Support NeoGAF

[BreezyLimbo]

We're going to lose next year and in 2020 aren't we?

I hope youre ready to see trump tweet every day about fake news for the next 8 years

 

[Roland_Gunner]

More Sanders primary voters voted Clinton in the presidential than Clinton primary voters voted Obama in the presidential. You need to stop spreading fake news, it's pretty disgusting. I can't tell the difference between you rabid Clintonites and Trump supporters any more, it's all just lies and racism.

You keep repeating this but it ignores the unusually high number of Democrats who didn't vote at all. Staying home isn't better than voting for Stein or Johnson.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribe...use-of-lower-democratic-turnout/#744530b553ab

 

[soul creator]

I'm not "mad" about the whole Ellison/Perez thing, but it is somewhat instructive to how Democratic party politics works. The DNC chair election is inherently an "establishment" vote, since it's obviously chosen by a few hundred Democratic reps, lobbyists, donors, etc., and not regular voters.

Even within this context, Ellison was able to receive the support of a wide range of the party's "establishment" members, is generally seen as a reliable Democrat himself, and also happens to have all the angry BernieBros (lol) on his side as well.

So even just on a pure optics level, this seems like a pragmatic choice to get behind. It's not a real elected office, and hey, if you can harness the grassroots energy for something you admit has relatively little to do with ideology, it certainly seems like the bare minimum thing to do, especially if you're super worried about unity and the perception of your party as out of touch (I remember many folks in PoliGAF making this same argument, which seemed to make sense)

Then suddenly, Obama/Biden decide to push for Perez. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but since the argument is usually "they're both ideologically basically the same and they would both be fine", what purpose does them specifically pushing Perez serve People make the comparison to Clinton/Sanders ("haha, ironic that BernieBros wanted a coronation!"), but the main difference is that this isn't an election by regular voters, the ideological differences are way smaller (and also aren't as applicable to this position), and it's not like there was some organic surge in Perez support that people were clamoring for, so I don't think the "coronation" comparison holds.

In addition to that, this all happened to coincide with Ellison being attacked as some crazy anti-semitic person, from other Democrats.

So even when it comes to a relatively symbolic gesture that even people here in Poligaf were arguing for that seemed like a no-brainer to at the very least shut the BernieBros up for a second, Democrats still favored insidery politics over grassroots energy + insidery politics. The angry BernieBros were doing exactly what everyone says they should do (work within the system!), yet with the specific help of Obama/Biden, they couldn't even get that. If Ellison lost to Peter Buttedge or Saoirse Ronan, I don't think this would've had the same reaction, but losing to the hand-picked Obama/Biden candidate is obviously make it much tougher to challenge the idea that the DNC is controlled by a small group of powerful interests and not the people (I mean, that would be true even if Ellison had won, but you would think they would try not to be as blatant about it). So why do this at all, if, again, they were both "basically the same anyway"? Because they wanted to keep progressive champions like Alan Dershowitz in the party?

Also, if the Deputy Chair is a real thing, they should at least update their marketing materials to include it.

 

[Wanda/Wander]

Not sure if posted, but the father of the Navy SEAL who died in Yemen was interviewed. It's a great read.

This is thread worthy. More people should read this article. Very powerful stuff.

 

[LostMyNarbles]

More Sanders primary voters voted Clinton in the presidential than Clinton primary voters voted Obama in the presidential. You need to stop spreading fake news, it's pretty disgusting. I can't tell the difference between you rabid Clintonites and Trump supporters any more, it's all just lies and racism.

I'm clearly not talking about every single Sanders supporter period, but you cannot deny that the "Bernie or Bust" movement was a thing and there was a lot of hate from his side of the campaign after he conceded and started working with Clinton. These same supporters throw brat attacks every time Sanders tries to work with the Democrats or even says something positive about them because they aren't interested in building any fences. They want to take over the party and make it "Our way or the highway" and they aren't interested in working together towards common goals. Again, go look at the Perez congratulation Tweet from Sanders. It is trashed with people who seemingly support him telling him off for congratulating the guy and trying to build a relationship to work with him.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

While there are some people who can't seem to let Clinton go despite her terribleness as a candidate, the ideologues are pretty easy to spot. They are the people who think following in the footsteps of the Tea Party is a good thing and are more concerned with protesting a Manchin townhall than a Trump appearance. You know it's true, so stop turning a blind eye.

Sure, they exist. But they're a tiny minority of Sanders supporters, and ultimately inconsequential. The bigger problem, by far, is entrenched ideologues like dramatis and kirblar who want to try exactly the same thing that just resulted in the biggest Democratic defeat in nearly a century and can't bear the idea of having to compromise even slightly. Judging by how many posts in this thread I'm having to not even particularly subtlety lampoon, the greater portion of blinded ideologues aren't in camp Sanders.

 

[kirblar]

I really hate this dismissive rhetoric. You are diminishing the opinions and trying to snuff out the enthusiasm of people who are on your side.

I see this day after day here. It's so depressing. I really wish people here could better understand why young people are enamored with far-left ideals without considering themselves far-left. When you say they are petty or unappeasable and aren't interested in policy, you are ridiculing people who - until recently - didn't see any difference between you and them.

Do people here even talk to supposed far-left voters? Because I think a lot of the people you're writing off are just "voters under 25." They are deeply distrustful of establishments and institutions because they have been screwed or strung along by them their entire lives. They have no job security, their wages are low, their cost of living is high, and things their parents were doing at their age - like buying houses and having children - are completely off the table. Even people with college degrees and no debt - like me - have to work six days a week to pay their bills. They are furious they have paid into systems and programs their whole lives - including programs their parents were able to benefit from - only to see a fraction of the results.

These voters are energized and restless because they kept their heads down and plodded along under Obama because they believed everything would eventually be okay. Progress was progress, even if it was slow and measured. They liked Obama and he was making things better, and whoever succeeded him would carry us even further. But overnight, they watched their entire worldview get demolished under the weight of Donald Trump. It makes everything they thought was safe and guaranteed feel fragile and vulnerable. They are not willing to wait for 2018 or 2020 to try to defend themselves or take back territory. They trying to do it every single day. Their fight is right now. They will stop at nothing to feel like they have their voice back.

This is an energy you should be welcoming and grooming into good Democrats and regular voters, not closing the door to for not buying into another institution they're wary of. You have to realize that lots of these voters have never experienced anything as dramatic or traumatic as Donald Trump. This is their 9/11. This is their life-changing catastrophe that forever changes how they see the world. Everything they believed before the election is now threatened or collapsing in front of their eyes. They've never seen anything like this before - or at least never felt its effects. The reason they are so vicious is because they are terrified and angry in ways they have never been. These people are going to dictate the culture of a generation. These people are an asset to you. Connect with them. They desperately want to be connected with.

I always feel I need to make it clear I am not a Berniecrat and I voted for HRC. I still keep her keychain in my car. But is is plainly obvious to me as a young voter than people you brand as far-left and insatiable anarchists are people looking for somebody and something to rally behind. They want it to be somebody they took part in choosing. They want to feel like they're contributing directly to the machine that is going to determine how the remainder of their lives may go. Help them. You will win more elections.

I just can't stand seeing people who all believe the same things demonizing each other over what is ultimately just a difference in attitude, not politics. I give Gray Wolves another version of this same speech. There is so much opportunity here.

You cannot groom the energy of people who's reaction to losing is to go "BURN IT ALL DOWN" into something productive.

People like Cenk are never not going to be pieces of shit. There is no appeasing those who buy into conspiracy theories - they're the Fox News viewers of the left.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Sure, they exist. But they're a tiny minority of Sanders supporters, and ultimately inconsequential. The bigger problem, by far, is entrenched ideologues like dramatis and kirblar who want to try exactly the same thing that just resulted in the biggest Democratic defeat in nearly a century and can't bear the idea of having to compromise even slightly. Judging by how many posts in this thread I'm having to not even particularly subtlety lampoon, the greater portion of blinded ideologues aren't in camp Sanders.

What? This hyperbole is ridiculous.

Continue to underestimate Trump at your detriment. I've learned my lesson about that.

 

[Kemal86]

I really hate this dismissive rhetoric. You are diminishing the opinions and trying to snuff out the enthusiasm of people who are on your side.

They want it to be somebody they took part in choosing. They want to feel like they're contributing directly to the machine that is going to determine how the remainder of their lives may go. Help them. You will win more elections.

I just can't stand seeing people who all believe the same things demonizing each other over what is ultimately just a difference in attitude, not politics. I give Gray Wolves another version of this same speech. There is so much opportunity here.

I have talked to Bernie supports / far-left progressives. Many of them even further than "far-left", in the full-on anarchist camp. Every day at my work, every day in my grad program.

The problem is they say "We want it to be somebody we took part in choosing", but then when they lose that vote, it's "ESTABLISHMENT ESTABLISHMENT ESTABLISHMENT FIXED RIGGED CHOSEN CORRUPT". It's never because the majority of people in the party don't share their exact same ideals, it's always because the "establishment" (that they can never identify) stepped in and stole the vote away from them. They don't understand that sometimes, participating in the process means that you lose. It's a deep irony that you say "Somebody they took part in choosing" - when the reality of that is that they want someone anoited by Bernie and no one was allowed to run against him (sound...familiar...?) The "establishment" rhetoric is so damn tired at this point. It's no more on point that young people in the 90's hazily ranting about "the man". Establishment? You mean candidates and party leaders with actual political acumen and experience? You mean fucking Barack Obama and Joe Biden? Ok, sure.

You say "Help them, you will win more elections" - they don't want to be helped. They picked their guy and if their guy doesn't make it the cut, they're done. They've walked out. And the few that stuck around would take any opportunity to smear Hillary. "I'm voting for her, but I'm not happy about it. What a dishonest establishment shill!". Ok, no thanks.

I want to be clear - I would like to live in a world where far-left / hyper-progressive policies are the norm. I want that future. I wanted Keith Ellison to be the DNC Chair. But I truly believe that, long-term, Bernie Sanders and the "Bernie or bust" rhetoric has done more harm than good to the Democratic party in the US. It wasn't Hillary Clinton, with her 30+ years of service to this country that sowed the seeds of "rigged establishment" amongst the young liberal population of this country - it was Bernie Sanders. Or, at the very, very least - it was Bernie's stubborn inability to stamp out that fire before it spread like a disease.

 

[kirblar]

What? This hyperbole is ridiculous.

Especially when it's literally the smallest Dem defeat in a century. We picked up seats, won the popular vote, and lost the electoral one by under 70K votes.

 

[thehypocrite]

Eh, I think that completely misses the mark in terms of analyzing the causal factors behind those trends. Clinton handily won the popular vote, so why are we surprised that the majority of the country hates Trump? How else would you extrapolate out the results to the non-voting population?

Furthermore, even if the party got annihilated down-ballot, it wasn't Bernie type leftists who performed best, it was Kander type moderates. How does that translate into a conclusion that socialist ideas/candidates are more popular than centrism? If the demand was there we would see more Bernie's in Congress, but we don't. The best Seattle could do was elect a single socialist to the City Council over 100 years. And we think that kind of ''success" is somehow going to translate to district or state wide contests in states like Missouri or Ohio?

I mean seriously, voters don't have to believe in universal healthcare to be mad about Trump trying to repeal Obamacare. You don't have to believe in free college tuition to think Devos was a terrible pick. We should not mistake anger over Trump's raw incompetence as anything more than that; the democratic wave in 2006 happened because people were anti-war, not pro-democrat.

I'll believe the country is ready for far-left ideas when it starts electing representatives who campaign on them. The simple fact is that there has never been a leftist version of the Tea Party that demonstrates sustained demand for radical policies through repeated large-scale congressional victories.

You need to let go of Clinton, it would be a complete tragedy if she had lost the popular vote against president Tweet. Kander is an outlier, no extrapolation should be made by him, the fact of the matter is that the left does try to solve for the underlying issues that undermine human autonomy, Hillary had her own version of bootstrap mentality and old ideas.

 

[Intheflorsh]

Especially when it's literally the smallest Dem defeat in a century. We picked up seats, won the popular vote, and lost the electoral one by under 70K votes.

Let's not forget about the small matter of the Supreme Court...

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Especially when it's literally the smallest Dem defeat in a century. We picked up seats, won the popular vote, and lost the electoral one by under 70K votes.

It's the second smallest - 2000 was the smallest, since the Democrats picked up 4 senate seats (+1 Republican switching over to make a majority) and Florida had an incredibly tiny margin. House was the same, more or less.

But it's definitely not the "biggest Dem loss in a century." The only way that makes sense is if you think anyone should have beaten Trump. To which I say again, underestimate him at your own peril. I'm not going to anymore.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What? This hyperbole is ridiculous.

Continue to underestimate Trump at your detriment. I've learned my lesson about that.

This is the first time since (iirc) 1928 that the Democrats have failed to control all of the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. At the same time, they are at a post-war low in state government. It is not at all hyperbole to point out the Democrats have not had less institutional influence than they do now in over a century. The margin of the loss was small. The consequences are catastrophic.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Especially when it's literally the smallest Dem defeat in a century. We picked up seats, won the popular vote, and lost the electoral one by under 70K votes.

It still has left the party in a weaker position than it has ever been.

It was mounted on top of devistating losses in 2010 and 2014.

People aren't saying "burn it all down!" As much saying the party needs to do a better job of showing strong intent of a change in direction because what they are currently doing is not working at all.

 

[kirblar]

It still has left the party in a weaker position than it has ever been.

It was mounted on top of devistating losses in 2010 and 2014.

People aren't saying "burn it all down!" As much saying the party needs to do a better job of showing strong intent of a change in direction because what they are currently doing is not working at all.

The people who say "I'm not gonna vote" are.

 

[VendettaRed07]

This is the first time since (iirc) 1928 that the Democrats have failed to control all of the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. At the same time, they are at a post-war low in state government. It is not at all hyperbole to point out the Democrats have not had less institutional influence than they do now in over a century. The margin of the loss was small. The consequences are catastrophic.

Also governorships, state house and senate positions; literally every possible elected position.

6 states out of 50 where Democrats control all three branches locally.

But don't worry, it was just a small loss.. better luck next time! No need for change in strategy. Everything is under control, etc.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

This is the first time since (iirc) 1928 that the Democrats have failed to control all of the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. At the same time, they are at a post-war low in state government. It is not at all hyperbole to point out the Democrats have not had less institutional influence than they do now in over a century. The margin of the loss was small. The consequences are catastrophic.

There's 2002-2006 also, which also had massive catastrophic consequences.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Sure, they exist. But they're a tiny minority of Sanders supporters, and ultimately inconsequential. The bigger problem, by far, is entrenched ideologues like dramatis and kirblar who want to try exactly the same thing that just resulted in the biggest Democratic defeat in nearly a century and can't bear the idea of having to compromise even slightly. Judging by how many posts in this thread I'm having to not even particularly subtlety lampoon, the greater portion of blinded ideologues aren't in camp Sanders.

I fully agree with you with respect to people losing their minds over an extreme minority of people that are very vocal. Just because a viewpoint is popular on social media does not mean the viewpoint is popular.

That said, this argument has very little to do with *why* Democrats lost.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

This is the first time since (iirc) 1928 that the Democrats have failed to control all of the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. At the same time, they are at a post-war low in state government. It is not at all hyperbole to point out the Democrats have not had less institutional influence than they do now in over a century. The margin of the loss was small. The consequences are catastrophic.

2002-2006

The results of the 2004 election nationwide weren't substantially different from this past one. A little better in terms of state government, but worse in terms of federal government.

And then 2006 and 2008 happened.

Your post was hyperbolic and flat out not true, sorry.

 

[kirblar]

This is the first time since (iirc) 1928 that the Democrats have failed to control all of the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. At the same time, they are at a post-war low in state government. It is not at all hyperbole to point out the Democrats have not had less institutional influence than they do now in over a century. The margin of the loss was small. The consequences are catastrophic.

How young are you that you don't remember the Dubya years?

Being stuck between Gen X and Gen Z is maddening.

 

[Basileus777]

This is the first time since (iirc) 1928 that the Democrats have failed to control all of the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. At the same time, they are at a post-war low in state government. It is not at all hyperbole to point out the Democrats have not had less institutional influence than they do now in over a century. The margin of the loss was small. The consequences are catastrophic.

If we're talking just about the federal government, the Republicans had a stronger position post 2004 and actually controlled all of those positions starting in 2000.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

This is the first time since (iirc) 1928 that the Democrats have failed to control all of the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. At the same time, they are at a post-war low in state government. It is not at all hyperbole to point out the Democrats have not had less institutional influence than they do now in over a century. The margin of the loss was small. The consequences are catastrophic.

The Democrats just won a special election in Delaware and expanded their margin from three points to 17 last night. Meanwhile Jeremy Corbyn, the far left godhead, can barely hold on to seats Labor has had for a century and the French socialists are about to finish fourth or fifth. Do you know how hard it is for a socialist to finish fifth in France? Where does anyone get the idea that following in the footsteps of the continental left will get us anywhere but back to Mondale in '84?

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

If we're talking just about the federal government, the Republicans had a stronger position post 2004 and actually controlled all of those positions starting in 2000.

The Democrats controlled the Senate in 2001-2002 when Jeffords switched to an independent, but before that it was 50-50 with Cheney as the tiebreaker. But, yeah, 2004 was worse for Democrats on a federal level (and a little better on a state level).

 

[Brawndo Addict]

You need to let go of Clinton, it would be a complete tragedy if she had lost the popular vote against president Tweet. Kander is an outlier, no extrapolation should be made by him, the fact of the matter is that the left does try to solve for the underlying issues that undermine human autonomy, Hillary had her own version of bootstrap mentality and old ideas.

So instead we should make assumptions based on no evidence because we like those conclusions better? The hell does Clinton losing electorally to Trump have to do with far-leftists being popular? Maybe try engaging with the rest of my post instead of just complaining about the fact I mentioned Clinton/Kander.

 

[kirblar]

If we're talking just about the federal government, the Republicans had a stronger position post 2004 and actually controlled all of those positions starting in 2000.

In 2001 a senator flipped to avoid RRR, they didn't have control very long.

 

[Basileus777]

The Democrats controlled the Senate in 2001-2002 when Jeffords switched to an independent, but before that it was 50-50 with Cheney as the tiebreaker. But, yeah, 2004 was worse for Democrats on a federal level (and a little better on a state level).

Yeah, I overlooked Jeffords.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If we're talking just about the federal government, the Republicans had a stronger position post 2004 and actually controlled all of those positions starting in 2000.

Apologies, double-checked the dates and the precise fact is that this is the first time since 1928 the Republicans have controlled the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, a majority of governors, and a majority of state legislatures. So the Democrats are indeed much weaker than they were even under Bush. Hence, no hyperbole.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Apologies, double-checked the dates and the precise fact is that this is the first time since 1928 the Republicans have controlled the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, a majority of governors, and a majority of state legislatures. So the Democrats are indeed much weaker than they were even under Bush. Hence, no hyperbole.

Bush also pushed most of his big early legislation with bipartisan support, except for the tax cuts.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The Democrats just won a special election in Delaware and expanded their margin from three points to 17 last night. Meanwhile Jeremy Corbyn, the far left godhead, can barely hold on to seats Labor has had for a century and the French socialists are about to finish fourth or fifth. Do you know how hard it is for a socialist to finish fifth in France? Where does anyone get the idea that following in the footsteps of the continental left will get us anywhere but back to Mondale in '84?

It's a good thing I'm not advocating following the continental left, then, isn't it?

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Apologies, double-checked the dates and the precise fact is that this is the first time since 1928 the Republicans have controlled the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, a majority of governors, and a majority of state legislatures. So the Democrats are indeed much weaker than they were even under Bush. Hence, no hyperbole.

The GOP had majority control of the Senate, House, Presidency, and Governors in 2004.

As far as state legislatures, Democrats did have a majority. Of about 0.00014 percent.

It was hyperbole.

edit: actually, after 2002 the Republicans had control of all of that.

 

[dramatis]

Sure, they exist. But they're a tiny minority of Sanders supporters, and ultimately inconsequential. The bigger problem, by far, is entrenched ideologues like dramatis and kirblar who want to try exactly the same thing that just resulted in the biggest Democratic defeat in nearly a century and can't bear the idea of having to compromise even slightly. Judging by how many posts in this thread I'm having to not even particularly subtlety lampoon, the greater portion of blinded ideologues aren't in camp Sanders.

Don't kid yourself.

When you used the term "Clintonites" I just sighed because this is what I expected from I guess the losing UK liberals, the preoccupation with "Blairites" and purity and all that jazz. I don't see how Corbyn is helping the liberals in the UK win all that much, unless you want to pretend he's winning so hard his party lost a seat that they've had for nearly a hundred years.

What I see from here is that you guys are even bigger losers than we are, and with the leader Labour has right now, you guys are fucked for much longer than us if you don't oust him before the next elections. The lesson to learn for the US then is not to get mired in that kind of "radically change the party" mess. In my view you're more of an entrenched ideologue than we are, unless you would like to call asking for the most basic thing, equal civil rights, as getting into 'entrenched ideology'.

Moreover I haven't complained all that much about Sanders, but plenty about Sanders supporters who are obstinate, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm an entrenched ideologue. Because the nature of being a minority and being a woman means I have to compromise a hell of a lot more in life than you do.

I think it is really telling when this is your kind of response to a plea for you to consider a different perspective:

Please don't equate all the struggles one must endure living through abject poverty and overcome to achieve a high position in life through hard work and by ethical means to "endorsed by politician X". Thanks.

blah blah blah

This is a strawman, I know it's a strawman, you know it's a strawman. Trying to bat for the moral superiority team without having a leg to stand on doesn't win internet arguments.

EDIT: especially when your colleague eBay Huckster is making the argument above.

You're incredibly tone deaf when it comes to issues of race and gender, and it shows. If you don't like being called out on it, don't play the victim. You're callous when it comes to identifying with minorities, that is why you get slammed. Who is blind here? Who is entrenched here? Who is the one who needs lampooning and some self-reflection?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

As far as state legislatures, Democrats did have a majority. Of about 0.00014 percent.

It was hyperbole.

Your link doesn't support you. It points out the Republicans controlled 20 state legislatures, which is not a majority (26+) and is simply a plurality.

 

[metalslimer]

Getting back to actual policy and not symbolism, is there anything that the far left is proposing that people think will win more elections?

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Apologies, double-checked the dates and the precise fact is that this is the first time since 1928 the Republicans have controlled the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, a majority of governors, and a majority of state legislatures. So the Democrats are indeed much weaker than they were even under Bush.

But that fact is not indicative of anything by itself. It would be like looking at the 2008 results and going "wow, Republicans haven't lost this badly for decades, clearly the country no longer has an appetite for conservatism" or "wow, clearly the country has completely shifted towards wanting strong leftist policies like universal healthcare".

The fallout of the Iraq War and the financial crisis fueled the results of 2008, not Democratic policy positions. Unfortunately Democrats had to be taught that lesson the hard way in 2010 and I imagine Republicans will learn it in 2018 too. Just because you win doesn't mean people agree with you, sometimes voters just hate the other side more.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Your link doesn't support you. It points out the Republicans controlled 20 state legislatures, which is not a majority (26+) and is simply a plurality.

I'm talking about total state legislative seats and chambers (49 vs 47). Which I'm sure you will predictably will say does not matter because of your constantly and rapidly moving goalposts.

Your post was hyperbolic and for some reason you refuse to admit it.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If you're going to try and make references to British politics, at least do it right. The UK Liberals are lead by Tim Farron. As for Corbyn, I don't support him. Never have. So saying "yeah well Corbyn!" is like me saying "why should I listen to you? You just elected Trump!", simply because you happen to be American. But given I know you didn't actually support Trump, I wouldn't be so discourteous as to try and make that point.

Also, give me a break. If we're talking insensitivities, you were so insensitive to the Democrats of the Rust Belt you just lost to an orange fascist puppeted by Russia. I mean, have you seen Trump? You were so out of touch you lost to that. Go look in the mirror and get some perspective. It's just tedious to see you fall back on 'someone has called out my atrocious arguments, better imply they're racially insensitive'. Alternative hypothesis: you're just making a terrible argument.

 

[metalslimer]

If you're going to try and make references to British politics, at least do it right. The UK Liberals are lead by Tim Farron. As for Corbyn, I don't support him. Never have. So saying "yeah well Corbyn!" is like me saying "why should I listen to you? You just elected Trump!", simply because you happen to be American. But given I know you didn't actually support Trump, I wouldn't be so discourteous as to try and make that point.

Also, give me a break. If we're talking insensitivities, you were so insensitive to the Democrats of the Rust Belt you just lost to an orange fascist puppeted by Russia. Go look in the mirror and get some perspective. It's just tedious to see you fall back on 'someone has called out my atrocious arguments, better imply they're racially insensitive'. Alternative hypothesis: you're just making a terrible argument.

Dear lord

 

[Holmes]

Also what we're not talking about here is the complete collapse of Democratic support (locally) among Southern whites during the Obama era. States like West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina were all lost due to white flight away from the party when a black man became the face of the party and I think that's the bigger story.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Also what we're not talking about here is the complete collapse of Democratic support (locally) among Southern whites during the Obama era. States like West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina were all lost due to white flight away from the party when a black man became the face of the party and I think that's the bigger story.

Yeah. In the link from 2004 I posted, the Democrats "controlled" states like Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, etc.

If you're only looking at party affiliation, these state legislatures did change during the Obama presidency! In terms of ideology/policy, not so sure they changed much at all. This is why looking at party ID is flawed.

 

[Holmes]

Also, give me a break. If we're talking insensitivities, you were so insensitive to the Democrats of the Rust Belt you just lost to an orange fascist puppeted by Russia.

This is a really shitty take, especially coming from someone who just watched from the sidelines and didn't live through the election. If exposing and calling out the racist, Islamaphobic, sexist, homophobic and hateful rhetoric Trump and his surrogates were spewing on a daily here was insensitive to Rust Belt Democrats - and I don't think it was to the Democrats in the region that were the problem - instead of talking about muh bad trade deals, then so be it. I know a lot of people here of all races and sexualities who've been damaged from the election and their sensitivities are just as important.

 

[daedalius]

Saw this on facebook...

Nope nope nope

Obama built a coalition, ads like these will do nothing but tear it apart.

 

[thehypocrite]

So instead we should make assumptions based on no evidence because we like those conclusions better? The hell does Clinton losing electorally to Trump have to do with far-leftists being popular? Maybe try engaging with the rest of my post instead of just complaining about the fact I mentioned Clinton/Kander.

Assumptions? O lord, go look at congress, governorship's, presidency and the SC, democrats lost them all by embracing Obama's centrism. Isn't that evidence for you? That your so call ideal centrist, YASS QUEEEN lost to a russian orange puppet full of hate and bad ideas isn't evidence to correct the course? Centrism won't work in the USA because the closer democrats get to it the further to the crazy side the GOP pushes and their single issue voters will make them reap success. You continue to play into their hands and that's why you've become pray of corporations as well. You don't stand for the people, you even stop trying to reform the structural problems, you just try to sustain a status quo that leaves people without a positive future and autonomy.

But by all means keep holding onto the center because there's no evidence that that shit is wack and ultimately pointless and even being rejected evermore.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Hillary losing electorally doesn't mean far-leftists would have won, that is illogical.

Your argument:

A beats C
A loses to B
Conclusion: C beats B.

Once again you are unable to offer any positive evidence. Please feel free to point out the states or major cities where far-left politicians like Bernie have repeatedly won majorities. Oh wait, they don't exist.

Democrats ran away from Obama for 6 years, not sure what rock you were living under to think it was the other way around.

 

[Holmes]

Crab, don't talk as if you understand what it's like to have lived through the 2016 election, to know it will continue for the next 4 years and that it might continue for 4 more years and beyond afterwards.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Also what we're not talking about here is the complete collapse of Democratic support (locally) among Southern whites during the Obama era. States like West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina were all lost due to white flight away from the party when a black man became the face of the party and I think that's the bigger story.

to be fair here, Kentucky kept a Democratic governor until 2015 and a Dem state house until last year (and we didn't have the senate since 2004). Race is (the biggest) part of it but they didn't just jump ship in 2010 like the Dem-held Confederate states.

Too bad Paul was reelected last year instead of up in 2018, we might have had a shot at knocking him out.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The Dems lost the south because they moved too far away from the "center" on white supremacy and moved closer to "people of all skin colors are good."

And I'm not sure that centrism or... whatever is to blame.

 

[Holmes]

to be fair here, Kentucky kept a Democratic governor until 2015 and a Dem state house until last year (and we didn't have the senate since 2004). Race is (the biggest) part of it but they didn't just jump ship in 2010 like the Dem-held Confederate states.

Too bad Paul was reelected last year instead of up in 2018, we might have had a shot at knocking him out.

The backlash was front loaded(many of the legislatures were lost in 2010), I think Kentucky's shift to Republican controlled government was a more natural pace, but Beshear's coat tails helped a lot here. There's a reason why he's the first person who was chosen to give a Democratic response to Trump.

 

[thehypocrite]

The Dems lost the south because they moved too far away from the "center" on white supremacy and moved closer to "people of all skin colors are good."

And I'm not sure that centrism or... whatever is to blame.

That happens as well (not only) cause people have no alternative but pray on each other for survival. There's no fucking alternative.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

This is a really shitty take, especially coming from someone who just watched from the sidelines and didn't live through the election. If exposing and calling out the racist, Islamaphobic, sexist, homophobic and hateful rhetoric Trump and his surrogates were spewing on a daily here was insensitive to Rust Belt Democrats - and I don't think it was to the Democrats in the region that were the problem - instead of talking about muh bad trade deals, then so be it. I know a lot of people here of all races and sexualities who've been damaged from the election and their sensitivities are just as important.

This is why posting here can be so infuriating. Like, examine your post and just think about it for even a moment.

You know that I'm not saying we don't call out hateful rhetoric. You know it. I have always, consistently and always, called out hateful rhetoric. You know I'm not saying minority sensitivities aren't important. I have been, am, and will always be the first to the barricades for these issues. I've spent god knows how many hours of my life battling UKIP on the doorsteps, busting my ass on a cold, windy night in Stoke.

You know this. You can't possibly seriously think when I'm saying "you were insensitive to the Rust Belt", I mean "you should have been tolerant of racism".

But despite the fact you know I don't mean that, you put out this woeful post implying I do anyway.

Why?

It doesn't respond to me, at all. We're not having a conversation. You may as well be talking to a cardboard cutout with my avatar on it.

I can't work out the purpose. I have three possible options. First, you deliberately want to rile me in some kind of ban-baiting exercise. Second, you want to retreat to comfort ground and address imaginary arguments because they're easier to deal with than real ones. Third, you want to fit in to the PoliGAF social clique and accordingly send out the signals to say "hey, look how PoliGAF I am!".

Any of these is a terrible, terrible reason. What's the point of having a PoliGAF thread at all if you're going to do any of these? You may as well just rename this thread ClintonGAF if all you want to do is signal to other Clintonites how Clinton-y you are, or if you want to be able to tilt at imaginary windmills because the real world is too difficult.

There is an unnervingly large amount of people in this thread genuinely not interested in actually having any kind of meaningful conversation.