• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Come on now. You're acting like there's a gulf between "Bernie people" and dems. I disagree with some of their weird purity tests (Tulsi Gabbard wtf??), but we can work with them more often than not.

Is there anything you have against Ellison, or do you just not want to give any concessions? If you can even call going with Ellison a concession.

There isn't a gulf ideologically. Just like there wasn't a gulf ideologically between Republicans and the Tea Party.

One could say the Tea Party did a great deal harm to the Republican Party as an institution.

Sure, you have a coalition that can win an election. What's the cost though? Legitimizing demagoguery on a massive scale?

That's a steep price to pay.
 
We've been fighting to keep these people from trainwrecking the party since the Clinton years, and we'll be fighting to keep them from doing it after we're all gone.

When a drunk driver's trying to get the keys, the correct response isn't to let them have them.

Stop it from being a train wreck? Have you forgotten where we are? Clinton took the keys and drove The car off the damn cliff. We are in the worst spot the part has been in, in over 100 years.
 

kirblar

Member
Stop it from being a train wreck? Have you forgotten where we are? Clinton took the keys and drove The car off the damn cliff. We are in the worst spot the part has been in, in over 100 years.
We picked up 21 house seats. This is not the worst spot the party's been in.

That you scapegoat Clinton for this and not Obama (aka the guy who actually gutted Dean's 50 state program) says it all.

We barely lost a presidential election. That does not mean that sudenly we should let the far left take over and send us back to the stone ages.
 

Crocodile

Member
To add to the previous conversation, I'll agree that all the "we are doomed, get ready for 8 years of Trump, nothing can stop him!" I keep hearing all over the place is super annoying and not even slightly helpful :/

Ellison's a Democrat. Bernie's not. That makes all the difference.

I don't think Ellison could get elected in a less liberal constituency.

We've been fighting to keep these people from trainwrecking the party since the Clinton years, and we'll be fighting to keep them from doing it after we're all gone.

When a drunk driver's trying to get the keys, the correct response isn't to let them have them.

A) Are you saying that because Ellison is a Democrat that he lacks Sanders blindspots? I'm not sure what you are referring to otherwise.

B) Are you arguing Minnesota, as a whole, is too conservative to elect Ellison to a statewide office? I don't know enough about Minnestoa politics to argue for or against that point but I guess it's an interesting one.

C) As an aside, LOL at the drunk driving analogy.

Stop it from being a train wreck? Have you forgotten where we are? Clinton took the keys and drove The car off the damn cliff. We are in the worst spot the part has been in, in over 100 years.

Weren't we in this exact same spot on the federal level in 2004 (though Trump and the modern GOP is worse than it was in the past)? It's the state level that's really concerning but none of that is on Clinton.
 

kirblar

Member
A) Are you saying that because Ellison is a Democrat that he lacks Sanders blindspots? I'm not sure what you are referring to otherwise.

B) Are you arguing Minnesota, as a whole, is too conservative to elect Ellison to a statewide office? I don't know enough about Minnestoa politics to argue for or against that point but I guess it's an interesting one.

C) As an aside, LOL at the drunk driving analogy.
A) I'm saying that Ellison has not been a guy constantly edgelording on the outside taking potshots at both sides while proclaiming how everything's the same. He's been a part of the party for his entire modern career, he clearly has good relationships w/ other leaders, he clearly has his head in the right place (he's interested in 50-state, which is the opposite of purity tests.)

B) I'd wager it's too white
 
Ellison's a Democrat. Bernie's not. That makes all the difference.

I don't think Ellison could get elected in a less liberal constituency.

We've been fighting to keep these people from trainwrecking the party since the Clinton years, and we'll be fighting to keep them from doing it after we're all gone.

When a drunk driver's trying to get the keys, the correct response isn't to let them have them.
Yes, it's a good thing we kept the left in check during the Clinton years so that ol' Slick Willie could deregulate industries and pass NAFTA without any real measures to keep its negative side effects in check. Nothing went wrong from either of those!
 

dramatis

Member
Remember in a good year, Franken barely got elected over the sorest loser in modern elections. The only reason McCrory isn't the sorest loser is because at the very least he didn't drag it out for six months like Norm Coleman did.
 
How in the world is there even a Simpsons pic for Trump's foreign policy.

hqdefault.jpg


This show was God.


A top top tier operation probably adds like 1 or 2 points to a margin in a state, but it's considered to be the main solution to all election problems.

Eventually you run out of people who have the same thoughts as you and just need to be encouraged to vote.
 
A top top tier operation probably adds like 1 or 2 points to a margin in a state, but it's considered to be the main solution to all election problems.

Eventually you run out of people who have the same thoughts as you and just need to be encouraged to vote.
And those that oppose you not to, or throw it to an inviable option.
 

kirblar

Member
Yes, it's a good thing we kept the left in check during the Clinton years so that ol' Slick Willie could deregulate industries and pass NAFTA without any real measures to keep its negative side effects in check. Nothing went wrong from either of those!
Jobs going away due to NAFTA is a good thing for us as a whole. I'm not sorry factories are closing. I'm not sorry that people are having to move to denser, more diverse communities. I'm not sorry that the economy's moving in a direction that pushes less people to sacrifice their bodies and have to retire early.

Even if you give people help, they will still be upset and angry, because the change that's good for us, they see as being bad for them and "destroying their way of life."

The problem with rising inequality isn't NAFTA, it's the Reagan tax code changes: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23011?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw
This paper employs the benchmark heterogeneous-agent model used in macroeconomics to examine drivers of the rise in wealth inequality in the U.S. over the last thirty years. Several plausible candidates are formulated, calibrated to data, and examined through the lens of the model. There is one main finding: by far the most important driver is the significant drop in tax progressivity that started in the late 1970s, intensified during the Reagan years, and then subsequently flattened out, with only a minor bounce back. The sharp observed increases in earnings inequality, the falling labor share over the recent decades, and potential mechanisms underlying changes in the gap between the interest rate and the growth rate
A top top tier operation probably adds like 1 or 2 points to a margin in a state, but it's considered to be the main solution to all election problems.

Eventually you run out of people who have the same thoughts as you and just need to be encouraged to vote.
It's considered the solution when you're the big stack at the table, which Dems are in Presidential elections.

The issue is that liberals literally don't understand how to run when you're the favorite. You play conservative.
 
There isn't a gulf ideologically. Just like there wasn't a gulf ideologically between Republicans and the Tea Party.

One could say the Tea Party did a great deal harm to the Republican Party as an institution.

Sure, you have a coalition that can win an election. What's the cost though? Legitimizing demagoguery on a massive scale?

That's a steep price to pay.
Demagoguery is a creativity problem.
 

Crocodile

Member
A) I'm saying that Ellison has not been a guy constantly edgelording on the outside taking potshots at both sides while proclaiming how everything's the same. He's been a part of the party for his entire modern career, he clearly has good relationships w/ other leaders, he clearly has his head in the right place (he's interested in 50-state, which is the opposite of purity tests.)

Oh ok so we are basically on the same page then.

Yes, it's a good thing we kept the left in check during the Clinton years so that ol' Slick Willie could deregulate industries and pass NAFTA without any real measures to keep its negative side effects in check. Nothing went wrong from either of those!

Are you arguing NAFTA was a net negative for the United States? A net negative for North America? Or just that things could have been managed better? I'll be honest in that actually meaty discussion of trade deals has been lacking but the sense I've acquired over the months is that, like anything, they have their pros and cons but the ones most skeptical of them do a worse job of being pervasive and convincing based on facts and evidence than those in favor of them.
 
Jobs going away due to NAFTA is a good thing for us as a whole. I'm not sorry factories are closing. I'm not sorry that people are having to move to denser, more diverse communities. I'm not sorry that the economy's moving in a direction that pushes less people to sacrifice their bodies and have to retire early.

Even if you give people help, they will still be upset and angry, because the change that's good for us, they see as being bad for them and "destroying their way of life."

The problem with rising inequality isn't NAFTA, it's the Reagan tax code changes: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23011?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw


It's considered the solution when you're the big stack at the table, which Dems are in Presidential elections.

The issue is that liberals literally don't understand how to run when you're the favorite. You play conservative.

I'm pretttty sure ground game wasn't the reason we lost Iowa, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. It was the reason in Michigan and Wisconsin maybe, but an operation there was irrelevant because state voting is correlated and if Hillary won Pennsylvania, she would have won Wisconsin and Michigan regardless. If she had won Michigan and Wisconsin without Pennsylvania and Florida, nothing would have changed.
 

dramatis

Member
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...mp-transition-cabinet-behind-schedule/511928/
“With these billionaires, it’s going to take a lot more time,” said Richard Painter, who served as the chief ethics lawyer in the Bush White House from 2005 to 2007. Painter recalled that when he joined the government 12 years ago, it took him half a day to fill out the initial financial disclosure form. “But,” he said, “I was just a law professor. I have mutual funds. I don’t even own any individual stocks, and it’s really a pretty boring report.”

By comparison, when Painter helped shepherd Hank Paulson to confirmation as treasury secretary in 2006, it took the Goldman Sachs CEO and a team of pricey outside lawyers two-and-a-half weeks to complete the same form. The task of vetting and then preparing ethics agreements for Trump’s nominees now falls to the Office of Government Ethics, a relatively small federal agency with about 80 employees and an annual budget of $16 million. The office reviews each nominee’s financial disclosure report for potential conflicts of interest and then instructs them what assets they must unload, among other steps they may have to take, to comply with the law once they take office. The result is a signed agreement that is sent to the Senate and posted publicly. Tillerson, for example, is expected to have to divest himself completely from Exxon Mobil, including forgoing any stock options to which he may be entitled.
Ah, so here is where the House Republicans can roll in.

Oh geez.
 

kirblar

Member
I'm pretttty sure ground game wasn't the reason we lost Iowa, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. It was the reason in Michigan and Wisconsin maybe, but an operation there was irrelevant because state voting is correlated and if Hillary won Pennsylvania, she would have won Wisconsin and Michigan regardless. If she had won Michigan and Wisconsin without Pennsylvania and Florida, nothing would have changed.
It was definitely the reason we lost PA. Their ground game operation was atrocious (where we all expected it to be THE defining part of the campaign) and it caused the firewall to blow out. We lost by less than 100K votes over 3 states.
Are you arguing NAFTA was a net negative for the United States? A net negative for North America? Or just that things could have been managed better? I'll be honest in that actually meaty discussion of trade deals has been lacking but the sense I've acquired over the months is that, like anything, they have their pros and cons but the ones most skeptical of them do a worse job of being pervasive and convincing based on facts and evidence than those in favor of them.
A ton of people do not understand just how cheap consumer goods are now relative to how they used to be. It's part of why why Rent/Health Care are so expensive relative to everything else.
 
Good for her.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...inton-will-attend-the-trump-inauguration.html

Bill and Hillary Clinton have decided to attend the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States, according to two sources with knowledge of their plans. The Clintons will join former Presidents George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, who have also announced that they will attend. George and Laura Bush said today that they would be present “to witness the peaceful transfer of power.”

Two well-placed sources tell New York that over the past few weeks Hillary Clinton discussed with trusted advisers and friends whether or not she should attend the inaugural. She and President Clinton, the sources said, decided to do so out of a sense of duty and respect for the American democratic process.
 
Not a single former president is going to be comfortable there, though. I know this must have absolutely destroyed Jimmy :(

...especially when you consider Trump very well might be the president to speak at his funeral
 
We picked up 21 house seats. This is not the worst spot the party's been in.

That you scapegoat Clinton for this and not Obama (aka the guy who actually gutted Dean's 50 state program) says it all.

We barely lost a presidential election. That does not mean that sudenly we should let the far left take over and send us back to the stone ages.

we only picked up 9.

In regards to how much power the party has on the state and federal level, and now likely the SCOTUS, the GOP has not had this much power in 100 years.

