Haha, yeah, Democrats would just release some statement about "We must move on and heal our country and not move forward with divisive policies" because they're all chicken shits.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
Haha, yeah, Democrats would just release some statement about "We must move on and heal our country and not move forward with divisive policies" because they're all chicken shits.
Not all of us are that bad
I was a staunch Bernie supporter in the primaries, but I was ok with Hillary getting the nomination too.
I like Reid as well. He strikes me somewhat similar to Bernie in a way.
I dunno. Maybe I'm one of those weird left-wing democrats. I never liked the whole "establishment is bad" mantra. I want people in the government who know what they are doing, but I want people who truly want to help the country. Like Obama.
I hope you're right, but I think a lot of Bernie supporters are done with anything related to the current DNC and their associates, whether or not they've been successful. Hopefully I'm wrong.
He's young, progressive, and is a darling of the Sanders wing of the party, but he's not extremely far left so he's palatable to the more moderate wing. Plus he's Muslim, which would be a pretty great repudiation of the shit coming from Republicans. Only issue is that he's a Congressman so he'd either have to give up his seat or only do the chair part-time, and we need a full-time chair.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
I know as a gay man who, while independent, votes democrat, I feel warm and fuzzy watching liberals say we just gotta drop all this minority and LGBT stuff to get good at the game. There's that attitude - that it's just a game to see whose team can win a flag, people's lives be fucked.
Aside from being personally offended and depressed at such shit, it is indicative of how the radical right is getting into people's heads.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Ultimately we'd need to figure out if Ellison is best used in the House or as the head of the DNC.
I think the latter. If he was a Senator, it'd be a harder choice. But one of hundreds is not really a big deal.
I think the latter. If he was a Senator, it'd be a harder choice. But one of hundreds is not really a big deal.
Interesting.
Starting from age 60 in particular, conservative judges seem to really struggle keeping their right-wing ideas
It's less "get back in power" and more "affect positive change". It sucks that the only way to get that positive change, though, is to hope that rural folks get their comeuppance, and the Dems get back in. This is why the two-party system sucks - If the Republicans (as a majority) had any empathy with women, with LGBTQ, with POC, then this wouldn't be seen as turning back the clock 50 years. But the white working class and rural vote chose racism, sexism, and the perception of economic help over progressive values. It's very easy to say "Fuck that lot, they deserve their misery", because they've created so much misery for others.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
Its time for the democratic establishment to fuck off and make way for a true progressive movement. They managed to lose an election that was probably the easiest for them to win imaginable, because they abandoned their base.
I hope a social democratic movement forms in the democratic party.
For a long time I actually kinda bought this democratic narrative that baby steps are the way to go because more change would never work.
But now, after 8 years of baby steps, Trump comes in and undos everything.
He has the power to do that with the house, the senate and his new SC pick.
And guess what? This could've been the position democrats find themselves in, if they would have shown actual idealism, that they actually care for people.
And with a democratic president, house, senate and SC, we could've done much more than just baby steps.
But the incompetence on display here was beyond comprehension. VP pick Tim Kaine alone has to be some sort of sick joke. A boring center right blank face nobody gives a fuck about. What the hell were they thinking?
I hope a social democratic movement forms in the democratic party.
For a long time I actually kinda bought this democratic narrative that baby steps are the way to go because more change would never work.
But now, after 8 years of baby steps, Trump comes in and undos everything.
He has the power to do that with the house, the senate and his new SC pick.
And guess what? This could've been the position democrats find themselves in, if they would have shown actual idealism, that they actually care for people.
And with a democratic president, house, senate and SC, we could've done much more than just baby steps.
But the incompetence on display here was beyond comprehension. VP pick Tim Kaine alone has to be some sort of sick joke. A boring center right blank face nobody gives a fuck about. What the hell were they thinking?
CyclopsRock
Member
Surely your response to this hinges on whether or not you think it will help them win the game, no?
Why are you subsidizing one of the television pundits who did the most possible to normalize and elect Donald Trump?
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
Wow. Great segment. 90k Michigan voters abstained from the presdential vote but still voted on the down ballot races because they couldn't stand Hillary or Trump. And Hillary lost by 11k or something. Wow.
No, but he's a 70-year-old obese man who subsists on fast food and sleeps 3 hours a night. So, probably not great.
What about the House? Dems have been making gains the last three elections haven't they?
cartoon_soldier
Member
I think it has more to do with the definition of what is conservative keeps changes
balladofwindfishes
Member
The bolded is basically the description of the role of the VP. It's a dead end position nobody cares about. Biden and Cheney were exceptions. And even Biden would often just not be in the spotlight for months on end. Nobody really cares about the VP.
Kaine was the perfect man for the job. Move Virginia more into the solid blue table. A more moderate to contrast Hillary's liberalism. Able to attack Trump without really worrying about effecting his seat. And able to be replaced by a Dem governor so if she had won, we wouldn't lose a senate seat. Religious. Spoke Spanish decent enough.
He basically checked all the VP candidate boxes.
Plus his seat should be pretty easy to fill, he's in a pretty safe district
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Eh none of this is helpful. As a proud Clinton supporter, we lost and there were significant problems with how the campaign was run and the candidate herself. Washing away criticism as blanket antagonism isn't going to help anyone.
There was an enthusiasm problem, and would Bernie have won? We don't know and playing with hypotheticals won't give an answer. There are supporters who need to burn the effigy of Clinton and come out the woodwork with the "I told you so." OK, fine get it out the system and come back to the table. There is a clear and present danger entering the White House and Congress and the more time we stand around fighting like it's the primary is time taken away from 2018.
As Dems we need to unify before we move on to running around like headless chickens digging our heels in against each other. If that unity is at the expense of Clinton era old guard, so be it. I think though the Sanders wing is absolutely smart enough to recognize who is as ally and someone that can be authentically for left policies. I also think they know we cannot abandon minorities and run racist light, to racist full bodied of the GOP. We need to listen, and move forward.
hipsterpants
Member
Latinx voting was at a record for this election right? And that with a prospect of a Trump presidency, not an actual Trump presidency.
Bravo GOP, you probably just shifted an entire voting demographic over to the Dems permanently. Purple Texas doesn't sound as ridiculous anymore. Or Arizona.
Bravo GOP, you probably just shifted an entire voting demographic over to the Dems permanently. Purple Texas doesn't sound as ridiculous anymore. Or Arizona.
sazzy
Member
I have no attachment to TV personalities. If something is useful and constructive, I'll listen to it, regardless of where its coming from.
Yes, and Moore gives pretty good reasons for why that happened.
True, but 29% of them (pending final results) went to Trump. Latinx is not nearly a singular block in the way that other minorities tend to be, some of them are very conservative
thehypocrite
Member
I agree a lot that the principal objective of any political party and candidate is to win elections, we *SHOULD* have discussions on the how we do this. I don't know if you have noticed but people are fucking skeptical with politicians. Inequality, corporations ,technocrats, and elites have done a lot of stuff. Not all of it bad, but not all of it good either. There's nuance here which makes it difficult to talk about this. But people have apprehension of career politicians, lobbyists, the media, etc. Does that mean that they are all bad? no. However, the pretension from you to have things accepted at face value isn't tenable. Democrats aren't republicans. You need to make the argument while acknowledging their position.
You know why? Cause to win elections you need to win votes and votes are people, not intangible things.
Unless Trump pulls off the mother of "Nixon goes to China" moments. Which, honestly seems a lot less likely with Kobach on board.
Astaleview
Banned
I still can't believe Adam left.
IggyChooChoo
Member
Social democrats like Feingold and Zephyr Teachout ran BEHIND Hillary this cycle. It's not a silver bullet. The prospect of, say, higher taxes to get single payer is simply a lot riskier in the rust belt than Bernie supporters are willing to admit.
whyamihere
Banned
Martin O'Malley wants to be DNC chair
Why
Why
balladofwindfishes
Member
According to a documentary I watched, Nixon visiting China is why we have delicious Chinese-American food in the US. That's pretty cool.
Because there's a vacuum in power and everyone wants it.
He's young and reasonably competent
The Democratic base is minorities and women. Apparently not millennials and far left, because they produce massive complainers like you who think they are the base, but contribute nothing to the party but negativity, and don't actually turn out to back progressive causes in elections.
I'm sorry guys, but I'm finding it ironic that anti-establishment rhetoric IS the message after eight years of Obama in office. There are a lot of issues and none of them are easily solved especially with obstructionist parties. There's no easy way to fixing things yet that's what most people want to hear. In the end the level of discourse is going to be pretty abysmal. Even if we get another Democratic presidential again next time, we'll have to abandon his platform just to sing the anti-establishment song? Christ.
IggyChooChoo
Member
Or O'Bannon as chief of staff. Those guys are true believers. No minimum wage hike or Ivanka's family leave act or infrastructure bill with them at his ear.
My life, my daughter's life, and the lives of GLBT people are not chips in a game.
sturgboski
Member
I dont want to touch on anything else you wrote as I havent been to this thread since Tuesday. However, I do want to call attention to the "game" and "team" line. The problem is, politics has truly devolved to that state. Its a Red vs Blue situation. The issue is the Red team's supporters get that and come out to support their team whereas the Blue team's supporters cant be bothered to show up unless star player is someone that excites them. That is a contributing factor to why Tuesday happened (yes I recognize there is a lot of other stuff that can be dissected and analyzed but when 8m less Democrats turn out compared to 2012 when only 1m less Republicans turn out I think it is an apt assessment).
Again, I dont want to get into any of the other items discussed in your statement as a whole, except to zoom in on the "team" and "game" phrase because, unfortunately, that is what it is and one team and its supporters has recognized that whereas the other side hasnt.
EDIT: Perhaps I posted too soon without reading all the comments re:game. I thought it was a sports analogy as I mentioned above, not a political game of manipulation etc. I apologize but I also dont want to delete my comment as that might be looked upon poorly.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
He doesn't want to be the face of the DNC, he wants to be the abs of it.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
Can't he do both?
The DNC needs to be fully rebuilt. It needs the full time attention of whoever is the chair. We just had two part-timers as our chairs and they decimated the bench that Howard Dean set up
Kaine really fell off the radar after the first week, didn't he? In retrospect, the debate didn't do a whole lot for the ticket either. The Democrats needed someone who would call Pence a morally bankrupt, mendacious liar to his face and make him own it. He lost on the optics of moral righteousness and was never treated as a serious force in the election after that point.
Biden was really good at moral assertiveness -- he ran rings around Ryan in the 2012 debate and completely dismantled Palin's notion of a powerful VP in strong terms in 2008.
Biden was really good at moral assertiveness -- he ran rings around Ryan in the 2012 debate and completely dismantled Palin's notion of a powerful VP in strong terms in 2008.
balladofwindfishes
Member
We need a full time leader of the DNC. The part timers failed, badly. We also need someone who won't be thinking about their own re-election when making decisions for the DNC. Debbie had a lot of issues with that, apparently.
Ellison saw the rise of Trump coming before many others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHkPadFK34o
Have we talked about Harry Reid as DNC chair yet? He kicked ass in picking candidates, organizing, and winning. And he breathes fire. He's old, but who cares? DNC chair is for organizing the party to win elections, not to groom themselves for a future run. The people who he recruits to win are the future leaders.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
Ah alright, I understand that side of it. Someone without distractions would be good.
CyclopsRock
Member
And how's that working out for you? This is better?
That's why I asked the question. These - incidentally - are basically the same questions that every party that loses an election asks itself. "To what extent should be compromise on our ideals to win power?" And implicit in that question is the similar-but-different question of "to what extent would compromising on our ideals help us win", which is what I was asking. Because politics is, in your country and mine, more or less a binary thing. Your boys win or your boys lose. If you think that "dropping all this minority stuff" will help you "win the game" but opt not to on the grounds that your daughters' life is not a chip in a game, you get Trump. Is that the better option? Is that better than a Democrat who kept mum on the subject of minorities in the Rust Belt?
(In the UK we have a strain of Labour follower that says they don't want their party to be "Tory Lites", such as Blair. But the consequence of their lack of desire to compromise is that they get the actual Tories. This is a view that's typically advanced by those who would personally do quite well out of a Tory government and can, therefore, "afford" to lose in order to maintain their purity. Judging by this post I'm quoting, you don't think you can afford to suffer under a Trumpian Republican government, which makes your stance all the more hard to understand. And if it sounds like I'm repeating Crab's argument it's because - as is frequently the case, unfortunately - the scrotty little Welshman is right.)
thehypocrite
Member
Join the party and make it change with your work. That's how this happens, to do that you need to win elections, this also requires you to come to terms with the fact that people that don't agree with you totally must agree enough to vote for you. Be humble and honest, this helps I've found.
He was not. He added no value. Mike Pence was better for Trump and you know it and he gave him votes and increased his appeal by modulating his message in the public.
I agree that incrementalism and maintenance of things that work and provide value is the answer to al lot of things. But too many things have gone unaddressed for too long. We are no longer living in 2008, we need to provide space for this approach in the party not at the expense of everything else though.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
It's this and the fact I'm seeing little to convince me that the mid-term apathy problem would be fixed after 2020 that's been really eating at me here. We have a man that ran against the establishment darling in a primary and succeeded and then won the GE, and guess what happened to all the loyalty and excitement once liberals were asked to back him up in Congress?
hawkshockey11
Banned
Re: The Bolded. This is why people suck - because the voters put Republicans in the 3 branches of power. Even at best, the House was never going Blue this year, which would've meant the checks-and-balances system would've worked - Dems in WH and Senate (maybe), Republicans countering in House.
Two things from this:
1) Voters have no clue how the system should work. No party should have so much power, be it Dems, Republicans or Third Party. This is an issue of education, and belief that a single vote doesn't really matter.
2) Polarisation in politics means that voting is less about policy, more about ideology. Straight ticket voting rules, because "This is my party". See also: "My vote doesn't matter".
Now, this sentence:
Can be applied more easily to the voters. The Democrat Party ran on a ticket that was all about empathy - women's rights, equal pay, abortion, gay marriage, LGBTQ, mental health, gun reform, drug epidemic.
The voters though? They couldn't give a fuck about these policies. Tell me more who has more idealism - a candidate who promised to keep Roe v Wade, or an electorate that couldn't be arsed.
Or an electorate that believed economic reform beat out abortion rights, and lacked the empathy to realise that you could have both, but not if you focused on only one message (Wall Street Reform)
lastflowers
Banned
Well, Obama passed ostensibly an old Republican health care plan with bits of goodness mixed in (and almost sold out Social Security to do so: http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-bruce-webb-and-i-helped-save-social.html), installed Geithner as the Treasury Secretary, and bailed out the banks with his political capital. He framed the national budget as deficit politics and kept up the framing that the Republicans used to succeed later in his presidency. Despite riding in on a wave of the anti-war dem vote, he continued and enhanced the drone program, kept the Patriot Act's spying on its own citizens.
In many respects, Obama was great. As I've said before, he pretty much avoided the next Depression--but the seeds he sewed all seem to be pointing to Trump right now, and we shouldn't act as if he was simply let down by everyone around him.
It is a game. Trump just won.
You don't get moral victories here. We need candidates who are going to enact change, and if that means shifting focus to attain victory then so be it.
Johnson had to tip-toe around landmines to pass the Civil Rights Act. But he did it. You need people in office who even believe such a movement in order to enact any change, even if it's not publicly the focus of their campaign.
They need to focus on jobs again. It's always about jobs.
BronzeWolf
Banned
So what's Obama's future?
Can he run for Senator?
Can he run for Senator?
whyamihere
Banned
(I found that Michael Moore segment to be a bit reductive)
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
Yeah fuck this. This is the same old "by the book" - "how to get elected" bullshit that obviously DOESNT WORK ANYMORE.
A VP people care about because he appeals to the democratic base would have maybe saved her some of the rust belt states.
And Hillary is NOT liberal. Just because democrats let the republicans pull them to the right all the time does not mean the public shifts in the same way.
Heck, there was a sizable chunk of voters who were fans of Sanders and Trump, even though there is basically nothing these two have in common except for the "outsider" narrative.
People want politicians who fight for them, no matter if left or right leaning.
If this election taught us anything its that centrists appeal to nobody and not to everybody like the establishment thought.
Dean has won elections, and helped Democrats win the House.
What has Keith Ellison done other than make predictions, which is what a lot of other pundits have done? Michael Moore also saw the rise of Trump, but we're not handing the DNC chair to him.
Surely, you can provide better qualifications for Ellison than that.
neurosisxeno
Member
Ironic considering Dems are actually great at creating jobs.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked