|
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 February 12 2017 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2017 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2017 03:03 Plansix wrote:
I think the current irritation is that the super progressives take the "we told you so" high ground, while also saying Clinton didn't earn their votes. The primaries were rigged in Clinton favor(forget several million votes), so the whole "earn peoples votes" argument doesn't apply here. The discussion is circular, frustrating and will not matter a year from now. Well, we did tell you so, so we do have the high ground. Hopefully we're going to use this high ground to destroy incorrect arguments like "a centrist has a better chance of getting elected by default because America", rather than just to assert superiority with no purpose. We can be wrong too, and I'm sure you have examples where we have been wrong. It's never fun to be wrong, I understand that, and especially not when that caused orange to be the new black, but at some point we're going to have to move on from this and we need to move in the right direction. But you need the centrist votes to win. Do you think you are going to get them by talking down to centrist? I understand that it is the default state of liberals to talk down to Republicans, but I don't think its going to be any more effective on middle of the road democrats. I get the joy of being right, but at some point bury the hatchet. See this is a conversation where TM and oneofthem are explaining why Trump has been caused not by Clinton but by the evil leftists. And when I react to this clearly incorrect belief, I'm told that I should instead bury the hatchet. That doesn't sound like burying the hatchet to me. That just sounds like accepting that you're the one with the hatchet.
Okay, so far left progressives blame Trump on centrists for nominating Hillary, and centrists blame the far left for their protest votes. The latter seems more directly causal to Trump winning to me, but maybe that's because I'm closer to the centrist camp.
If we had another Hillary v Bernie primary coming up we would have to settle this difference, but since we don't, can't we all come together and just resist Trump?
|
On February 12 2017 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2017 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2017 03:03 Plansix wrote:
I think the current irritation is that the super progressives take the "we told you so" high ground, while also saying Clinton didn't earn their votes. The primaries were rigged in Clinton favor(forget several million votes), so the whole "earn peoples votes" argument doesn't apply here. The discussion is circular, frustrating and will not matter a year from now. Well, we did tell you so, so we do have the high ground. Hopefully we're going to use this high ground to destroy incorrect arguments like "a centrist has a better chance of getting elected by default because America", rather than just to assert superiority with no purpose. We can be wrong too, and I'm sure you have examples where we have been wrong. It's never fun to be wrong, I understand that, and especially not when that caused orange to be the new black, but at some point we're going to have to move on from this and we need to move in the right direction. But you need the centrist votes to win. Do you think you are going to get them by talking down to centrist? I understand that it is the default state of liberals to talk down to Republicans, but I don't think its going to be any more effective on middle of the road democrats. I get the joy of being right, but at some point bury the hatchet. See this is a conversation where TM and oneofthem are explaining why Trump has been caused not by Clinton but by the evil leftists. And when I react to this clearly incorrect belief, I'm told that I should instead bury the hatchet. That doesn't sound like burying the hatchet to me. That just sounds like accepting that you're the one with the hatchet.
I see, well I didn't have the full context for that specific discussion. I don't blame the progressives for Clinton losing. My comment was more about how the discussion is frustrating in general and not really productive. Pointing fingers rarely is.
|
On February 12 2017 03:40 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2017 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2017 03:03 Plansix wrote:
I think the current irritation is that the super progressives take the "we told you so" high ground, while also saying Clinton didn't earn their votes. The primaries were rigged in Clinton favor(forget several million votes), so the whole "earn peoples votes" argument doesn't apply here. The discussion is circular, frustrating and will not matter a year from now. Well, we did tell you so, so we do have the high ground. Hopefully we're going to use this high ground to destroy incorrect arguments like "a centrist has a better chance of getting elected by default because America", rather than just to assert superiority with no purpose. We can be wrong too, and I'm sure you have examples where we have been wrong. It's never fun to be wrong, I understand that, and especially not when that caused orange to be the new black, but at some point we're going to have to move on from this and we need to move in the right direction. But you need the centrist votes to win. Do you think you are going to get them by talking down to centrist? I understand that it is the default state of liberals to talk down to Republicans, but I don't think its going to be any more effective on middle of the road democrats. I get the joy of being right, but at some point bury the hatchet. See this is a conversation where TM and oneofthem are explaining why Trump has been caused not by Clinton but by the evil leftists. And when I react to this clearly incorrect belief, I'm told that I should instead bury the hatchet. That doesn't sound like burying the hatchet to me. That just sounds like accepting that you're the one with the hatchet. Okay, so far left progressives blame Trump on centrists for nominating Hillary, and centrists blame the far left for their protest votes. The latter seems more directly causal to Trump winning to me, but maybe that's because I'm closer to the centrist camp. If we had another Hillary v Bernie primary coming up we would have to settle this difference, but since we don't, can't we all come together and just resist Trump?
I don't blame centrists for nominating Hillary. I blame Hillary for losing. I think that's an important distinction. I don't blame people for liking Hillary better than Bernie as a candidate, I think democratic socialism and liberalism are two completely sane directions for government and I wouldn't criticize you simply for liking the latter over the former.
As a centrist, there are some lessons that you can learn from this loss. "I should be a progressive" is not one of them, that's not my place to judge. But we could do away with some of the narratives that plagued the primary: electability of a centrist, similitude between Bernie and Hillary, sexism, depiction of the other side as extreme, or my favourite, the notion that because Bernie is going to be attacked by Republicans and lose popularity, it's better to go for the candidate that is already attacked and is already unpopular.
Btw obviously we should resist Trump, but I think that's a given.
|
On February 12 2017 03:34 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 03:29 Acrofales wrote:On February 12 2017 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2017 03:03 Plansix wrote:
I think the current irritation is that the super progressives take the "we told you so" high ground, while also saying Clinton didn't earn their votes. The primaries were rigged in Clinton favor(forget several million votes), so the whole "earn peoples votes" argument doesn't apply here. The discussion is circular, frustrating and will not matter a year from now. Well, we did tell you so, so we do have the high ground. Hopefully we're going to use this high ground to destroy incorrect arguments like "a centrist has a better chance of getting elected by default because America", rather than just to assert superiority with no purpose. We can be wrong too, and I'm sure you have examples where we have been wrong. It's never fun to be wrong, I understand that, and especially not when that caused orange to be the new black, but at some point we're going to have to move on from this and we need to move in the right direction. You're assuming that just because Hillary lost, she was less electable than Bernie. The latter does not follow from the former. We simply have no idea how Bernie would have done. Small consolation is that he could not have done worse. But what-if scenarios are really pointless here. Bernie list the primaries, which were definitely unfair, which is a crying shame and the DNC should fix that, and try to repair the damage that did. But standing on your high ground and gloating, is both unfounded and rather silly. She didn't just lose. She lost to Donald J. Freaking Trump. But you know, that's all right, there's already a lot of progress for this conversation in what you have said here. "We have no idea who would do better" is much much better than the "She's obviously more electable" that we had before.
Yes and Bernie lost to her. Clinton losing to Trump hardly reflects well on Bernie. He lost in an election where the voters are more left than the average voter. A group of voters where he should have the advantage. You can say that the primaries were unfair (I agree) but Trump had the whole Republican party against him and he still won.
|
On February 12 2017 03:25 Velr wrote:
Maybe, the US is in fact not less left than europe, maybe the normal left in the us just didnt have a voice? It tried with obama and he dissapointed... maybe there is a sizeable real left in the US that is just fed up enough to call bullshit when they get served bullshit.
Eh...? Pretty normal social-democratic labour-like parties would be considered close to communist in the US. The whole spectrum is strongly turned right over there. They want low taxes, low fuel prices and very little involvement from the government. They never got the benefits of free education, healthcare and social rights, so they do not know what they are missing.
It is just not a social-democratic country, like most of Europe.
|
My new goal is to not just label people because it make it easier to argue with them. Expect people who invert camera controls in video games. Literally monsters.
|
On February 12 2017 03:50 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 03:34 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2017 03:29 Acrofales wrote:On February 12 2017 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2017 03:03 Plansix wrote:
I think the current irritation is that the super progressives take the "we told you so" high ground, while also saying Clinton didn't earn their votes. The primaries were rigged in Clinton favor(forget several million votes), so the whole "earn peoples votes" argument doesn't apply here. The discussion is circular, frustrating and will not matter a year from now. Well, we did tell you so, so we do have the high ground. Hopefully we're going to use this high ground to destroy incorrect arguments like "a centrist has a better chance of getting elected by default because America", rather than just to assert superiority with no purpose. We can be wrong too, and I'm sure you have examples where we have been wrong. It's never fun to be wrong, I understand that, and especially not when that caused orange to be the new black, but at some point we're going to have to move on from this and we need to move in the right direction. You're assuming that just because Hillary lost, she was less electable than Bernie. The latter does not follow from the former. We simply have no idea how Bernie would have done. Small consolation is that he could not have done worse. But what-if scenarios are really pointless here. Bernie list the primaries, which were definitely unfair, which is a crying shame and the DNC should fix that, and try to repair the damage that did. But standing on your high ground and gloating, is both unfounded and rather silly. She didn't just lose. She lost to Donald J. Freaking Trump. But you know, that's all right, there's already a lot of progress for this conversation in what you have said here. "We have no idea who would do better" is much much better than the "She's obviously more electable" that we had before. Yes and Bernie lost to her. Clinton losing to Trump hardly reflects well on Bernie. He lost in an election where the voters are more left than the average voter. A group of voters where he should have the advantage. You can say that the primaries were unfair (I agree) but Trump had the whole Republican party against him and he still won.
