• 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 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chumley

Banned
JetBlackPanda said:
What is he doing? Seriously. If obama had ordered that mission it would be Benghazi 2.0 instead he gets to applaud a dead soldier for 2 mins and rest the game?
Click to expand...

He's a fucking moron playing the "both sides man" game, showing us all how compassionate he is.

There aren't enough eye rolls.
 
B

Boke1879

Member
I like Van Jones alot but he's laying it on thick here.

And this is going to look more hilarious in hindsight after the travel ban and after Trump says or does something else that disrespects the office.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
Bonen no Max'd said:
This is a strawman, when people talk about getting in touch with populist labor movement lefties they're talking about a specific area and kind of voter. No one thinks that Sherrod Brown is going to win in Nebraska.

Oh, and since you said *always*
Click to expand...

Pointing to progressives that won in the rust belt isn't a great indicator of anything. We have a much larger data set than n = 3 (Brown, Baldwin, and Peters), including many progressives that have lost badly in the rust belt. I would say that there are easily more progressives that lost than those who have won. But for some reason you like to cherrypick the few that have won in favorable circumstances (2006, 2012, with Peters being an exception) and prop them up as some sort of definitive proof that going to the left can work in appealing to the WWC.

Continue thinking that going to the left is going to make all these WWC voters support Democrats again if you want. I don't think you will like where the party actually has to go, though.
 
R

Raab

Neo Member
JetBlackPanda said:
What is he doing? Seriously. If obama had ordered that mission it would be Benghazi 2.0 instead he gets to applaud a dead soldier for 2 mins and reset the game?
Click to expand...

I could be very wrong, but I thought this or a similar mission was to be carried out under Obama's administration.
 
E

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
CNN got the message they couldn't go and attack Trump on this speech, they would come off as whiners. They have to wait for his next bill.
 
B

Boke1879

Member
Raab said:
I could be very wrong, but I thought this or a similar mission was to be carried out under Obama's administration.
Click to expand...

Obama refused to go through with it because of lack of intel.

Trump went with it because I believe it was Mattis told him Obama would never do it.
 
T

TumblingHippo

Member
Moderate lefts continue to try and tell minority groups that we focused too much on them and not enough on old white people.

WhyNotBoth.gif but naw let's make sure minorities know their party thinks they're the reason the election was lost and not all the other reasons that piled up.
 
M

metalslimer

Member
Raab said:
I could be very wrong, but I thought this or a similar mission was to be carried out under Obama's administration.
Click to expand...

Military missions do go wrong under presidents and you cannot personally blame every bad thing that happens on the president. However, even ignoring whether or not the mission would have went on under Obama, the fact that the mission failed and he still brought her up to make himself look better is one of the more disgusting things I've seen
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
TumblingHippo said:
Moderate lefts continue to try and tell minority groups that we focused too much on them and not enough on old white people.

WhyNotBoth.gif but naw let's make sure minorities know their party thinks they're the reason the election was lost and not all the other reasons that piled up.
Click to expand...

The moderate left is saying this? Definitely not true, at least on this forum.
 
M

metalslimer

Member
TumblingHippo said:
Moderate lefts continue to try and tell minority groups that we focused too much on them and not enough on old white people.

WhyNotBoth.gif but naw let's make sure minorities know their party thinks they're the reason the election was lost and not all the other reasons that piled up.
Click to expand...

Uh you realize this is basically what Bernie has being saying since the election right?
 
R

Raab

Neo Member
metalslimer said:
Military missions do go wrong under presidents and you cannot personally blame every bad thing that happens on the president. However, even ignoring whether or not the mission would have went on under Obama, the fact that the mission failed and he still brought her up to make himself look better is one of the more disgusting things I've seen
Click to expand...

I usually keep my ear to the ground about this kind of stuff, but didn't realize this was a well known blunder. What was supposed to be hit/gathered that wasn't to consider it a failed mission?
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
Carpe Libertatem said:
Pointing to progressives that won in the rust belt isn't a great indicator of anything. We have a much larger data set than n = 3 (Brown, Baldwin, and Peters), including many progressives that have lost badly in the rust belt. I would say that there are easily more progressives that lost than those who have won. But for some reason you like to cherrypick the few that have won in favorable circumstances (2006, 2012, with Peters being an exception) and prop them up as some sort of definitive proof that going to the left can work in appealing to the WWC.

Continue thinking that going to the left is going to make all these WWC voters support Democrats again if you want. I don't think you will like where the party actually has to go, though.
Click to expand...
The whole point of what we're saying is that Democrats have lost the labor message which is what's made winning there more difficult! And anyways, I "cherrypicked" but I left out Franken and Klobuchar (Franken's one of our leftmost members and Klobuchar is more centrist than the others but still pretty reliable), Stabenow is a bit of a 90's New Democrat type but it's not like she's McCaskill or anything. Harkin was a populist left guy from Iowa who thinks we should have done single payer in 2008. I didn't want to flood this with pictures.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Boke1879 said:
I like Van Jones alot but he's laying it on thick here.

And this is going to look more hilarious in hindsight after the travel ban and after Trump says or does something else that disrespects the office.
Click to expand...

I mean, seriously, the father of the dead SEAL is furious with Trump and especially after today when Trump took no responsibility for the SEAL's death. This is going to end with Trump calling the father a loser, this praise makes no sense.

Have they ever met this guy before?
 
T

TumblingHippo

Member
B-Dubs said:
No, he means it's generally the more extreme left/Dems that's saying those things.
Click to expand...

Really? Geez I feel like it's all been scrambled in my head about who's for what and whomever and who should be upset at whom and which side is which.

Maybe that's why dems will just keep infighting while all the repubs get in line. I feel more tired out by my own party lately but I know just giving up is 100% the wrong answer.
 
B

Boke1879

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
I mean, seriously, the father of the dead SEAL is furious with Trump and especially after today when Trump took no responsibility for the SEAL's death. This is going to end with Trump calling the father a loser, this praise makes no sense.

Have they ever met this guy before?
Click to expand...

Yea I don't get it. Which is why it's going to be funny when they are shitting on him in the next couple of days either by this travel ban or when he's yelling fake news again.

You just don't have to lay it on thick. You could say he stayed on message but this speech offered no specifics.

But to act like Trump turned a new leaf and is now ushering us into the golden age? Give me a damn break.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
Bonen no Max'd said:
The whole point of what we're saying is that Democrats have lost the labor message which is what's made winning there more difficult! And anyways, I "cherrypicked" but I left out Franken and Klobuchar (Franken's one of our leftmost members and Klobuchar is more centrist than the others but still pretty reliable), Stabenow is a bit of a 90's New Democrat type but it's not like she's McCaskill or anything. Harkin was a populist left guy from Iowa who thinks we should have done single payer in 2008. I didn't want to flood this with pictures.
Click to expand...

We'll find out in a little under two years. I hope you're right because we need Brown and Baldwin to keep their seats. (I think they will because I think Democrats will do well in general in 2018, but that doesn't have anything to do with them being progressive or not)

But again, we have a whole lot more data than just the people who have won. I don't think it's particularly useful to only be looking at the people who won (or solely the people who lost). Like in Missouri, people bring up Kander without bringing up Koster, who has consistently outrun the top of the ticket while being an NRA-endorsed centrist. But people only bring up Kander.

(Peters is to the right of Stabenow, also. Neither are people I'd consider to be "left" - they're about as left as neoliberal corporatist Cory Booker.)
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
TumblingHippo said:
Really? Geez I feel like it's all been scrambled in my head about who's for what and whomever and who should be upset at whom and which side is which.

Maybe that's why dems will just keep infighting while all the repubs get in line. I feel more tired out by my own party lately but I know just giving up is 100% the wrong answer.
Click to expand...

The sad fact is the "minority issues are a distraction" belief knows no ideological borders.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
sphagnum said:
This isn't "we focused too much on minority issues" so much as "these issues alone aren't enough".
Click to expand...

Unless you have an infinite amount of time, these two things are more or less the same thing. If you have to spend time on WWC economic issues, that means you spend less time on minority issues.
 
B

Blader

Member
I didn't watch the speech because I physically cannot handle Trump speaking for extended periods of time. Was it actually good, or was it campaign pivot good where he manages to read off an entire transcript without vomiting on himself?

Boke1879 said:
Obama refused to go through with it because of lack of intel.

Trump went with it because I believe it was Mattis told him Obama would never do it.
Click to expand...

I don't think lack of intel was the issue. Obama delayed it because he wanted to wait for a new moon night to give the SEALs extra cover, and that wasn't going to happen until after he was out of office.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Here it is.

The worst take of all time.

I mean, it's hard to be the worst.

There have been billions of takes in history and trillions will be made in the future.

But we've found it.

C5zjKnDXQAAiG7n.jpg
Click to expand...
 
B

Boke1879

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Here it is.

The worst take of all time.

I mean, it's hard to be the worst.

There have been billions of takes in history and trillions will be made in the future.

But we've found it.
Click to expand...

I mean I hate using people as props, but you put that soldiers dad on tv to make the case and that's how you do it.
 
K

kirblar

Member
TumblingHippo said:
Really? Geez I feel like it's all been scrambled in my head about who's for what and whomever and who should be upset at whom and which side is which.

Maybe that's why dems will just keep infighting while all the repubs get in line. I feel more tired out by my own party lately but I know just giving up is 100% the wrong answer.
Click to expand...
Think of it this way- you know how there's white male libertarians who lean right on economics, left on social issue, but always vote on the economics?

It's the same exact thing, just with far left economic views.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
So, I decided to do some math. I looked at every special election since the presidential election with both the presidential results AND the results of the last contested race in that seat.

Iowa SD 45

Hillary/Trump: 55/38 (17%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 73/25 (48%)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP (i): 51/44 (7%) (*was in 2010, GOP didn't contest in 2014)

Virginia SD 22

Hillary/Trump: 41/55 (-14%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 40/53 (-13%)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP: 42/58 (-16%) (*was in 2011, Dems didn't contest in 2015)

Virginia HD 85

Hillary/Trump: 47/47 (0%, but Trump won)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 47/53 (-6%)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP: 44/56 (-12%) (*was in 2013, Dems didn't contest in 2015)

Iowa HD 89

Hillary/Trump: 52/41 (11%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 72/27 (45%)
Last Election Dem (i)/Last Election GOP: 67/33 (34%)

--inauguration--

Minnesota HD 32B

Hillary/Trump: 32/61 (-29%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 47/53 (-6%)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP (i): 44/56 (-12%)

Delaware SD 10

Hillary/Trump: 54/41 (13%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 58/41 (17%)
Last Election Dem (i)/Last Election GOP: 51/49 (2%)

Connecticut SD 32 (UNOFFICIAL)

Hillary/Trump: 37/59 (-22%)
Special Election Dem/Special Election GOP: 45/55 (-10%) (UNOFFICIAL)
Last Election Dem/Last Election GOP (i): 32/68 (-36%)

Haven't seen any numbers on CT SD 02 or CT HD 115 that both Dems won.
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
Carpe Libertatem said:
We'll find out in a little under two years. I hope you're right because we need Brown and Baldwin to keep their seats. (I think they will because I think Democrats will do well in general in 2018, but that doesn't have anything to do with them being progressive or not)

But again, we have a whole lot more data than just the people who have won. I don't think it's particularly useful to only be looking at the people who won (or solely the people who lost). Like in Missouri, people bring up Kander without bringing up Koster, who has consistently outrun the top of the ticket while being an NRA-endorsed centrist. But people only bring up Kander.

(Peters is to the right of Stabenow, also. Neither are people I'd consider to be "left" - they're about as left as neoliberal corporatist Cory Booker.)
Click to expand...
I actually couldn't find the DW-NOMINATE score for him and just saw that he was involved with Occupy and assumed he was more populist, ha. But to prove my point further, Levin is consistently in the left most side of this. Klobuchar actually would better illustrate your point, looking at the numbers here she's the most centrist Midwestern Dem other than Donnelly.

My point stands that the midwestern populists are generally among the leftmost members of the party though. Not that there's no exceptions (Klobuchar, apparently Peters?) but they're not like the plains or the southern Democrats. That's also true historically, with Fighting Bob and all.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
Bonen no Max'd said:
I actually couldn't find the DW-NOMINATE score for him and just saw that he was involved with Occupy and assumed he was more populist, ha. But to prove my point further, Levin is consistently in the left most side of this. Klobuchar actually would better illustrate your point, looking at the numbers here she's the most centrist Midwestern Dem other than Donnelly.

My point stands that the midwestern populists are generally among the leftmost members of the party though. Not that there's no exceptions (Klobuchar, apparently Peters?) but they're not like the plains or the southern Democrats. That's also true historically, with Fighting Bob and all.
Click to expand...

I do understand your point, but I just think it is important to remember more than just the winners. It's not as simple as "be progressive, win election." I actually think it mostly has to do with the general direction the actual election takes in terms of favorable/unfavorable for Democrats. That's at least the lesson I've taken away from even just the past decade. That's why Feingold loses in 2010 and 2016, but assuredly would have won in 2012.

But, yes, the upper midwest is historically more liberal than the south or the plains. If you want a 50 state strategy, though, moving to the left isn't going to play. I think there's also a question about whether or not the upper Midwest is going to stay liberal as the states bleed population. I think they're still in play for 2020 (& probably 2024 even), but their future is questionable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Russia begins Invasion of Ukraine
News NSFW 639 640 641 642 643
32K
2M
EviLore replied
Kanye West Planning Russia Trip to Meet Putin and Perform Sunday Service, Says Advisor
21
2K
It's all in the wrist replied
NYTIMES - Report Points to Microwave ‘Attack’ as Likely Source of Mystery Illnesses That Hit Diplomats and Spies
News
7
2K
DisguiseArrsick replied
Gowdy: Trump advisers should consider quitting over Russia
0
545
Arkage replied
  • Locked
Trump "Owned by Russia for 30 years" says his "Art of Deal" Ghostwriter
2 3
131
9K
FStubbs replied
Top Bottom