Bonen no Max'd
Banned
lmao love now that Corbyn's won we shifted the unelectable boogeyman back to McGovern
-
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 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
Corbyn didn't fucking win!
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
ask Theresa May how she feels about her victory then
sure, it's a shorthand, but my point was that "Corbyn shows how doomed a real leftist would be electorally" was the favorite boogeyman of libs until uh, they were totally wrong.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Corbyn didn't win in absolute terms, to be fair. The best way to describe the outcome of that election is 'it's complicated'.
benicillin
Banned
It was still a kind of victory, which is why we celebrate Dems making big gains in Republican strongholds.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Better than she would've about her defeat, probably?
Corbyn DID WELL but as people were fond of pointing out in the special congressional elections "doing better than before" isn't really enough to actually, you know, govern. Plus now the DUP is in government, that's fun.
Tbh if they it hadn't been a snap election called by May herself I doubt Corbyn would get the credit he has; it'd just be another "Tories fuck everything up and Labor still can't win elections" story. There's a strong schadenfreude component here.
It wasn't an acceptable outcome to the 2016 election. Why would it be one now? (we gained seats in both the Senate and House in '16, Clinton's loss is super-fucking complicated and the razor-thin margins mean that no, blaming just her is not the correct analysis.)
The Senate's an exception because of the realities of the map. We had a similar situation in either '00 or '02.
Deuce Deuce
Member
Well it was more than doing better than before. It was also doing better than expected. Not a "win" in technical terms, but Labour manged to turn things around from early polls.
The maps are still very rigged for the GOP in half the states (importantly, larger states like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Texas all have barely-constitutional maps).
(the following numbers discount third parties for simplicity's sake)
Clinton vote share in PA: basically 50%, but Dems send 5 of 18 congressmen(27%). Could gain 3-4 under "fair" maps.
Clinton vote share in TX: 44%, but Dems send 11 of 36 congressmen(31%). Could gain 4-5 seats under fair maps.
Clinton vote share in NC: 46%, but Dems send 3 of 13 seats (23%!). Could gain 3 seats under fair maps.
Optimistically you're getting 12 seats right there just from those states getting fair districting, halfway through the gap. So "permanent" minority's a bit overblown, but if we can't win a majority in 2018 then we're definitely not getting one until the new maps in 2022.
VendettaRed07
Member
You have to understand where people are at.
Hilary being considered more "moderate" then Bernie literally didn't help her at all. It did not help her draw support from suburband republicans. There was no cross party appeal.
If you ask any republicans they'd probably tel you there was no difference between Hillary or Sanders. At least discernible ones. They were both "far left". Hillary had far left image without the appeal to people actually on the far left.
Nobody watches long presidential forums or listens to nuanced discussion. It's not the 90s. We have twitter. Catch people and give them something to latch onto. If a "moderate" position really boils down to 140 characters of "that sounds nice but will be too hard", that's not a compelling message that will get anyone you want out to vote. People can say Bernie"s positions are too far left but until I hear a moderate with a message that actually amounts to something in a brief, concise manner I don't get how they are more appealing to anyone these days
BoogieWoogie
Banned
FYI, calls for Nixon's impeachment were 44% during Watergate. Isn't Trump's something like 41% right now?
It's not over...
What evidence is there to support this? Former Goldman Sachs executive Archie Parnell performed better than Quist and Thompson (and Ossoff, for that matter) and from what I recall he didn't get or even seek out Sanders' endorsement. Parnell mostly flew under the radar when these other candidates were getting national attention. If Parnell is anything to go by, the lesson moving forward shouldn't be "hug/run away from Bernie Sanders," it should be "try to avoid the national spotlight."
And I don't know why Hillary is even part of the conversation anymore. The party divide isn't even between Sanders/Clinton, it's between Sanders/Obama. Clinton was from the Obama wing of the party. Obama's endorsement pushed Perez over the top while Clinton was telling people it would be okay to support Ellison.
This is actually something Bernie would know a lot about considering some of the comments he made during the primary.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Which, honestly, I'm not sure how much of is directly attributable to Corbyn? The youth vote turnout is impressive but with May tripping over herself every 15 seconds there was a lot going on.
But the point is, people said Corbyn couldn't win Labour an election and then he... did not win them an election. He's not a counterpoint to the critique, not yet.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's not the gain that was important, it was the fact that parliament is now hung, which means that May depends on rock-solid Conservative support to pass anything, which won't happen because there are many Conservatives who are staunchly opposed to her.
The closest analogy to the US is something like: the Republicans control the Presidency, the Senate, and the House, they're expected to win the upcoming elections bigly, instead the Democrats, while they don't take the Presidency, win back the Senate and the House, leaving a lame-duck executive constantly forced to barter with its own party. It doesn't really translate well because of the presidential/parliamentary difference, though.
RumbleHumble
Banned
NEW CBO FOR NEW AND IMPROVED BCRA!: 15 Million uninsured by 2018!
https://twitter.com/GideonResnick/status/888072336393601025
But wait, there's more! 22 million by 2026!
Savings savings savings!
https://twitter.com/GideonResnick/status/888072336393601025
But wait, there's more! 22 million by 2026!
Savings savings savings!
If Murkowski, Paul, and Collins aren't even in the loop with leadership on this (due to their non-attendance last night), then it's over.
3 is enough to kill anything, 2 is enough to stop all business before McCain's issues are sorted.
Here's where I'm at: I believe we lose badly w/ Sanders as nominee.
I do believe Clinton was a bad candidate and shouldn't have been running, and Clinton's campaign's ideas to maximize gains was good, but their decision to not even try and minimize losses or replicate the Obama ground game were an absolute disasters and should never be replicated (this is where the 50-state shit Obama abandoned comes in so that you can have State parties taking care of this for you!)
But Clinton being a bad candidate does not mean that one must believe that Sanders was a good one!
The closest analogy to the US is literally the exact situation that's occurred right now w/ the GOP, where they have a fractured coalition and a powerless executive who can't accomplish anything.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Portman was never a deciding vote on this.
Yup yup yup. We gotta let the state and local parties set their own agenda and pick their own candidates. Top-down is not doing it for us, for a whole variety of reasons.
50 state strategy should be about funding and assisting the smaller parties as needed, rather than setting terms and picking favorites.
(Within reason, of course).
RumbleHumble
Banned
Guys, only 15 million people will lose insurance in 2018. Look! Look at how much better it is!
Futurevoid
Member
Yup. The public is always anti-establishment and votes against the President's party in midterms.
People are bad.
Real or fake
One thing I don't think younger people quite get is that this is normal for the GOP. This happened under Bush and would have happened under any R administration. (It also happened in Canada w/ Harper!) And due to the pendulum in US politics, it was inevitable.
I can't fucking tell. And that in itself is hilarious.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
He doesn't need confirmation for a temporary replacement though, right? It's eating him up that Sessions recused himself. I could see Saturday Night Massacre: The Sequel: The Reckoning: Origins going down. And since it's mostly Obama appointees, he'll have to fire a lot more than 2 people. Who's after Rosenstein?
In retrospect, Hillary won, just like Corbyn did.
Applying the lessons I learned from the UK election: this also means that ONLY Hillary could have pulled off this impressive victory, and this victory vindicates everything about her as a candidate and her ideology. Everyone in the left wing of the party should stand down and be ashamed of themselves for having opposed such an awesome victory.
Nothing lasts forever, obviously, but there've been swings throughout US history where one party was abnormally dominant for a generation or more, like the Republicans from 1860 to about 1900, or the Democrats from 1932 to 1964.
I could easily see the GOP becoming a generational minority because Trump will have made embracing diversity toxic amongst the party's base. I know the whole "permanent Dem majority" thing gets scorned and rightly so, but in the short term anti-Trump backlash puts Dems back in power, and this causes a rift between the Corporatist GOP establishment and the populist base, as the corporatists go back to ideas like Comprehensive Immigration Reform and other neoclassical focus points to try to hew towards latinos, wealthier immigrant groups, and high-education suburbanites while the base pushes for Duck Dynasty and Ted Nugent to be the face of the party.
So the GOP donor class gets in a protracted war with the Trumpkins (especially as more grifter Trumpkin-esque billionaires enter the donor class for a chance at that sweet redneck money), and they're stuck fighting each other instead of pushing outwards as demographics tick closer towards the Democratic side.
We could have had a political realignment come by in the 2020s, but i think Trump set that back. The redcaps, mostly 50-65 years old, are going to demand GOP candidates to their standards until they die out, so the GOP could be screwed until 2036.
The temp is taken from an existing appointee. If they refuse, they'll be fired too. And so on, until he either gets a yes-man or there's no one left.
The name of the person who said Yes to Nixon? Robert Bork. You might remember something happening to him later in his career.
Futurevoid
Member
Which would be Rosenstein as the Deputy AG so what would he accomplish since he detests him nearly as much as Sessions at the moment? The next in line would be the Associate Attorney General which I believe is currently Rachel Brand.
They are nearly identical to the BCRA score prior to the addition of the Cruz amendment.
These numbers don't seem any/much different than the last time the BCRA was scored do they?
FraudNewsCNN dragging Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/19/polit...bCNN072017donald-trump-six-months0710AMVODtop
991 tweets, 40 days golfing. 0 major legislation.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/19/polit...bCNN072017donald-trump-six-months0710AMVODtop
991 tweets, 40 days golfing. 0 major legislation.
RumbleHumble
Banned
Something about throwing lipstick on a pig. I'm from the mid-west.
As previously discussed, "purity test" is just a slur you use to indicate that you think a particular platform demand is unreasonable, so the answer is "at whatever point I personally think the platform should end".
That boring broad who hyped everyone over some bs tax returns talked about it months ago. Guess you been messing with that fake news.
benicillin
Banned
This article is straight fire.
VendettaRed07
Member
Also, Bernie being a bad candidate doesn't mean many of his ideas are bad. Really his healthcare plan is probably one of the only "new" things he is pushing for. College used to be affordable without crippling debt, we used to have much higher tax brackets for the wealthy, we used to spend less on War ( have spent significantly more since the 80s than we did in the 50s,60s, and 70s) we used to have more regulations and restrictions on the financial industry, we used to spend a lot on infrastructure (we also used to not have these trade deals but that's a different story). I don't think it's radical to present that we should reimplement many of the economic schemes we used to have beford trickle down fucked us all. I don't see a downside towards gravitating to these ideas because I don't see how the 90s moderate, corporate friendly left provides any decent future to young people or economic growth that doesn't all go to the same very small percentage of society.
The downside to this is that it's understandably a hard sell to many minority voters when you try and communicate something like that. And that is also a large reason why I think Bernie lost so badly in the south as well. I think it's possible for him to correct it; but it's more likely someone younger like Kamala Harris can marry the two ideas together because I don't think they are incompatible. People who are soft on big banks aren't going to start telling them they can't deny black applicants for small business loans because their name sounds too ethnic, etc.
The party needs to get tough because the current approach has not provided to its base what it wants. Neither the economic or social justice reforms we need and we aren't going to get it by twiddling our thumbs or toning down our message
Electric Eye
Banned
The Rorhabacher fallout has begun. The IC is sending a message to the GOP and Russia that they know who the moles are and everyone is being watched.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/top-rohrabacher-aide-fired-after-russia-revelations/534288/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/top-rohrabacher-aide-fired-after-russia-revelations/534288/
I feel like this thread has PTSD.
Bernie worked hard to get Hillary elected, and he's working hard for the Democrats now, despite still being kind of a dumbass on social justice. People need to let the primary go, and that means not advancing bizarre theories that Bernie caused Hillary to lose the election.
This does not at all need to be connected with the question of what the Democratic Party should do in the future, and people should really stop conflating the two because I'm pretty sure at this point it's deliberately intended to muddy the waters.
Bernie worked hard to get Hillary elected, and he's working hard for the Democrats now, despite still being kind of a dumbass on social justice. People need to let the primary go, and that means not advancing bizarre theories that Bernie caused Hillary to lose the election.
This does not at all need to be connected with the question of what the Democratic Party should do in the future, and people should really stop conflating the two because I'm pretty sure at this point it's deliberately intended to muddy the waters.
https://twitter.com/samthielman/status/887987198146097152
In the NYT interview, Trump remarked how awkward it was to sit next to Akie Abe, Shinzo's wife, for the two hours of dinner at G20 because Akie didn't speak a word of English.
Then with a link to her speaking to the Ford Foundation showing that she speaks better English than Trump does.
In the NYT interview, Trump remarked how awkward it was to sit next to Akie Abe, Shinzo's wife, for the two hours of dinner at G20 because Akie didn't speak a word of English.
Then with a link to her speaking to the Ford Foundation showing that she speaks better English than Trump does.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
And he brought his Japanese translator!!
We really need a term for this that doesn't involve user names
Or we could just stop doing this
If this happens it's a watershed. It would be the end of legitimate governance.
But many people troubled and disturbed, what more do we need?
BlastProcessing
Member
Do we just have different definitions of the word "consequences"? Maybe ZERO means something different when it's all in caps?
PoliGAFfing
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked