|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 22 2016 10:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 10:18 Nyxisto wrote:On December 22 2016 10:14 LegalLord wrote:
It's interesting how the logic of "anyone but Hillary is at fault for her loss" apologists goes.
Is it "your party" and the Sandernistas don't get to put their not-Democrat in charge? Fine, but don't expect loyalty from them.
Is it the duty of all good Sandernistas to come to the aid of Hillary Clinton and vote for her? Then they are right to expect that they get their fair share for it. No one owes Hillary a vote, she has to earn them, and if she didn't that's on her.
It's also rather humorous how most defenses of her flawed approach to campaigning pretty much implicitly say, "there simply wasn't any way she could have beaten Donald Trump." Progress starts with admitting fault and paving a way forward from there.
Hell, by these standards, "she lost because she was a woman" identity politics so-called "logic" makes sense in comparison. I wouldn't really moralise this heavily, when two parties with differing interests come together which both have more in common with each other than with a third party they ought to cooperate. If one party is smaller than the other they'll usually have to make more concessions. Sanders supporters apparently did not turn out for Hillary, so now they have to live with Trump just like everyone else, which a genuine Sanders supporter could never want. This isn't about anybody's favourite sports team, it's about getting policies that you want turned into law. The gloating against Hillary from the left just shows that some Sanders supporters genuinely did not care about politics and turned this into a cage fight. If Sanders lost outright with no obvious DNC collusion (and if you want to play the denial game, we could use "the perception of collusion" instead), and she made a genuine effort to win over the Sanders base, it would be fine to take the "you can't get everything you want, you have to compromise" stance. As it stands, the Sanders crowd perceived betrayal and let said sentiment be felt in the ballot box. Trump is worth a severe "fuck you" to Clinton and the Democrats for Sanders diehards such as GH, it seems, so I guess they got some of what they wanted. The shared psychosis from Democrats in denial for the foreseeable future will be interesting to observe.
I don't dispute the collusion, I honestly haven't read up on the issue much and apparently people are still debating about the actual impact, I'm saying that even if the DNC process was shady, this still was a completely minuscule issue compared to a Trump win for everybody who genuinely cares about liberal and progressive politics.
If you're just participating because you want to be part of 'the revolution' and don't give a crap about actual politics, well then this is the kind of outcome you get. Do you think Evangelicals and Libertarians liked Trump any more than Sanders supporters liked Hillary? Still they turned out like drones because Conservatives will vote for anybody the party puts up.
Which is a pretty solid strategy in a two party system. You're supposed to fight the other party, not yourself
|
obviously Clinton didn't do enough to appeal to people who weren't already committed to voting for her. blaming people for who they vote for seems useless and it seems it would be much more beneficial to figure out why the didn't vote for you and fix it for the next election. This kind of circular arguing seems to not be accomplishing anything. especially when the disagreement seems to be on what exactly happened
|
On December 22 2016 10:35 Nebuchad wrote:
I'd just like to highlight that we're having this conversation about how social democrats and liberals should behave to each other because someone thinks that Clinton was cornered into picking Kaine by leftists. The logic presented in this claim is "Look, some social democrats hate it when you create place for social democrats in your administration (This presentation isn't coherent with the facts, as Mohdoo and Nevuk have shown) - I guess I'm forced to choose a liberal instead" (This conclusion wouldn't even be coherent with the argument if the facts were coherent with it in the first place). This is a fiction, and a fairly unbelievable one at that. We cannot go from that fiction to discussing how we should unite as a party.
Magpie is basically putting the blame on leftists for everything bad that happened to democrats (ever?) and then wondering why there's no unity between us. Unity comes with a honest partnership. If the partnership is going to be that I help you get what you want and I take the blame when shit goes wrong, that's not called unity, that's called having a boss. Given that we shouldn't be allies logically and politically, there's no reason why any leftist should accept this.
I did not place blame on leftists on anything outside of the failed attempt to get Elizabeth Warren as VP. She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren.
Hillary then had a choice of continuing the Warren route, a person who she has had disagreements with in the past for zero gain from the sander's crowd, or Kaine, the safe bet candidate who she was already close with.
That is the only thing being argued.
The flaws of Bernie, his movement, and his followers are completely disconnected from their sabotage of a Warren VP nomination.
|
On December 22 2016 10:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 10:35 Nebuchad wrote:
I'd just like to highlight that we're having this conversation about how social democrats and liberals should behave to each other because someone thinks that Clinton was cornered into picking Kaine by leftists. The logic presented in this claim is "Look, some social democrats hate it when you create place for social democrats in your administration (This presentation isn't coherent with the facts, as Mohdoo and Nevuk have shown) - I guess I'm forced to choose a liberal instead" (This conclusion wouldn't even be coherent with the argument if the facts were coherent with it in the first place). This is a fiction, and a fairly unbelievable one at that. We cannot go from that fiction to discussing how we should unite as a party.
Magpie is basically putting the blame on leftists for everything bad that happened to democrats (ever?) and then wondering why there's no unity between us. Unity comes with a honest partnership. If the partnership is going to be that I help you get what you want and I take the blame when shit goes wrong, that's not called unity, that's called having a boss. Given that we shouldn't be allies logically and politically, there's no reason why any leftist should accept this. I did not place blame on leftists on anything outside of the failed attempt to get Elizabeth Warren as VP. She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren. Hillary then had a choice of continuing the Warren route, a person who she has had disagreements with in the past for zero gain from the sander's crowd, or Kaine, the safe bet candidate who she was already close with. That is the only thing being argued. The flaws of Bernie, his movement, and his followers are completely disconnected from their sabotage of a Warren VP nomination.
So I googled "why Clinton picked Kaine" and I did a keyword search on "Warren" for the results. Your narrative of "Damn it I really wanted to pick Warren but those damn social democrats made it impossible" is not very popular - at least partly, I hope, because it doesn't make any logical sense.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/22/why-hillary-clinton-picked-tim-kaine-for-vp/?utm_term=.f83edb717765
"If Clinton felt as though she needed to either court the liberal left or more broadly shake up the race, she would have chosen someone like Sen. Cory Booker, an African American, or Elizabeth Warren, a liberal icon. But Clinton didn't, and, in truth, I'm not sure how close she ever came to picking anyone other than Kaine."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-vp-pick-tim-kaine-226013
"After Donald Trump’s somewhat more polished performance Thursday night in his speech accepting the Republican nomination, even Democrats who had been pushing for a flashier choice like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren or New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker were sobered by what they saw as a challenging four months ahead. “After last night, she needs to make the safest choice possible,” said a former senior White House aide."
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/three-reasons-why-hillary-clinton-chose-tim-kaine
"There have been complaints from the left that Kaine isn’t progressive enough, which isn’t exactly surprising. (The Warren wing of the Democratic Party isn’t so-named for nothing: it wanted Elizabeth Warren to get the job.)"
"If Team Clinton was seriously worried that Bernie Sanders’s supporters would defect to the Green Party in large numbers, or stay at home on Election Day, it might have taken a chance on Warren as Vice-President, despite the fact that the senator from Massachusetts and Clinton have long had a cool relationship."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-tim-kaine-clinton-vice-president-20160725-story.html
"The selection of Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.) as presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's running mate has dismayed some liberals and supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), who were hoping for a more progressive choice such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren"
"Naturally, there will be downsides to Kaine's nomination. Some of Bernie Sanders' voters are surely disappointed, having hoped for an outspoken liberal such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren."
|
personally I think Clinton should have gone with someone like Martin Heinrich and really tried to sell herself to the undecideds on why she was a good choice for the presidency instead of just repeating that Trump was a terrible choice for president and she wasn't him. I'm talking interviews and playing up her faith more. would it have worked? no idea but it could have helped to to have a VP who got an A rating by the NRA for some of the people who voted trump despite the fact that they disliked him.
but thats just my 20 20 hindsight into the whole thing.
I'd say strategy more than the pick itself hurt. Read one thing that said Clinton abandoned the strategy that got her elected in New York where she went to the communities and engaged with them.
Dems just need to slightly refocus themselves and focus a little less on the minority rights platform (in terms of emphasizing it, not in terms of their actual positions.) Try to go back to a big tent idea. Be anti wall street but be pro small buisness. Talk to people, make them feel like you care
A lot of them seem to get it. Perez, Ellison, Think the ag head. I've seen two Democratic lead pushes for helping coal miners since the election. plus Republicans will probably start passing religious rights stuff which will mobilize minority groups. Also be anti workers rights.
2018 will be an interesting test. they have a good chance to pick up NM I'm pretty sure also Kansas is a disaster
now if Trump isn't magically the greatest president ever and Democrats don't make good gains then I'm for all out revolution.
|
On December 22 2016 10:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 10:35 Nebuchad wrote:
I'd just like to highlight that we're having this conversation about how social democrats and liberals should behave to each other because someone thinks that Clinton was cornered into picking Kaine by leftists. The logic presented in this claim is "Look, some social democrats hate it when you create place for social democrats in your administration (This presentation isn't coherent with the facts, as Mohdoo and Nevuk have shown) - I guess I'm forced to choose a liberal instead" (This conclusion wouldn't even be coherent with the argument if the facts were coherent with it in the first place). This is a fiction, and a fairly unbelievable one at that. We cannot go from that fiction to discussing how we should unite as a party.
Magpie is basically putting the blame on leftists for everything bad that happened to democrats (ever?) and then wondering why there's no unity between us. Unity comes with a honest partnership. If the partnership is going to be that I help you get what you want and I take the blame when shit goes wrong, that's not called unity, that's called having a boss. Given that we shouldn't be allies logically and politically, there's no reason why any leftist should accept this. I did not place blame on leftists on anything outside of the failed attempt to get Elizabeth Warren as VP. She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren. Hillary then had a choice of continuing the Warren route, a person who she has had disagreements with in the past for zero gain from the sander's crowd, or Kaine, the safe bet candidate who she was already close with. That is the only thing being argued. The flaws of Bernie, his movement, and his followers are completely disconnected from their sabotage of a Warren VP nomination.
You've dominated this thread for like 5 or 10 pages now with your nonsense. This isn't a bar room discussion where you can just spin whatever bullshit story line you want to on whatever topic comes up. Everyone knows what you think about "berniebros." Everyone knows that you have no capacity for nuance and no tendency towards deep thought. But could you chill a bit before offering your 1 cent on everything? You aren't even coherently wrong anymore. I don't know what your first paragraph even means here. It's unclear whether you blame leftists for attempting to make Warren VP or for attempting to prevent her from becoming VP or for some illogical combination of the two. You are just swinging wildly from one hyperbolic characterization to the next.
|
On December 21 2016 15:42 TanGeng wrote:
But it wasn't even the super delegates giving Bernie the worst of a bad treatment. Instead it was the media outlets continuously dousing the Bernie campaign with negative coverage or coverage favoring Hilary the establishment candidate.
The data available on the topic points to this assertion being false. Sanders received less coverage than HRC, but his coverage was significantly more positive in tone overall, both during the pre-primary season and during the primary.
Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle
A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of the 2016 presidential candidates in the year leading up to the primaries. This crucial period, labeled “the invisible primary” by political scientists, is when candidates try to lay the groundwork for a winning campaign—with media exposure often playing a make or break role.
The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015. Source
News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences
Our earlier study found that, in 2015, Sanders received the most positive coverage of any of the presidential contenders. That pattern carried into the primaries. During the period from January 1 to June 7, positive news statements about Sanders outpaced negative ones by 54 percent to 46 percent (see Figure 2). In fact, Sanders was the only candidate during the primary period to receive a positive balance of coverage. The other candidates’ coverage tilted negative, though in varying degrees. Clinton’s coverage was 53 percent negative to 47 percent positive, which, though unfavorable on balance, was markedly better than her 2015 coverage when she received by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. During that year-long period, two-thirds (69 percent to 31 percent) of what was reported about Clinton was negative in tone. Source
Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage
The biggest news outlets published more negative stories about Hillary Clinton than any other presidential candidate — including Donald Trump — from January 2015 to April 2016, according to an analysis of hundreds of thousands of online stories.
Clinton has not only been hammered by the most negative coverage but the media also wrote the smallest proportion of positive stories about her, reports Crimson Hexagon, a social media software analytics company based out of Boston. Source
|
|
|
I have seen far more effort to prove that Hillary did everything she could and it just wasn't enough to beat Donald Trump, than I have to genuinely understand where she went wrong and what her own campaign missteps were. Mostly just looking for boogeymen - Russia, Comey, racists, sexists, Sandernistas, Henry Kissinger and his withholding of an endorsement, and so on. Very little in the way of analyzing strategic blunders and poorly conceived policy positions to go with it.
|
On December 22 2016 14:31 LegalLord wrote:
I have seen far more effort to prove that Hillary did everything she could and it just wasn't enough to beat Donald Trump, than I have to genuinely understand where she went wrong and what her own campaign missteps were. Mostly just looking for boogeymen - Russia, Comey, racists, sexists, Sandernistas, Henry Kissinger and his withholding of an endorsement, and so on. Very little in the way of analyzing strategic blunders and poorly conceived policy positions to go with it.
None of those are why she lost. I mean, they helped, but strategically speaking money was spent on the wrong states during the final week. Better Gotv planning was necessary when the states you lose are that close of a margin.
That's boring though, hence the media pointing to other sexier things like Russia.
|
On December 22 2016 14:31 LegalLord wrote:
I have seen far more effort to prove that Hillary did everything she could and it just wasn't enough to beat Donald Trump, than I have to genuinely understand where she went wrong and what her own campaign missteps were. Mostly just looking for boogeymen - Russia, Comey, racists, sexists, Sandernistas, Henry Kissinger and his withholding of an endorsement, and so on. Very little in the way of analyzing strategic blunders and poorly conceived policy positions to go with it.
I hope you got a chance to read the New Republic's roundtable featuring cautious introspection against the shotgun approach to throwing blame. It's basically what you just pointed at. When you lose, you're supposed to analyze why you lost no matter how much it hurt and how many hard things you have to confront. Otherwise, you inculcate bad lessons for next time. I'd rather have a vibrant party to keep mine accountable tbh (and you'd be right to say some aspects of that will never happen, but what the competition is doing right now in post-game analysis is laughable).
So like what happened with that Obama machine anyhow? Wait it was race and racism, duhh.
GORDON-REED: He didn’t have to go very far to be too left for some people. For the first black president, there were all kinds of psychic things going on that just don’t apply for a “regular” person. He couldn’t have gone too far left and won.
PAINTER: This is the only place I’m sort of separating myself from John. Because you, John, are thinking of this context without the racial dynamics that played a big part in narrowing his room to maneuver.
SULLIVAN: He won more white voters in 2012 than Hillary Clinton just did, OK? He was always popular with white people in the Midwest. This whole racial thing is just so myopic.
Wait, what was it about Hillary Clinton again?
SULLIVAN: She’s a terribly unpopular person. Horrible: no inspiration, no political skills, complete mediocrity. So that’s the mistake—allowing the Clintons to keep control of the party and then allowing this mediocrity to be his successor.
PAINTER: [Gesturing to the other women around the table] Can we just say: We entirely disagree with that.
JAFFE: Well, I don’t know. I think Hillary Clinton was a lousy candidate.
GORDON-REED: I don’t think she was a lousy candidate. But for a candidate to lose to someone who’s never been in the military, who’s never held public office—he’s not like any candidate who’s ever run before. So there were other forces at play here, most notably her gender.
PAINTER: She’s an older woman.
GORDON-REED. That’s right. It’s clear that many people have a hard time paying attention to older women as anything other than mothers or grandmothers.
SULLIVAN: She’s just a bad candidate and a terrible politician whom large numbers of people despised. You can see it in the polls: She represented everything that people hate about Washington.
PAINTER: Yeah, because she’s an older woman.
Right, gender not identity.
But can we at least get back to the unifying message not welcoming minorities vs white identity politics, women vs men?
SULLIVAN: His other failure is not doing enough to confront the identity politics of the left. Because the left’s obsession with race and gender and all the other Marxist notions helped create the white identity politics that is now going to run this country.
[Laughter and shouting]
GORDON-REED: Marxist? Marxist identity politics?
SULLIVAN: That’s what has allowed white identity politics to emerge and to win. And insofar as the left is going to respond to Trump’s election by intensifying that, it’s going to empower the forces of Trump even further. Obama didn’t stand up firmly and solidly enough when the left was taken over by this madness.
|
On December 22 2016 14:31 LegalLord wrote:
I have seen far more effort to prove that Hillary did everything she could and it just wasn't enough to beat Donald Trump, than I have to genuinely understand where she went wrong and what her own campaign missteps were. Mostly just looking for boogeymen - Russia, Comey, racists, sexists, Sandernistas, Henry Kissinger and his withholding of an endorsement, and so on. Very little in the way of analyzing strategic blunders and poorly conceived policy positions to go with it.
lack of going to battleground states after the one trip she did lack of a consistent economic message.
I kind of agree with you though, she heavily campaigned in Florida and Penn and still lost both.
|
|
|
a lot of it I think was inability to offer any change. It's hard to run a campaign on "we're going to do exactly what we did for the last 8 years." especially when you don't necessarily have the charisma to pull it off. Bush is the only one I can think of who pulled it off.
some guy came up with a generic calculator based on economic stuff and found that a generic Democrat would lose to a generic Republican by 10 percentage points. so it was already a disadvantage
|
The past 6 years have shown that there is definitely a rightward pressure in the country at the moment. It doesn't mean that Trump had to win though. A leftist like Sanders with less baggage would have probably beat Trump by denying him his WWC advantage.
|
On December 22 2016 11:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 10:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 10:35 Nebuchad wrote:
I'd just like to highlight that we're having this conversation about how social democrats and liberals should behave to each other because someone thinks that Clinton was cornered into picking Kaine by leftists. The logic presented in this claim is "Look, some social democrats hate it when you create place for social democrats in your administration (This presentation isn't coherent with the facts, as Mohdoo and Nevuk have shown) - I guess I'm forced to choose a liberal instead" (This conclusion wouldn't even be coherent with the argument if the facts were coherent with it in the first place). This is a fiction, and a fairly unbelievable one at that. We cannot go from that fiction to discussing how we should unite as a party.
Magpie is basically putting the blame on leftists for everything bad that happened to democrats (ever?) and then wondering why there's no unity between us. Unity comes with a honest partnership. If the partnership is going to be that I help you get what you want and I take the blame when shit goes wrong, that's not called unity, that's called having a boss. Given that we shouldn't be allies logically and politically, there's no reason why any leftist should accept this. I did not place blame on leftists on anything outside of the failed attempt to get Elizabeth Warren as VP. She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren. Hillary then had a choice of continuing the Warren route, a person who she has had disagreements with in the past for zero gain from the sander's crowd, or Kaine, the safe bet candidate who she was already close with. That is the only thing being argued. The flaws of Bernie, his movement, and his followers are completely disconnected from their sabotage of a Warren VP nomination. So I googled "why Clinton picked Kaine" and I did a keyword search on "Warren" for the results. Your narrative of "Damn it I really wanted to pick Warren but those damn social democrats made it impossible" is not very popular - at least partly, I hope, because it doesn't make any logical sense. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/22/why-hillary-clinton-picked-tim-kaine-for-vp/?utm_term=.f83edb717765"If Clinton felt as though she needed to either court the liberal left or more broadly shake up the race, she would have chosen someone like Sen. Cory Booker, an African American, or Elizabeth Warren, a liberal icon. But Clinton didn't, and, in truth, I'm not sure how close she ever came to picking anyone other than Kaine." http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-vp-pick-tim-kaine-226013"After Donald Trump’s somewhat more polished performance Thursday night in his speech accepting the Republican nomination, even Democrats who had been pushing for a flashier choice like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren or New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker were sobered by what they saw as a challenging four months ahead. “After last night, she needs to make the safest choice possible,” said a former senior White House aide." http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/three-reasons-why-hillary-clinton-chose-tim-kaine"There have been complaints from the left that Kaine isn’t progressive enough, which isn’t exactly surprising. (The Warren wing of the Democratic Party isn’t so-named for nothing: it wanted Elizabeth Warren to get the job.)" "If Team Clinton was seriously worried that Bernie Sanders’s supporters would defect to the Green Party in large numbers, or stay at home on Election Day, it might have taken a chance on Warren as Vice-President, despite the fact that the senator from Massachusetts and Clinton have long had a cool relationship." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-tim-kaine-clinton-vice-president-20160725-story.html"The selection of Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.) as presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's running mate has dismayed some liberals and supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), who were hoping for a more progressive choice such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren" "Naturally, there will be downsides to Kaine's nomination. Some of Bernie Sanders' voters are surely disappointed, having hoped for an outspoken liberal such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren."
You're right that news articles about Kaine's nomination released after the fact that he was nominated has the Hillary team in lock step siding with the Kaine pick. But its also not hard to just look at the actual events being discussed.
June 7th: Hillary Clinton tells ABC news that world could be ready for 2 Woman Ticket
June 9th: Warren gets on Rachel Maddow and tells the world she endorses Hillary
June 10th: Warren visits Hillary's DC Home for private discussion
June 23rd: Hillary and Warren do a dual event for the first time after rumors of Warren for VP pick comes out
The response to this? Protests, burning of effigies, attacks on social media, etc... It was apparent that Warren was not going to be bringing the BernieBros to the fold.
July 27th, despite all the fanfare for Warren the month prior, Hillary takes the safe bet and picks Kaine.
Now if you wish to ignore what Hillary actually did the entire month before Kaine got picked for VP, then you can assume all you want about Kaine being a sure a thing. It simply requires you to blind yourself to the facts.
On December 22 2016 14:09 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 10:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 10:35 Nebuchad wrote:
I'd just like to highlight that we're having this conversation about how social democrats and liberals should behave to each other because someone thinks that Clinton was cornered into picking Kaine by leftists. The logic presented in this claim is "Look, some social democrats hate it when you create place for social democrats in your administration (This presentation isn't coherent with the facts, as Mohdoo and Nevuk have shown) - I guess I'm forced to choose a liberal instead" (This conclusion wouldn't even be coherent with the argument if the facts were coherent with it in the first place). This is a fiction, and a fairly unbelievable one at that. We cannot go from that fiction to discussing how we should unite as a party.
Magpie is basically putting the blame on leftists for everything bad that happened to democrats (ever?) and then wondering why there's no unity between us. Unity comes with a honest partnership. If the partnership is going to be that I help you get what you want and I take the blame when shit goes wrong, that's not called unity, that's called having a boss. Given that we shouldn't be allies logically and politically, there's no reason why any leftist should accept this. I did not place blame on leftists on anything outside of the failed attempt to get Elizabeth Warren as VP. She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren. Hillary then had a choice of continuing the Warren route, a person who she has had disagreements with in the past for zero gain from the sander's crowd, or Kaine, the safe bet candidate who she was already close with. That is the only thing being argued. The flaws of Bernie, his movement, and his followers are completely disconnected from their sabotage of a Warren VP nomination. You've dominated this thread for like 5 or 10 pages now with your nonsense. This isn't a bar room discussion where you can just spin whatever bullshit story line you want to on whatever topic comes up. Everyone knows what you think about "berniebros." Everyone knows that you have no capacity for nuance and no tendency towards deep thought. But could you chill a bit before offering your 1 cent on everything? You aren't even coherently wrong anymore. I don't know what your first paragraph even means here. It's unclear whether you blame leftists for attempting to make Warren VP or for attempting to prevent her from becoming VP or for some illogical combination of the two. You are just swinging wildly from one hyperbolic characterization to the next.
If you read any of those pages you would see that this started after I was responding to oBlade's comment that women had to block 1/3 of their friends on social media from harassment. I then jokingly replied that with the way BernieBros have treated Hillary and Warren its not a surprise that women had to do that.
Then berniebros popped in saying that there was no attacks on Warren. I showed otherwise.
Then they suggested that the attacks on Warrens had no negative side effects. I showed otherwise.
Then they suggest that I was attacking all leftist policies. This leads to my post you are quoting where literally tell them that my comment was simply pointing to Warren's possible VP pick.
My statements have not change from when I first started posting multiple pages ago. The way you guys have responded to my statements keep changing, but I have not.
oBlade pointed to the trend of women feeling attacked on social media. I then pointed to the two most popular female politicians being similarly attacked. Then guys like you pop in to tell me that the attacks on those women were justified. That's not hyperbole, that's literally you guys getting defensive over me pointing to an event that happened.
Now that I'm done reminding you what caused this discussion to begin with, lets get into you're inability to understand what I wrote.
You say:
"I don't know what your first paragraph even means here."
In regards to me saying:
"I did not place blame on leftists on anything outside of the failed attempt to get Elizabeth Warren as VP. She was heavily courted, put on talk shows along with planned touring events between the two. And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren."
You then try to accuse me of:
"It's unclear whether you blame leftists for attempting to make Warren VP or for attempting to prevent her from becoming VP"
When I explicitly said:
"And then everything got cancelled when BernieBros (the folks Hillary wanted to get from Warren) turned on Warren."
Now where was what I said lost? It was lost when you assumed that I was projecting malicious intent by BernieBros against Warren. I did not. I simply pointed out that Hillary spent about a month testing the waters for a Warren VP pick, and it didn't work because the response was negative. Which is exactly what I said in the paragraph you say you don't understand.
You then try to end your paragraph by saying:
"You are just swinging wildly from one hyperbolic characterization to the next."
Despite what you quoted has me saying:
"The flaws of Bernie, his movement, and his followers are completely disconnected from their sabotage of a Warren VP nomination."
Where I explicitly differentiate the loss of the Warren VP pick from my opinions of BernieBros. That is the opposite of swinging wildly from one thing to the next. Its literally me telling you that these are completely different topics that I am willing to discuss but that they should not be conflated.
|
not sure. but looking back he prob would have had a good chance. 1) change from whats current. 2) lack of baggage so Trump prob would have had to make it about policy (and he had no consistent policy).
the Dems should recover though. 2020 could be interesting. Like I said once I'm a huge supporter of Ige for 2024 but thats mainly so I don't have to think of an actual candidate. Most of the Anger was focused onto Hillary and the sort of machine of the Democratic party so with them out of the way they should have an ability to quickly reorient.
|
On December 22 2016 14:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 14:31 LegalLord wrote:
I have seen far more effort to prove that Hillary did everything she could and it just wasn't enough to beat Donald Trump, than I have to genuinely understand where she went wrong and what her own campaign missteps were. Mostly just looking for boogeymen - Russia, Comey, racists, sexists, Sandernistas, Henry Kissinger and his withholding of an endorsement, and so on. Very little in the way of analyzing strategic blunders and poorly conceived policy positions to go with it. I hope you got a chance to read the New Republic's roundtable featuring cautious introspection against the shotgun approach to throwing blame. It's basically what you just pointed at. When you lose, you're supposed to analyze why you lost no matter how much it hurt and how many hard things you have to confront. Otherwise, you inculcate bad lessons for next time. I'd rather have a vibrant party to keep mine accountable tbh (and you'd be right to say some aspects of that will never happen, but what the competition is doing right now in post-game analysis is laughable). So like what happened with that Obama machine anyhow? Wait it was race and racism, duhh.Show nested quote +
GORDON-REED: He didn’t have to go very far to be too left for some people. For the first black president, there were all kinds of psychic things going on that just don’t apply for a “regular” person. He couldn’t have gone too far left and won.
PAINTER: This is the only place I’m sort of separating myself from John. Because you, John, are thinking of this context without the racial dynamics that played a big part in narrowing his room to maneuver.
SULLIVAN: He won more white voters in 2012 than Hillary Clinton just did, OK? He was always popular with white people in the Midwest. This whole racial thing is just so myopic.
Wait, what was it about Hillary Clinton again?Show nested quote +
SULLIVAN: She’s a terribly unpopular person. Horrible: no inspiration, no political skills, complete mediocrity. So that’s the mistake—allowing the Clintons to keep control of the party and then allowing this mediocrity to be his successor.
PAINTER: [Gesturing to the other women around the table] Can we just say: We entirely disagree with that.
JAFFE: Well, I don’t know. I think Hillary Clinton was a lousy candidate.
GORDON-REED: I don’t think she was a lousy candidate. But for a candidate to lose to someone who’s never been in the military, who’s never held public office—he’s not like any candidate who’s ever run before. So there were other forces at play here, most notably her gender.
PAINTER: She’s an older woman.
GORDON-REED. That’s right. It’s clear that many people have a hard time paying attention to older women as anything other than mothers or grandmothers.
SULLIVAN: She’s just a bad candidate and a terrible politician whom large numbers of people despised. You can see it in the polls: She represented everything that people hate about Washington.
PAINTER: Yeah, because she’s an older woman.
Right, gender not identity.
But can we at least get back to the unifying message not welcoming minorities vs white identity politics, women vs men?Show nested quote +SULLIVAN: His other failure is not doing enough to confront the identity politics of the left. Because the left’s obsession with race and gender and all the other Marxist notions helped create the white identity politics that is now going to run this country.
[Laughter and shouting]
GORDON-REED: Marxist? Marxist identity politics?
SULLIVAN: That’s what has allowed white identity politics to emerge and to win. And insofar as the left is going to respond to Trump’s election by intensifying that, it’s going to empower the forces of Trump even further. Obama didn’t stand up firmly and solidly enough when the left was taken over by this madness.
Marxist identity politics? It's always good to hear people who have no idea what they are talking about on these panels.
|
Why does it have to be Warren vs Kaine? Warren is something of a one-track candidate and I don't like that aspect of her. Those who say she is overrated have a point. Unless you want to say that there just aren't enough candidates for VP that would be better for progressives than Kaine?
|
On December 22 2016 15:06 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
a lot of it I think was inability to offer any change. It's hard to run a campaign on "we're going to do exactly what we did for the last 8 years." especially when you don't necessarily have the charisma to pull it off. Bush is the only one I can think of who pulled it off.
some guy came up with a generic calculator based on economic stuff and found that a generic Democrat would lose to a generic Republican by 10 percentage points. so it was already a disadvantage
Bush had the one big advantage of any wartime president. The "status quo" message translates to "do you want to die?" in which majority of Americans are definitely a hard no, especially if the opponent is seen as wishy washy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