It doesn't matter if the loss was by 5 votes or 5 million. She lost an election she and the party could not afford to lose. And I have blamed Obama, he was clearly part of the problem, maybe a liberal purity test to make sure the FBI director you appoint isn't a corrupt Republican that will platoon your legacy would have come in handy as well.

But Hillary made so many unforced errors I'm not willing to completely assign blame to anyone else for the loss. It was ultimately on her. The party was fully and completely behind her and she got every ounce of support she could have hoped for from all the elected officials, but it wasn't enough. Because the American dream is dying and there are too many people who simply do not trust politicians anymore.

Going out of your way to prove that you are for voters and the people of the country, not a bunch of wealthy campaign donors, is not "sending the party back to the stone ages". Corporate friendly dems have completely failed us and running with politicians who more effectively distance themselves from special interests isn't a downside.

Corporations win when the GOP controls everything. If democrats want to make that clear they need to talk the talk and walk the walk.
 

kirblar

Member
we only picked up 9.

In regards to how much power the party has on the state and federal level, and now likely the SCOTUS, the GOP has not had this much power in 100 years.

It doesn't matter if the loss was by 5 votes or 5 million. She lost an election she and the party could not afford to lose. And I have blamed Obama, he was clearly part of the problem, maybe a liberal purity test to make sure the FBI director you appoint isn't a corrupt Republican that will platoon your legacy would have come in handy as well.

But Hillary made so many unforced errors I'm not willing to completely assign blame to anyone else for the loss. It was ultimately on her. The party was fully and completely behind her and she got every ounce of support she could have hoped for from all the elected officials, but it wasn't enough. Because the American dream is dying and there are too many people who simply do not trust politicians anymore.

Going out of your way to prove that you are for voters and the people of the country, not a bunch of wealthy campaign donors, is not "sending the party back to the stone ages". Corporate friendly dems have completely failed us and running with politicians who more effectively distance themselves from special interests isn't a downside.

Corporations win when the GOP controls everything. If democrats want to make that clear they need to talk the talk and walk the walk.
"I know other things happened but I don't care cause my feelings."

No one is asking you to blame it all elsewhere. But if you don't understand why Clinton wasn't responsible for a great deal of the structural issues that plagued the Dems leading into this cycle, you are doomed to fail when you don't fix them. (You're making the "ONLY Bernie/Trump can fix it all mistake!" and ascribing everything to a leader.)

You lose elections. It happens. Voters are stupid. What matters is what you do going forward.

And there is no way to "prove" you're a "man/woman of the people" when said people are putting you through that test so that you'll fail. Corporations are not the problem. "Special Interests" are not the problem. Sitting out elections because "both sides are the same" is the problem.
 
Trump's Twitter game is effective, damn

The guy basically said "you know, I don't have a problem with gutting pesky ethics committees, but could you guys hold it for just a minute?" and so many outlets are painting the reversal as Trump himself swinging the hammer down when it was really just call bombing from constituents.
 

Dierce

Member
I come to accept that unless the economy goes into a recession then there is no way we will win anything. Democrats just don't play dirty and the messaging is terrible.
 

kirblar

Member
What is the evidence for this?
The tiny, tiny margin we lost by combined with the complete ineptitude of the Clinton campaign on what's normally one of the Dem's greatest strengths?

I saw issues in VA as well- there were no D campaign stuff outside my local voting place, there was less advertising, and my local candidate lost by under 300 votes in an area where Clinton took the rest of the votes.

These things matter. They're not fun, they're not sexy, and they definitely don't line up well with slactivism. But they work.

One of the silver linings about a Clinton loss is getting Ellison in there and having the work done now, rather than collapsing in 2020.
 
And WTF @ the media giving Trump credit for making congress Repubs renege on gutting house ethics.

This could end up being a double edged sword. Trump getting undue credit for this is worrying, but to have the main story of Congress GOP's first day be about a controversial ethics proposal getting slapped down by somebody who is supposed to be on their side... I bet that's going to leave more than a few of them a bit salty.
 
"I know other things happened but I don't care cause my feelings."

No one is asking you to blame it all elsewhere. But if you don't understand why Clinton wasn't responsible for a great deal of the structural issues that plagued the Dems leading into this cycle, you are doomed to fail when you don't fix them.

You lose elections. It happens. Voters are stupid. What matters is what you do going forward.

And there is no way to "prove" you're a "man/woman of the people" when said people are putting you through that test so that you'll fail. Corporations are not the problem. "Special Interests" are not the problem. Sitting out elections because "both sides are the same" is the problem.

What are you talking about "because feelings"? There were other external factors, but she, over the course of her entire career said and did enough politically damaging things that cost her this election, to where responsibility ultimately falls on her. Are we going to pretend like we couldn't chalk up a massive list of gafs and unforced errors she made on her own accord that could have shifted the election differently had she not done them?

And considering how devastating this loss is going to be simply shrugging it off and going "meh oh well, when you lose you lose, better luck next time".

And like I said before, you are exaggerating how difficult it is to placate to these voters. It isn't difficult. And trying to appeal to them isn't going to be the end of the world. Especially considering not playing so friendly with corporations and special interests is actually a bipartisan issue. Framing Hillary as a corporate stooge and not being tied to any of the Washington "quid pro quo" donation politics helped Trump win. Regardless of what the facts are and how it's going to in practice, turn out to be the complete opposite didn't mater, because dems being so corporate friendly over the last 20 years created a massive messaging problem.

And sitting here acting like the anger or mistrust is so uncalled for I don't think makes any sense either. We don't even need to venture outside of gaf to see how many young people are suffering and literally have no future, no investments, no house, aren't married no kids, no retirement because they literally can't afford it. There's a massive problem and it is up to democrats to rebuild trust. You can't get people excited to turn out to the polls to vote for someone they feel like won't represent them.
 
The tiny, tiny margin we lost by combined with the complete ineptitude of the Clinton campaign on what's normally one of the Dem's greatest strengths?

.... This is like saying that it's Klay Thompson's fault the Warriors lost because the margin was close.

I mean, maybe it was or maybe Klay scored 40.

Hillary's campaign dedicated zero resources to Virginia in the last five months, but that worked out okay because they won by 5 points.

"The Penn loss was close and Hillary didn't have a strong ground game in my noncompetitive state!" does not strike me as evidence that Hillary had a bad operation in Pennsylvania.
 

BiggNife

Member
Is there any real metric to figure out how the DNC race is currently going? It's hard to tell how much of a shot Perez has. Politco seems to think he'll win but also it's Politco.

I generally agree with other people here in that I'd be fine with either of them but I also think a Perez win would alienate Sanders voters far more than an Ellison win would alienate Clinton voters, so I think Ellison is the best choice.
 

kirblar

Member
.... This is like saying that it's Klay Thompson's fault the Warriors lost because the margin was close.

I mean, maybe it was or maybe Klay scored 40.

Hillary's campaign dedicated zero resources to Virginia in the last five months, but that worked out okay because they won by 5 points.

"The Penn loss was close and Hillary didn't have a strong ground game in my noncompetitive state!" does not strike me as evidence that Hillary had a bad operation in Pennsylvania.
Uh, my state was Virginia. In a 50/50 county.

And this is not just my anecdote, we have tons of complaints coming out post-election from state/local officials who had zero contact from the Clinton campaign. It was a huge, huge issue that was one of the marginal factors that ultimately led to the tiny loss.

If you are thinking of this like a sports game, you've already lost the plot because you aren't thinking about it correctly. What matters is getting you to that marginal +1 vote. The rest isn't relevant.
-
Perez shouldn't be getting anywhere close to a win. If he is, something is very wrong.

edit: And this is an example of why-

@crushingbort

Dollars Horton Retweeted Philip Rucker

The DNC's anti-Trump "war room" is headed up by Clinton staffers responsible for losing to him

Dollars Horton added,
Philip Rucker @PhilipRucker
Scoop: DNC builds a war room to battle Trump and hires Dem vets @Neffinger @Zac_Petkanas & @Watson_HFA to run it http://wapo.st/2izy2Ki

Who will stop Trump? Not the people who decided to de-link him from the rest of the GOP
 
This could end up being a double edged sword. Trump getting undue credit for this is worrying, but to have the main story of Congress GOP's first day be about a controversial ethics proposal getting slapped down by somebody who is supposed to be on their side... I bet that's going to leave more than a few of them a bit salty.

He didn't criticized them for gutting house ethics. He did it because they don't have their priorities in order.
 
A bunch of non-randomly selected anecdotes are not what analysis is made off of.

Rand Paul joins Susan Collins as the second Senate Republican to argue against repeal and delay (and Paul's reasoning is shockingly correct for why repeal and delay is bad)

http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-repeal-all-of-obamacare-and-replace-immediately/

If a third Senate Republican comes out against repeal and delay, then the GOP will have to change tactics and switch to a longer debate about what to replace Obamacare with before repealing it and that would improve the odds of Obamacare surviving.
 
The DNC and Obama seriously need to fuck off if they install Perez when almost every senator worth a shit and the entire base clearly favors Ellison.
 

Crocodile

Member
What are you talking about "because feelings"? There were other external factors, but she, over the course of her entire career said and did enough politically damaging things that cost her this election, to where responsibility ultimately falls on her. Are we going to pretend like we couldn't chalk up a massive list of gafs and unforced errors she made on her own accord that could have shifted the election differently had she not done them?

And considering how devastating this loss is going to be simply shrugging it off and going "meh oh well, when you lose you lose, better luck next time".

And like I said before, you are exaggerating how difficult it is to placate to these voters. It isn't difficult. And trying to appeal to them isn't going to be the end of the world. Especially considering not playing so friendly with corporations and special interests is actually a bipartisan issue. Framing Hillary as a corporate stooge and not being tied to any of the Washington "quid pro quo" donation politics helped Trump win. Regardless of what the facts are and how it's going to in practice, turn out to be the complete opposite didn't mater, because dems being so corporate friendly over the last 20 years created a massive messaging problem.

And sitting here acting like the anger or mistrust is so uncalled for I don't think makes any sense either. We don't even need to venture outside of gaf to see how many young people are suffering and literally have no future, no investments, no house, aren't married no kids, no retirement because they literally can't afford it. There's a massive problem and it is up to democrats to rebuild trust. You can't get people excited to turn out to the polls to vote for someone they feel like won't represent them.

I mean I think the issue is that's its not clear how large vs. how loud the whiny anti-establishment Left is. Like should Clinton have given those Wall Street speeches? Probably not. However, after the primary, if the Wall Street speeches was actually in any way part of the rationale one used to scream at Clinton during the GE or vote 3rd part or vote Trump, especially given who he is and the MO of the GOP, then you are a moron. I remember that whole bit when people were screaming and protesting that George Clooney was holding a massive fundraiser for Clinton. If we can't even let a staunch liberal like Clooney give us money because it will upset some voters, how do we compete with the Koch Bros? You can argue that money didn't help Clinton but cutting off access to that money seems unlikely to help too?

I think the point is that it can be hard and dangerous to appease a group if what they want or what they are upset about isn't rational or based on fact. This isn't the same as saying "excommunicate everyone who favored Sanders" but rather a comment that some number of them (probably a function of youth and probably louder than they are large in number) are dumb and want dumb things and think dumb things.
 
Is there any real metric to figure out how the DNC race is currently going? It's hard to tell how much of a shot Perez has. Politco seems to think he'll win but also it's Politco.

I generally agree with other people here in that I'd be fine with either of them but I also think a Perez win would alienate Sanders voters far more than an Ellison win would alienate Clinton voters, so I think Ellison is the best choice.

I don't think it might ultimately matter in the long run when it comes to who alienates who. Voters will vote based on the candidate when the time comes and when it comes to Bernie or Hillary supporters I largely think it really doesn't matter because if we are talking about House members it will matter base on the district and as for Senate, however, might be a little different than that. The DNC will get whomever can win.

I don't care who really wins considering what people said about Debbie anyone would be better than her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom