move forward)
Trump is playing out of Putin's playbook
Are we doing this thing again where we pretend the White Nationalism and Authoritarianism weren't significant features (not bugs) of Trump's campaign?
To be clear, this isn't me saying bringing in more aspects of that wing of the Democratic party to the forefront is a bad idea. It's not. It's just that there are few to no modern examples of a hard left swing being successful in this country. Expectations and methodology should be tempered.
Oh FFS. Someone should def bring that up in OT or make a thread
Why Trump Might Win (Called shot from May)
The 2016 Election Disaster (goes over Clinton & Sanders weaknesses and how the Democratic party can move forward)
Trump is playing out of Putin's playbook
Are we doing this thing again where we pretend the White Nationalism and Authoritarianism weren't significant features (not bugs) of Trump's campaign?
To be clear, this isn't me saying bringing in more aspects of that wing of the Democratic party to the forefront is a bad idea. It's not. It's just that there are few to no modern examples of a hard left swing being successful in this country. Expectations and methodology should be tempered.
Oh FFS. Someone should def bring that up in OT or make a thread
soul creator
Member
Define "far left"?
The whole point is that "far left" isn't some static thing. The point isn't to just make "far left" people win. The point is to make "far left" seem like the "reasonable center".
If you just want to look to candidacies as a "guide", then obviously the Sanders campaign is one. Obviously the Sanders campaign didn't win, but the point isn't to instantly reverse everything in one election (though it doesn't hurt to start!) Goldwater lost also, but ended up influencing the party in the long-run.
A racist ass Republican presidential candidate also spent a bunch of time talking about being against trade deals and won, yet somehow we're worried that being "far left" (again, whatever that means) will scare people away?
The reason why we don't have a ton of data on the "far left winning" is because the Democratic Party, as a national organization, actively fights against "far left" candidates and only acquiesces once grassroots movements force them to. The "far left" has been winning if you look at every major progressive movement ever throughout history though. But that would require embracing some of those supposed "radicals", which is something Democrats don't tend to do (even though Republicans are successful with it all the time).
edit: even Obama campaigned as a "far left" type figure with his anti-war stance, hope and change, hitting Romney on the 47% thing, and won. Though he obviously didn't govern that way. If anything, based on Gore/Kerry/H. Clinton, that should be even more evidence that the "eh, let's fight for what's politically possible" approach is a loser on a national stage.
royalan said:
Isn't that what people keep doing with any single-payer proposal?
pigeon said:
The 2016 Democratic candidate spent an entire primary doing that, and the current Democratic President often does that (because we have to be "pragmatic" and we can't "move too fast")
Sure, there are plenty of individual Democratic voters who might agree (including members of PoliGAF), but that's not the dominant attitude of the national party. Or national Democrats might support organizing...but only within their limited parameters of "what's politically possible"
Who, besides maybe Dennis Kucinich, Warren, Sanders, Conyers, etc. has been campaigning on leftist proposals and "other forms of universal healthcare"? The ACA is a healthcare plan that is heavily inspired by right-wing plans from the 90's. Has our political imagination been stunted so much that we consider the ACA the furthest we can go? I don't remember Obama out there stumping for something closer to single-payer and then compromising with the ACA. He put the ACA forward as the main idea, and specifically worked with health insurance companies to get it passed.
Where were these sustained national debates on single-payer over the past 30 years? Where is this Democratic Party that's running on all these wild leftist ideas? Is it the current party that still blames Nader for 2000? Is it the triangulating New Democrats from the 90's? The Atari Democrats from the 80's? The union-busting Carter in the 70's?
As I mentioned, I don't even necessarily think leftist proposals are the actual solution in 100% of all cases (though I think in this specific election year, that argument could be made). But I can clearly see that current proposals aren't, and if I just lost an election and a million state seats over the past 6 years, why wouldn't I try supporting something different from the status quo? It can't get that much worse, and it's not like the other side is trying to occupy the "reasonable center" either.
To be fair to Trump (blargh), if he cared about his vested interests he would either want them to move to Mexico or give a ton more money to Carrier which both didn't happen.
However, this should be reported just to highlight the one of the many conflicts of interest he would incur whatever little thing he does.
However, this should be reported just to highlight the one of the many conflicts of interest he would incur whatever little thing he does.
Intheflorsh
Banned
He secured seven million dollars in tax breaks for Carrier, that's essentially giving them a ton of money.
- Status