ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Joe Biden's past history of racism is so extreme that I have to think he has no shot.
This is going to be a long, miserable waste of time.
This is going to be a long, miserable waste of time.
-
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 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, I don't think it's that Donald Trump was destined to be president (although, since he did, clearly he was lol), I'm just saying Hillary Clinton -- ignoring all her other baggage -- was going to be fighting uphill battle against any Republican nominee for virtue of running for her party's third term in the White House.
The reason why the presidency changes parties every eight years is because eight years is long enough for some segment of the population to feel let down by the current president's party. If you're among that white working-class bloc that went for Trump because your health insurance premiums were going up, and your job prospects were drying up if not gone, and you had loved ones dying of heroin overdoses, and the mortality rates in your communities were plummeting, well, then the Democrats asking you for another four to eight years at the helm is a pretty fucking galling ask. Especially when it's someone like Hillary Clinton (or Joe Biden, had he run) who is essentially running on a more-of-Obama platform. Then you throw Trump into the race who, while a despicable human being, we can all agree represents change from the Obama/Biden/Hillary way of things in pretty stark ways.
So circling back to my original point: all I was saying was that Donald Trump being Donald Trump would not have automatically disqualified from winning, as much as many of us believed it would/should, and that being the Republican nominee running against a potential third Democratic term meant history was on his side to win, however statistically unlikely that looked for much of the race.
Is there really such a thing as a national leader for an entirely out-of-power party? Who was leading the Democratic Party in '02 to '06? It's elections and congressional majorities that produce leading figureheads to rally around. There will be nobody to step forward to lead the party until the primary in two years produces those people. Until then, it's the grassroots that will lead the party. Which seems totally fine to me.
Or, like Pence, he's just using it to raise money for congressional races.
Basileus777
Member
Nah Bernie didn't deliver victories in deep red districts after a few months of outreach, it's time to make him irrelevant.
This whole page is full of dumb bitterness aimed at both Hillary and Bernie.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Sounds like an asset in today's electorate!
whyamihere
Banned
Well, she's actively talking about who cost her the election, so yeah. It's not good for Democrats because she's unpopular and she's a divisive figure. This isn't her really giving a college commencement speech.
The more Hillary keeps herself and who was at fault in the 2016 election in the national conversation, the worse it is. I mean, literally, her own staff was grumbling about how they're annoyed she isn't considered a central part of the "resistance" movement. She should stay far away from it beyond a tweet or so. That is Bad.
Very much so.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
So you're saying if he was a republican he'd be a shoo-in?
No, there is not. This is once again an issue of kids who grew up under Obama who don't understand what being an out of power party is like.
Basileus777
Member
Once again? Was there a first time?
Not boycott her show, boycott her advertisers.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
By boycott I mean try to get her advertising pulled.
BlastProcessing
Member
I think some of you are obsessing over this purity test with his party label when it doesn't really matter. Personally, I think it's actually an asset:
A growing number of people can relate to his decision to stay independent. Dems need left-leaning independents -- excluding left-leaning independents from the process will only hurt dems. Dems embrace Sanders, left-leaning independents feel like they're part of the big tent -- feel listened to. Doesn't matter who's registered as a dem, what matters is votes and results. This obsession over party labels just feels like petty partisan nonsense to a lot of people. And if you really want to get Sanders and other left-leaning independents to adopt the dem label, you'll need to evolve the party to fit them. Personally I kind of lean toward a coalition approach -- don't worry about the labels so much.
Sanders seems to be doing this stuff on his own -- afaik, it's not the party setting up these TV debates, so who's putting him on a plane above the rest? Nothing stopping others from doing the same and I've already said I want to see more people doing it. I'm not as anxious about disagreements between Sanders and mainstream dems -- I think there's room for it in a larger coalition and it can actually be healthy.
I want to reform the Democratic party in such a way where people won't be embarrassed to call themselves Democrats again. No more hiding behind this Independent bullshit. A party is powerful because we all march under the same banner.
Using Sanders' Independent cred to draw independents to maybe sometimes vote Democratic is just pissing yourself to keep warm. It's courting a fickle audience in a superficial way that won't last. Instead we need to pull those people into the party. Make them feel welcome and feel a sense of ownership over the Democratic Party.
We don't just need to build a rickety coalition that will hopefully hold together in 2018 and 2020, we need to be creating the next generation of the Party.
shinra-bansho
Member
I mean all of the publicity these people are generating is self interested. Set aside the delusion that anyone, besides I guess Obama, and really even then, isn't acting primarily in self interest.
Sanders, Biden, Warren, Clinton, are all about protecting their clout and their brand asset. To be kingmaker, or god forbid any of them as candidate again.
Sanders, Biden, Warren, Clinton, are all about protecting their clout and their brand asset. To be kingmaker, or god forbid any of them as candidate again.
RustyNails
Member
Eat more crackers
Basileus777
Member
You're putting way too much focus on an irrelevant party label. Bernie is known for running in the Democratic primary, people associate him as a Democrat regardless of what he's registered as. I don't think it's an asset or a hindrance here.
