lol, Susan Sarandon is bashing Elizabeth Warren on Twitter. Warren's done much more for progressive causes in one day than she's done in her whole life.... well, I guess confronting Dolores Huerta or voting for Nader in 2000 perfectly embodies where the socialist movement in 2016 America is at.
-
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 |OT7| Notorious R.B.G. Plans NZ Tour
- Thread starter Retromelon
- Start date
- Status
Box of Kittens
Banned
Just like the Whig strategy in 1836! Although "strategy" is kind of overselling it. The Whigs weren't yet organized enough to agree on a single candidate, so it was more a matter of each state doing its thing and figuring the House could sort it all out later.
Isn't it Utes? Like in my cousin Vinny.
Wouldn't a strategy like that just make it easier for Hilary Clinton to get even more EV's. She would be competing against 4 candidates but these candidates would barely even get any EV's and their vote share would not be that high since they would be confined to one region.
If the end game is to let the House pick, it would be designed so that no candidate received 270 EVs. But in reality the regional candidate thing probably does not create that outcome. Hillary still loses the states she is going to lose. Just to a different candidate. It's basically an over implicated Trump deny at that point.
disastermouse
Banned
None of those things are socialist.
After this primary season, don't act all surprised that a ton of people on the left have realized that the Democratic Party isn't an ally.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
No, Utes refers to the Native American Tribe that is from Utah. Utah was named after the Ute Tribe.
I wonder if Hilary could win some of the remaining republican parts of california in this election?
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Wait what?
If Warren is not "socialist" enough, you are not going to find enough people to support your cause, and certainly not any electable politicians.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Trump is extremely stupid, sad.
http://wonkette.com/602830/trumps-favorite-clinton-fantasy-author-awfully-fond-of-n-word
http://wonkette.com/602830/trumps-favorite-clinton-fantasy-author-awfully-fond-of-n-word
brianmcdoogle
Member
Damn thread was locked before I could ask my question, so I'll ask it here.
I decided to take a look at total votes in the remaining primary states between 2012 and 2016 after the presumptive nominees emerged. If I did it right, these are the results:
West Virginia: 112,416 in 2012, 202,880 in 2016
Nebraska: 185,402 in 2012, 197,430 in 2016
Oregon: 287,955 in 2012, 361,490 in 2016
California: 1,924,970, 1,560,820
Montana: 140,457, 154,810
New Jersey: 231,465, 443,724
New Mexico: 90,113, 104,029
South Dakota: 51,524, 66,877
California is the only state that decreased in total voters after both primaries had their presumptive nominees. All the others saw increase from 5-30 percent (except New Jersey that almost doubled). Why? Even after it was all over, voter turn out was still high? I understand during the primary that Trump drove up supporters and #NeverTrump detractors, but why did things still increase? And, why do you think California and New Jersey are outliers? Also, Oregon.
I decided to take a look at total votes in the remaining primary states between 2012 and 2016 after the presumptive nominees emerged. If I did it right, these are the results:
West Virginia: 112,416 in 2012, 202,880 in 2016
Nebraska: 185,402 in 2012, 197,430 in 2016
Oregon: 287,955 in 2012, 361,490 in 2016
California: 1,924,970, 1,560,820
Montana: 140,457, 154,810
New Jersey: 231,465, 443,724
New Mexico: 90,113, 104,029
South Dakota: 51,524, 66,877
California is the only state that decreased in total voters after both primaries had their presumptive nominees. All the others saw increase from 5-30 percent (except New Jersey that almost doubled). Why? Even after it was all over, voter turn out was still high? I understand during the primary that Trump drove up supporters and #NeverTrump detractors, but why did things still increase? And, why do you think California and New Jersey are outliers? Also, Oregon.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Thread getting locked due to pointless arguing when it was supposed to be a point and laugh thread. Sad!
Sirpopopop
Member
Uhh... what do you consider to be policies that the Left needs to have in order to be considered Left?
nature boy
Member
Donald, no one cares what you think when you lose.
What a sinking ship
The whole piece is worth a read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...0ab4a4-3000-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html
br0ken_shad0w
Member
Marxism
What makes Elizabeth Warren socialist?
Dash_Riprock
Member
Not true. Romney keeps getting attention despite being twice a failure.
well now I feel like an ass and unfunny for my dumb joke. ;p
Really didn't know about the tribe though. I'll look them up and read more
The right (mostly via Fox News) does have a knack of going back to "loser" candidates and analysts for commentary.
Though it will be interesting to see what type of attention Trump would get if he suffers a truly humiliating defeat including an electoral college blowout, loss of the Senate, closing the gap on the House, having his true wealth exposed as less than he claims, and his business reputation and brand seriously tarnished through historical stuff being brought up that has mostly flown under the radar.
Everything else you listed is fine. But if you don't think that win or lose, the Trump brand will continue to find massive success among conservatives after 2016 I don't think you've been paying attention. Trump will come out of this with an enormously revitalized brand that will make him another billion easily by milking the moronic cult of trump he has cumulated no matter what. Seriously, he could be convicted of human trafficking and exposed as a rapist and it would not matter to his supporters after the election. They will buy his new books, hats, shows, ect no matter what.
Beer Monkey
Member
Concern trolling is the new narrative for the rest of this cycle. Seeing a ton of it on Facebook.
Basically "Millennials are socialists so don't blame us when you establishment progressives cause the Republicans to win after this election".
It's bullshit.
We don't need you and we aren't falling for your bullshit. Good bye and good day. Enjoy your irrelevance.
nature boy
Member
The Romney family has a history in the Republican party, it makes no sense to compare him to Trump.
Not to mention all the connections he has to policymakers and donors that Trump doesn't have.
His brand on consumer products sure, like you say.
But I imagine property developers, investors, etc will be less eager to get into bed with him.
Ok sure. I saw a video about this today. Bookings at his resorts were down 53% recently. I hope this is the outcome but I'm betting he will just diversify his brand by shifting into merch and another show prolly.
Conservatives didn't care when it was an elementary school. They're heartless monsters.
dapperbandit
Banned
To state the obvious that rather much depends on who the shooter was.
Bernie is not a socialist either.
I don't want to get into purity tests or semantics, but if you're goals are higher minimum wage, more affordable (or even free) healthcare and higher education than the Democratic party is an absolute ally.
It's not a perfect ally, big tent parties never are, but it's the best you got and it had been able to achieved great progress on these fronts, much more than Bernie ever did (not that it's fair to compare a whole political party to one person, this is not a knock on Sanders personally, this is just to show that the left has been able to achieve a whole lot while working with them or as part of them).
And really, all those ideas generally falls within the mainstream of Democratic thought, or to put it in the context of this primary season - no way in hell would Hillary Clinton veto any of these bills if they come to her desk.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Parties are literally the idea that many unifying have more power than one.
They align under a basic set of principles. I hate to sound full of it, but I firmly believe our side is the side history will view more favorably. Social and economic progress. Ever moving forward.
Seriously.
If something at least as Liberal as a fully funded Public Option came by her desk that shit would be signed in a fraction of a second.
You're using a definition of socialist that socialists don't use.
In terms of voting, the Republicans pick their best interest, the wider electorate picks the wider electorate's best interest. What I am doing is choosing to trust the electorate knows, and I think the electorate overall is desiring the correct thing.
There's the perpetual doubt about the general electorate being dumb, but I think they deserve a bit more credit.
The determination of "best interest" changes depending on your ideology and your identity, so I don't think you can draw a clear line as to what is right or wrong.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Why bother campaigning, then? I mean, the electorate always picks their best interests according to you; campaigning shouldn't make any difference.
nature boy
Member
I really have trouble understanding why people in America have trouble saying they're social democrats.
If that's a dirty term it's only a dirty term in the US.
Neither Warren or Sanders are socialists, they are social democrats.
The US does not have true socialists, like Podemos or former Communists Parties like Europe has.
If that's a dirty term it's only a dirty term in the US.
Neither Warren or Sanders are socialists, they are social democrats.
The US does not have true socialists, like Podemos or former Communists Parties like Europe has.
Maybe? Like if Obama and Romney never campaigned, would the results have changed (or even the margins)? I wonder.
On the other hand, clearly primaries need campaigning.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
And those ideals aren't static. Both parties have made it a priority to bring up wedge issues. it's too convenient that bathroom issues went front page this year, to me.
I think some politicians have a good heart but they love their whistles. Not to denigrate the issue but it's somewhat of an insult for politicians to ask people to get into formation in an election year.
Ultrasounds, bathroom bills, abortion, voting rights, etc. Just dream up a progressive issue and take bets about whether it's going to be a hot topic in 2018/2020.
All this is to say that you can't unify the entire country when the party isn't interested in bringing the other side but wants to solidify it's base.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Why do they? I mean, again, if dramatis' argument is right, primary campaigns should make no difference to the outcome of the primary (beyond some basic minimum level where people have awareness of the policy bundles on offer). People will simply vote in their best interests; campaigning doesn't change what their best interests are and so shouldn't change their vote.
shinra-bansho
Member
Campaigning doesn't change what their "best interests" are but it allows the candidate to pitch that they meet those points.
Besides I think the main point of dramatis post was that people's "best interests" are informed by their own priorities and lived experiences. And that claiming from on high to know what they should value is kind of paternalistic and arrogant.
I'm not sure how it follows that based on that premise campaigning would become redundant.
Besides I think the main point of dramatis post was that people's "best interests" are informed by their own priorities and lived experiences. And that claiming from on high to know what they should value is kind of paternalistic and arrogant.
I'm not sure how it follows that based on that premise campaigning would become redundant.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Campaigning does much more than attempt to persuade voters that it meets their preferences. It also attempts to change their preferences - to persuade people that they might be wrong about what they want. That might be at an instrumental level - Clinton spends an awful lot of time trying to persuade Sanders' support that her policies are a better way of achieving what Sanders' supporters want at a fundamental level than Sanders' policies are. It might also be at an intrinsic level - many Democrats (although less than there should be) are trying to persuade Republican voters that they are genuinely and sincerely wrong about (for example) opposition to pro-LGBT laws. The reason it does both of these things is because at least sometimes, voters are other misinformed about the best way to achieve their preferences, or voters' preferences would be different under ideal circumstances. These are things the campaigns very obviously do - are the Democrats paternalistic for believing that Republican voters who vote on the basis of racism misinformed about their best interests? Are we genuinely taking the position that a more racist society would improve the welfare of a Republican voter from any arbitrary conception of welfare you want to pick (happiness, personal self-development, flourishing, etc.)?
You even concede this, on at least one level. If candidates are pitching as to who fits those preferences better, and these pitches aren't purely informational ones ("these are more policy stances") but rather comparative ones ("my policy stances are better than the other candidates' because X, Y, and Z"), then these pitches are necessarily designed to persuade people they might be wrong about their initial preferences. That's the most important part of politics. If politics is simply about collating preferences, we don't need politicians. We can just conduct opinion polls with very large sample sizes, rather than go through the grossly inefficient process of spending literally over a billion on a presidential campaign, goodness knows how many millions on all the senatorial campaigns, and all the other waste and inefficiency inbetween. The reason we don't do that is because politicians aren't just means of collating preferences. They're here to shape preferences; to persuade us that we might be wrong. They hold an immensely important deliberative and participatory value.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Sarandon is a has-been and would be better served finding something more constructive to do with her politics.
shinra-bansho
Member
I feel like this topic has been broached before, but I largely view politicians not particularly different from products appealing to market segments of customers ie voters. There is some degree of shaping the market -trying to change customer preferences, but for the most part you try to create something that satisfies the most customers' desires and order winning criteria.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think this is a genuinely disgusting and terrible way of seeing democracy that strips it of all moral and political importance. Humanity isn't just a vector of preferences to be summed up and punched into the machine.
Y'all need to read less Schumpeter and more Sen.
This is a good way of putting it.
Actually when it comes to an election that's more or less exactly what voters are.
EDIT: Apologies for double post, on phone.
shinra-bansho
Member
Divergence in reaction. Disgustingly good.
I don't think so. If all it takes is a presidential campaign to change the hearts of citizens, then life would have been much easier.
It's not wrong to say that Sanders just happened to fit the bill for the narrative 2015-6, because we were already moving towards a higher minimum wage, Hillary long before Sanders promised her litmus test for a SC Justice would be Citizens United, and we had implemented legislation that made for a stepping stone towards universal healthcare. Progress was already in motion for other issues, like gay rights, climate change, and so on. To make himself more appealing, Sanders had to repackage his idea for the black electorate, and he had to walk back on his stances on immigration for the hispanic population.
A presidential campaign can't advocate universal basic income without it being favored by the electorate of the time. The essence of what you're asking for is not to be done during a campaign but to be done in office. The changing of voters' preferences is not done through marketing but through substantial policies that change their lives.
If anything I think it's a bit ironic that you're advocating something more authoritarian while I am in this corner believing democracy works.
shinra-bansho
Member
I wasn't really aware we were talking about grand ideals and democracy and pumpkin pie and freedom. That would apparently elicit some sort of visceral reaction.
We're talking about politicians and election campaigns. We're talking about the art and science of appealing to people. We're essentially talking about marketing. Which is for all intents and purposes what the campaigns are.
Although I guess to a lot of people the concept of marketing itself is disgusting and terrible.
We're talking about politicians and election campaigns. We're talking about the art and science of appealing to people. We're essentially talking about marketing. Which is for all intents and purposes what the campaigns are.
Although I guess to a lot of people the concept of marketing itself is disgusting and terrible.
It really, really isn't.
And y'all wonder why people are so disaffected with their political system.
All anyone is the sum of their beliefs, experience and knowledge. These aggregate to form their views and decisions. Changing someone's beliefs is hard, changing someone's experiences is impossible, conveying accurate information is hard (see the brexit beliefs v reality poll). Changing to better aggregate 51% of voters is a lot easier.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's not the only thing; that's a pretty reductive take on my position. It takes much more than a presidential campaign; it takes senatorial campaigns, gubernatorial campaigns, representative campaigns, state representative campaigns, interest group campaigns, campaigns from ordinary citizens like you and I. It's something everyone needs to be involved in. The election arena is simply one of the most prominent and important arenas that this kind of deliberative democracy takes place in. I don't expect this solely from my political representatives, it's a standard I do my best to hold myself to.
Not at all. I'm the democratic one; you've turned democracy into a tyranny of preferences instead of recognising the moral agency and importance of persons. I don't advocate overturning people's preferences, I advocate doing my best to persuade them otherwise.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked