|
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 15:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Reagen was also insanely popular. so that helped. Also the whole Dukakis tank incident. and the Willie Hortons ad. but we all know how quickly Bush went downhill.
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/syjfqsfwvewfitirmhboya.gif
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 22 2016 15:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 14:55 Danglars wrote: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. Marxist identity politics? It's always good to hear people who have no idea what they are talking about on these panels.
In the modern lingo I have often seen "Marxist" or "neo-Marxist" be a fancy way of saying "stupid shit that leftists say."
It doesn't hurt that many self-described Marxists actually fall into that camp.
|
On December 22 2016 15:17 LegalLord wrote:
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?
Kaine has been involved heavily in her team's history and matched their plans for Florida and Texas (ie the spanish vote) which is why they had him doing stump speeches in spanish as well as pouring money into conservative states in an attempt to flip them (she got close).
I do not believe Warren would have even been in an actual short list if Bernie did not get so popular. Warren and Hillary don't have the friendliest of Histories and one of Warren's most popular vods is her bashing Hillary. But with the whole "angry young liberal" slant Sanders was able to leverage, its easy to see why Hillary would court Warren for a month.
|
I said before I think Heinrich would have have been a great choice. but that would have probably necessitated a mass pivot to center. Kaine was decent the strategy just didn't quite work especially in Florida (although exit polls of Latino voters in florida may have issues complicating matters) basically it won her Virginia and made Arizona and Texas closer (maybe won her NM too but not sure.)
but honestly Clinton's best bet may have been to pull an Arnold reelection campaign and basically do everything you can to make the other party like you.
long term trends are hopeful though. Texas could flip eventually down the road which would be massively massively important.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Evidently the trade votes were more important than the Hispanic votes - assuming that Kaine actually won over Hispanics. Which seems not to really be the case.
A substantial failure in strategy, at the very least, without even considering the progressive vote.
|
On December 22 2016 15:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 11:06 Nebuchad wrote: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.
That's not the only thing they say though. They also talk about how the progressives might be disappointed with that pick because they would have preferred Warren. Which is weird since, you know, it's so apparent to Clinton that Warren is going to bring in zero progressive votes that she has to reluctantly drop her even though she really wanted her so so much and pick Kaine instead, so you'd think the media would have an inkling of that reality.
|
On December 22 2016 15:22 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
I said before I think Heinrich would have have been a great choice. but that would have probably necessitated a mass pivot to center.
but honestly Clinton's best bet may have been to pull an Arnold reelection campaign and basically do everything you can to make the other party like you.
I recall when I found out the Kaine choice and almost threw a chair at the wall. Everything before then was so calculated and controlled and made so much sense. Then suddenly she picks her exact doppelganger. Establishment figure who technically has something cool about him if anyone actually cared to look it up, but was not favorable to either the far left or the deep center voters she needed to sway.
Like, low level strategy tells you that if you are X you pick a VP that is Y. Even children know that strategy. Heinrich would have been fine, a shit tonne of others would be fine. But man was Kaine the sign of something that couldn't be explained away.
Like, how do you lose a debate where the opponent literally lies non-stop and you could easily just call him out on it by memorizing when Trump did crazy shit? Bleh!
|
On December 22 2016 15:23 LegalLord wrote:
Evidently the trade votes were more important than the Hispanic votes - assuming that Kaine actually won over Hispanics. Which seems not to really be the case.
A substantial failure in strategy, at the very least, without even considering the progressive vote.
yeah I didn't understand why Trump didn't get hammered more over worker rights. Cause there is no way that he's pro that. if there was a VP candidate who was a labor champion I would go with that but the bench was pretty shallow.
for 2020 I want someone who will go to every state and find out what peoples concerns are. Heck I want someone who will go to states they have no chance of winning like Alabama and do that. show people that you want to help them and not just tell them what to do
|
On December 22 2016 15:28 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 15:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 11:06 Nebuchad wrote: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. That's not the only thing they say though. They also talk about how the progressives might be disappointed with that pick because they would have preferred Warren. Which is weird since, you know, it's so apparent to Clinton that Warren is going to bring in zero progressive votes that she has to reluctantly drop her even though she really wanted her so so much and pick Kaine instead, so you'd think the media would have an inkling of that reality.
Clinton did not need Warren for progressive votes, Hillary needed Warren for the berniebro votes specifically. If the only thing Warren was going to bring Hillary are progressives then simply being in the DNC will do that. Hillary's not going to pick a VP she does not have a great history with if it doesn't get the specific demographic she needs.
|
On December 22 2016 15:31 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 15:23 LegalLord wrote:
Evidently the trade votes were more important than the Hispanic votes - assuming that Kaine actually won over Hispanics. Which seems not to really be the case.
A substantial failure in strategy, at the very least, without even considering the progressive vote. yeah I didn't understand why Trump didn't get hammered more over worker rights. Cause there is no way that he's pro that. if there was a VP candidate who was a labor champion I would go with that but the bench was pretty shallow atm.
The DNC stance on labor has went into the shitter ever since they've decided to be the environmentalists party. Hard to be the pro union party for unions whose industries you're actively hampering and destroying.
The DNC needs to make a significant shift to take back the pro union message outside of legacy stump speeches and back into actual hills for politicians to die on the same way republicans treat pro-life as their hill to die on.
"I might be a shitty person, but I am pro-life and pro-guns, vote for me!" -EveryNoNameRepublicanThatSomehowGotTheFuckingMajorityAnyway
|
On December 22 2016 15:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 15:28 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 11:06 Nebuchad wrote: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. That's not the only thing they say though. They also talk about how the progressives might be disappointed with that pick because they would have preferred Warren. Which is weird since, you know, it's so apparent to Clinton that Warren is going to bring in zero progressive votes that she has to reluctantly drop her even though she really wanted her so so much and pick Kaine instead, so you'd think the media would have an inkling of that reality. Clinton did not need Warren for progressive votes, Hillary needed Warren for the berniebro votes specifically. If the only thing Warren was going to bring Hillary are progressives then simply being in the DNC will do that. Hillary's not going to pick a VP she does not have a great history with if it doesn't get the specific demographic she needs.
All right so replace progressive by social democrat in my sentence... It's pretty clear who we were talking about.
|
On December 22 2016 15:19 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 15:17 IgnE wrote:On December 22 2016 14:55 Danglars wrote: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. Marxist identity politics? It's always good to hear people who have no idea what they are talking about on these panels. In the modern lingo I have often seen "Marxist" or "neo-Marxist" be a fancy way of saying "stupid shit that leftists say." It doesn't hurt that many self-described Marxists actually fall into that camp.
Yeah? And a lot of God-fearing Christians hand out copies of Atlas Shrugged and are self-described Randians. That doesn't mean that a tv pundit who said "Because the right's obsession with Jesus and all the other Randian notions helped create the bigotry that is now going to run this country" or "Because the right's obsession with Atlas Shrugged and all the other Christian notions helped create the bigotry that is now going to run this country" would not be an idiot.
|
I was more referring to OHSA which I'm not sure has much to do with the environment but you are right that their general image has shifted that way
But I wouldn't mind a shift towards more conservationist and at least message wise.
|
On December 22 2016 15:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 15:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:28 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 11:06 Nebuchad wrote: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. That's not the only thing they say though. They also talk about how the progressives might be disappointed with that pick because they would have preferred Warren. Which is weird since, you know, it's so apparent to Clinton that Warren is going to bring in zero progressive votes that she has to reluctantly drop her even though she really wanted her so so much and pick Kaine instead, so you'd think the media would have an inkling of that reality. Clinton did not need Warren for progressive votes, Hillary needed Warren for the berniebro votes specifically. If the only thing Warren was going to bring Hillary are progressives then simply being in the DNC will do that. Hillary's not going to pick a VP she does not have a great history with if it doesn't get the specific demographic she needs. All right so replace progressive by social democrat in my sentence... It's pretty clear who we were talking about.
Yes, we are talking about the members of the BernieBro demographic that were specifically loud, visible, and were a left wing agent attempting to create a narrative of corruption. If picking the lady who was popular among that crowd did not get them to vote for her, then she had no reason to pick that lady.
Trying to throw random names on a demographic we already know about is a fairly strange way to attempt to argue with someone Nebuchad, please do better.
|
On December 22 2016 15:47 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
I was more referring to OHSA which I'm not sure has much to do with the environment but you are right that their general image has shifted that way
OSHA regulations is definitely something companies care about but I am not sure if OSHA actually dissuades union workers specifically.
The environment thing is mainly the US being anti-climate denial which means pushing for electric cars, less coal, less drilling, less strip mining, etc...
There's a reason the UK has Coal Miners represent the liberals fighting against Thatcher's iron fist. The opposite is now true here in the US where liberals are willing to get rid of jobs to save lizards.
|
On December 22 2016 15:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 15:19 LegalLord wrote:On December 22 2016 15:17 IgnE wrote:On December 22 2016 14:55 Danglars wrote: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. Marxist identity politics? It's always good to hear people who have no idea what they are talking about on these panels. In the modern lingo I have often seen "Marxist" or "neo-Marxist" be a fancy way of saying "stupid shit that leftists say." It doesn't hurt that many self-described Marxists actually fall into that camp. Yeah? And a lot of God-fearing Christians hand out copies of Atlas Shrugged and are self-described Randians. That doesn't mean that a tv pundit who said "Because the right's obsession with Jesus and all the other Randian notions helped create the bigotry that is now going to run this country" or "Because the right's obsession with Atlas Shrugged and all the other Christian notions helped create the bigotry that is now going to run this country" would not be an idiot.
I rarely find someone using terms as insults correlates with that person knowing what that term actually means in context.
|
On December 22 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 15:38 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:28 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 11:06 Nebuchad wrote: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. That's not the only thing they say though. They also talk about how the progressives might be disappointed with that pick because they would have preferred Warren. Which is weird since, you know, it's so apparent to Clinton that Warren is going to bring in zero progressive votes that she has to reluctantly drop her even though she really wanted her so so much and pick Kaine instead, so you'd think the media would have an inkling of that reality. Clinton did not need Warren for progressive votes, Hillary needed Warren for the berniebro votes specifically. If the only thing Warren was going to bring Hillary are progressives then simply being in the DNC will do that. Hillary's not going to pick a VP she does not have a great history with if it doesn't get the specific demographic she needs. All right so replace progressive by social democrat in my sentence... It's pretty clear who we were talking about. Yes, we are talking about the members of the BernieBro demographic that were specifically loud, visible, and were a left wing agent attempting to create a narrative of corruption. If picking the lady who was popular among that crowd did not get them to vote for her, then she had no reason to pick that lady. Trying to throw random names on a demographic we already know about is a fairly strange way to attempt to argue with someone Nebuchad, please do better.
So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it.
|
On December 22 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:38 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:28 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 11:06 Nebuchad wrote: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. That's not the only thing they say though. They also talk about how the progressives might be disappointed with that pick because they would have preferred Warren. Which is weird since, you know, it's so apparent to Clinton that Warren is going to bring in zero progressive votes that she has to reluctantly drop her even though she really wanted her so so much and pick Kaine instead, so you'd think the media would have an inkling of that reality. Clinton did not need Warren for progressive votes, Hillary needed Warren for the berniebro votes specifically. If the only thing Warren was going to bring Hillary are progressives then simply being in the DNC will do that. Hillary's not going to pick a VP she does not have a great history with if it doesn't get the specific demographic she needs. All right so replace progressive by social democrat in my sentence... It's pretty clear who we were talking about. Yes, we are talking about the members of the BernieBro demographic that were specifically loud, visible, and were a left wing agent attempting to create a narrative of corruption. If picking the lady who was popular among that crowd did not get them to vote for her, then she had no reason to pick that lady. Trying to throw random names on a demographic we already know about is a fairly strange way to attempt to argue with someone Nebuchad, please do better. So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it.
Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here:
"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 would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros.
When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question.
User was warned for this post
|
On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:38 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:28 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 11:06 Nebuchad wrote: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. That's not the only thing they say though. They also talk about how the progressives might be disappointed with that pick because they would have preferred Warren. Which is weird since, you know, it's so apparent to Clinton that Warren is going to bring in zero progressive votes that she has to reluctantly drop her even though she really wanted her so so much and pick Kaine instead, so you'd think the media would have an inkling of that reality. Clinton did not need Warren for progressive votes, Hillary needed Warren for the berniebro votes specifically. If the only thing Warren was going to bring Hillary are progressives then simply being in the DNC will do that. Hillary's not going to pick a VP she does not have a great history with if it doesn't get the specific demographic she needs. All right so replace progressive by social democrat in my sentence... It's pretty clear who we were talking about. Yes, we are talking about the members of the BernieBro demographic that were specifically loud, visible, and were a left wing agent attempting to create a narrative of corruption. If picking the lady who was popular among that crowd did not get them to vote for her, then she had no reason to pick that lady. Trying to throw random names on a demographic we already know about is a fairly strange way to attempt to argue with someone Nebuchad, please do better. So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it. Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here: "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 would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros. When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question.
I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"?
|
On December 22 2016 16:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 16:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:38 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 15:28 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 15:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 11:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 22 2016 10:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
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. That's not the only thing they say though. They also talk about how the progressives might be disappointed with that pick because they would have preferred Warren. Which is weird since, you know, it's so apparent to Clinton that Warren is going to bring in zero progressive votes that she has to reluctantly drop her even though she really wanted her so so much and pick Kaine instead, so you'd think the media would have an inkling of that reality. Clinton did not need Warren for progressive votes, Hillary needed Warren for the berniebro votes specifically. If the only thing Warren was going to bring Hillary are progressives then simply being in the DNC will do that. Hillary's not going to pick a VP she does not have a great history with if it doesn't get the specific demographic she needs. All right so replace progressive by social democrat in my sentence... It's pretty clear who we were talking about. Yes, we are talking about the members of the BernieBro demographic that were specifically loud, visible, and were a left wing agent attempting to create a narrative of corruption. If picking the lady who was popular among that crowd did not get them to vote for her, then she had no reason to pick that lady. Trying to throw random names on a demographic we already know about is a fairly strange way to attempt to argue with someone Nebuchad, please do better. So like I said in my last post that you're apparently trying not to answer, it's kinda weird that it was so apparent to Clinton that picking Warren was going to bring her zero votes from that demographic that she had to reluctantly drop Warren even though she really really wanted to pick her, and yet all of this media is talking about how picking Kaine is going to disappoint people from that demographic because he's not as leftwing as Warren. You'd think the media would be aware of that reality and reflect it. Since you don't read my posts that you quote I will simply put it back on right here: "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 would like to believe that when I say BernieBros that I mean "normal democrats, or left leaning democrats" but that's simply you not understanding that when I say BernieBros I fucking mean BernieBros. When the BernieBros decided to turn on Warren then Warren had fuck all to offer Hillary. In which case she had no reason to continue courting Warren. Just like I showed with specific time stamps on the specific actions done by both Hillary, Warren, and the BernieBro crowd. Actual democrats know that its about unity and so she didn't plan to cater to them. It was the BernieBros blasting social media with non-stop fox news rhetoric while claiming to be liberals that Hillary hoped to shut up with her VP pick of Warren. As i have said over and over again despite how much you attempt to accuse me of dodging a question I had already answered before you even showed up to ask said question. I'm just curious how many "BernieBros" you think are out there, vs how many "Hillbots"?
Are you suggesting Hillbots were the ones who called Elizabeth Warren a traitor? Were Hillbots the once attacking the Democratic party during the general election? Were Hillbots the once spouting never hillary when the GOP were promising to get rid of immgrants, wall off mexico, and kill syrians?
Wait a minute, that was the berniebros wasnt' it? Why wouldn't they? Isolationists who don't want to save syrians is a commonality between them and trump supporters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