Only reason I lean toward coalition is because reforming the party could get messy and I'm not sure we can afford to get messy right now. Otherwise I like what you're saying.
Oh. He clearly has no understanding as to why those advertisers pulled out.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
And I don't think it's worth even considering if Bernie is a cult of personality.
Just look at him. Is there anyone alive that would say there's a man with charisma and political talent that would be king of the world if not for his overly progressive positions?
I mean at this point he's basically adopting the gamergate strategy. If they aren't already, they'll just start lying to invent controversies over liberal personalities and use bots to inflate numbers to trick advertisers into pulling.
To do this, you need to recruit and embrace people who aren't afraid of allying w/ black people or other minorities. Full stop. This is why we're seeing gains in well-off suburban districts (even if they're whiter than normal) and it's going to be the future as the nationwide southern strategy of white identity politics coalesces in rural areas across the country.
"Independent" is largely a name that translates to "Embarassed Republicans" in most of the country. Over the Bush and Obama years, we were seeing growth in the Dems and Independents, while the GOP was declining, leaving them a group that leans to the right as a whole. In the Northeast part of the country, it's a little bit different, but it still contains a significant racial component, as seen here when Angus King announced that he was leaving the Democrats using a very audible dog whistle:
When one of my family members told his friends at UKY he was a Dem, they responded "....but you're white!"
The Dems will never be a unified party because we're a patchwork coalition. This was a good tweet-series from Sean McElwee earlier today on this-
shinra-bansho
Member
Memes apparently substitute for whatever charisma is supposed to be.
At what point last year did favorables mean a goddamn thing?
I mean, seriously, how does this point keep getting raised when the candidate with the worst favorables since favorables have been tracked is currently posted up in the white house?
whyamihere
Banned
But like, why wouldn't you want the most popular politicians to be in the forefront of your movement and wish for the least popular ones to stay quieter? I don't understand why that's controversial.
I mean, I would prefer not to have Trump as the face of my party going into 2018 and 2020.
Also Democrats were dumb and put up the second-least popular nominee of all time because we're stupid. Including myself, who voted for her in the primary.
I mean, I would prefer not to have Trump as the face of my party going into 2018 and 2020.
Also Democrats were dumb and put up the second-least popular nominee of all time because we're stupid. Including myself, who voted for her in the primary.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Many fans of Sanders were openly bashing Hillary throughout the election in 2016.
BlastProcessing
Member
I think the idea that party labels are irrelevant is something that greatly benefits the GOP. In the same way that the GOP has benefited from destroying Unions, they benefit from destroying parties. The GOP's bread and butter is destroying the concept of the collective.
But hey, if you don't think it's an asset or a hinderance, you should't have a real problem with people like me who still champion the concept of party identification.
From my perspective, if there was ever a time to get messy, it's now. We just got our asses kicked. We are near rock bottom (God, I hope this is rock bottom), and now is the time to rebuild. I don;t want to keep shying away from the hard decisions. I would argue that we have been doing that for the last 10 years and it really hasn't gone great.
Probably, but I have seen some wacky cults of personality in my time. In this age, where everything is super polished, Sanders's imperfections actually worked for him. They gave him a certain credibility. I think there is a very good lesson there for future politicians.
You can find unity by identifying with that patchwork. I definitely agree that minorities are key. As far as I'm concerned, the core of this party are black women. Start there and build out.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
I want the democrats to march on D.C. like the gotham city police at the end of Dark Knight Rises and start a massive street fight with republicans.
Basileus777
Member
The part where Hillary's awful favorables did in fact matter.
Sanders voters came home at the polls.
shinra-bansho
Member
Well there's the rub. Is the personality enhancing the party or movement if that's the terminology we're using. Or are they just acting to enhance themselves as a personality.
Biden is building a war chest for himself and his inevitable laughable campaign as a walking gaffe.
Sanders is collecting his own personal mailing list, which he has no intention of sharing.
Clinton is really just on a book tour.
If you think Bernie would have done better, you're learning the wrong lessons.
The problem is that we, as voters, don't have any control over influencing and implementing the lessons that should be learned (Hillary should have never been running this cycle to begin with) because a large reason she ran unopposed was because Obama actively tilted the scales for her behind the scenes.
Basileus777
Member
This wasn't my argument. I was not speaking in general but of this specific instance. I'd rather Bernie called himself a Democrat, but him not doing so is not going to have much of a measurable impact on anything. No one other than Democratic insiders care that Bernie calls himself an independent.
I refuse to believe that Hillary's favorables mattered in an election year where literally nobody else's did.
whyamihere
Banned
Yes.
Eh, I would say, while I don't normally buy the Bernie or Buster being something from outside the Twitter:
Jill Stein 2012 -> 2016
PA: .37% -> .81%
WI: .25% -> 1.04%
MI: .46% -> 1.07%
Were they all Bernie voters? idk. But the Green gains in marginal seats came from somewhere, and they were people on the Left who did not like Hillary Clinton.
I mean... that's not fair to Bernie.
And Clinton just launched her PAC and keeps making overtures about her role in the Resistance, so it seems a bit more than a book tour.
BlastProcessing
Member
I don't think it has much of an effect on him and his message, he has found a way to make it all work. It's something that he has worked his whole career perfecting. I do think it has an effect on the party's message, especially as it moves into the future.
whyamihere
Banned
I didn't say who I thought would've done better because I'm not a psychic or have the ability to transcend the timeline.
Also, Hillary tilted the scales for herself behind the scenes. She should never have run. Shame on her.
I genuinely don't think Pence sees himself as anything other than a loyal foot soldier for Trump. He doesn't have that Machiavelli in him.
In an election that close, everything matters.
Basileus777
Member
But by literally nobody you just mean Trump.
Abinash117
Member
I largely agree, however, a big part of the independents are very ideological and they don't seem to want to work with - rather they want to change the Democratic Party in the image of their own without the concerns of the social and interest groups that make up the Democratic Party.
The a lot of the independents that Bernie draws in are more of a long term liability. Suburban voters, many of Obama-Trump voters, and many young voters is what Dems should focus on in terms of getting new people.
It is tomorrow. Where are my bombs?
whyamihere
Banned
I mean, I don't know if that's fair to Sanders and I don't agree that Clinton is on a book tour, or the equivalent of. I think she actively wants to be a part of the "resistance" movement, as her aides have stated. How does that manifest? Is it her PAC giving to smaller progressive groups behind the scenes? Yay! Is it her talking about how Comey and the DNC and everyone else besides her cost her the election? Eh. I'm less happy about that because she's so divisive and so many people we need to win over hate her.
The Trump team seems to love when Hillary Clinton comes back up in the conversation. I'd rather not give them a distraction.
Basileus777
Member
Perhaps, but that's such a small margin that only mattered because of Clinton's failings elsewhere.
One of the significant things I think we saw in how this cycle played out (and the toxicity especially) was that Sanders was the second choice of many Trump voters. We know that in WV nearly 40% of Sanders' primary voters wouldn't pick him over Trump, and that stat makes me think that a lot of that support would have been illusory in a general, with a large portion of those people who were attracted to Bernie's populism being even more attracted to populism when it was seasoned with racism.
Nope.
Republicans with higher favorables still got creamed by Trump.
Bernie Sanders still got creamed by millions of votes.
The two candidates with the worst favorables made it to the general.
Who you like is not the same as who you'll vote for.
whyamihere
Banned
I agree that Clinton herself is largely responsible for her own issues. However, that margin difference would've won her MI and WI.
Basileus777
Member
A lot of that support was just Dixiecrats in closed primaries voting for Sanders because they hated Clinton/Obama, and yeah illusory.
So Trump then (whose favorables rose among Republicans as he won). And Bernie losing doesn't mean that his favorables were meaningless, that's a pretty poor takeaway from last year's Democratic primary where a relatively unknown socialist extended the primary contest against the chosen candidate because a lot of people didn't like her.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Ben Carson had higher favorable ratings than anyone and look where he ended up.
Aaron Strife
Banned
It'll be interesting to see what kind of legislation we see the 2020 field push should Democrats gain control of either chamber. Anything that passes would likely be vetoed by Pence anyway, seems like a perfect opportunity to showboat for your platform proposals.
I would agree with this if Dems didn't keep getting hit by friendly fire from Bernie. For her many faults, Hillary at least isn't wondering aloud whether or not Jon Ossoff is a progressive while enthusiastically referring to anti-choice candidates like Heath Mellow as "true progressives." Bernie has a history of hurting his allies, intentionally (Planned Parenthood) or otherwise (Ossoff). It's why I regretted supporting him during the primaries for as long as I did. When he's out stumping for Dems, him putting his foot in his mouth almost seems to be his default state. He has had real moments of brilliance, to be sure, but those are few and far between.
I agree. It reminded me of, fittingly enough, Hillary's base towards the tail-end of the 2008 primary where it was becoming clearer and clearer she had no path to the nomination. It wasn't so much that she had broadened her base as she had consolidated the anti-Obama vote.
I mean. He lost the primaries. All the candidates he's made a show of backing have lost.
He's added to the conversation, of course. But in a discussion of favorables we're generally talking about getting elected and getting others elected, not policy positions. And on that front...nope, his favorables haven't meant shit.
whyamihere
Banned
Sure. But Kasich probably would've done even better against Hillary than Trump. Sometimes, favorables doesn't mean who you'd vote for, but sometimes, it might. And with an election this close, we could've used someone with better favorables than Hillary. That's on us.
I mean, all of the candidates that he's backed post-election have made significant gains on Hillary's margins? What a weird argument.
Oh sure, he's a dumb dumb about this stuff, and that's one of the reasons it's hard for me to support him.
Also, the only two elections we've had that have gone from R->D post election have been Our Revolution backed, so???? Granted, they're state legislative races, but it's sort of an odd complaint?
- Status