It is Bernie's fault for losing to Clinton. He should have focused on the southern states waaay more and way faster than he did. My understanding of the situation is that Bernie really didn't think he could win at all, and so he created a strategy that was about getting his message to influence Clinton policy as much as possible rather than a strategy that could get him to top Clinton as a candidate, and only changed way later when he realized he was not super far behind. Given from where he started in the polls and in terms of name recognition, plus the system of the primary that you mentioned and the types of narratives that were floating, I can't say that he was incorrect to do so. But his strategy clearly played a part in his loss and there is something to learn about that too.
|
why does losing have to involve a "fault" and be someone's "fault", can't it just be an outcome that happens sometimes?
and how is one to apportion "fault" for such a thing? and what layers?
partly I think people are reacting to your choice and use of the word fault nebuch.
|
On February 12 2017 04:07 zlefin wrote:
why does losing have to involve a "fault" and be someone's "fault", can't it just be an outcome that happens sometimes?
and how is one to apportion "fault" for such a thing? and what layers?
partly I think people are reacting to your choice and use of the word fault nebuch.
Possibly, yeah. We can certainly use other words if you want, I don't plan to prosecute Hillary for losing to Donald. I really dislike the notion that someone loses an election because of the people who didn't vote for them. This is the perfect framing for repeating the same mistakes, and given what Trump represents for the world I would really appreciate it if you didn't repeat the same mistakes.
|
On February 12 2017 04:12 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 04:07 zlefin wrote:
why does losing have to involve a "fault" and be someone's "fault", can't it just be an outcome that happens sometimes?
and how is one to apportion "fault" for such a thing? and what layers?
partly I think people are reacting to your choice and use of the word fault nebuch.
Possibly, yeah. We can certainly use other words if you want, I don't plan to prosecute Hillary for losing to Donald. I really dislike the notion that someone loses an election because of the people who didn't vote for them. This is the perfect framing for repeating the same mistakes, and given what Trump represents for the world I would really appreciate it if you didn't repeat the same mistakes.
I didn't make mistakes. so saying "you" there is kinda funny. even meaning you americans, many americans didn't make mistakes; so how to assign which ones made a mistake, and which exact mistake they made is a difficult issue. and of course what systemic changes would reduce the incidence of mistakes.
you may dislike the notion, that's understandable, but that doesn't mean the notion is false (nor am I necessarily claiming it's true). there are many ways of looking at things which have some validity, but are imperfect representations.
certainly it's most productive to focus on the question what could you have done differently.
but it's hard for people to be optimal all the time, especially when there's some validity to the argument that someone else had a morally blameworthy action.
|
On February 12 2017 04:17 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 04:12 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2017 04:07 zlefin wrote:
why does losing have to involve a "fault" and be someone's "fault", can't it just be an outcome that happens sometimes?
and how is one to apportion "fault" for such a thing? and what layers?
partly I think people are reacting to your choice and use of the word fault nebuch.
Possibly, yeah. We can certainly use other words if you want, I don't plan to prosecute Hillary for losing to Donald. I really dislike the notion that someone loses an election because of the people who didn't vote for them. This is the perfect framing for repeating the same mistakes, and given what Trump represents for the world I would really appreciate it if you didn't repeat the same mistakes. I didn't make mistakes. so saying "you" there is kinda funny. even meaning you americans, many americans didn't make mistakes; so how to assign which ones made a mistake, and which exact mistake they made is a difficult issue. and of course what systemic changes would reduce the incidence of mistakes. you may dislike the notion, that's understandable, but that doesn't mean the notion is false (nor am I necessarily claiming it's true). there are many ways of looking at things which have some validity, but are imperfect representations. certainly it's most productive to focus on the question what could you have done differently. but it's hard for people to be optimal all the time, especially when there's some validity to the argument that someone else had a morally blameworthy action.
Just because you voted correctly doesn't mean you didn't make any mistakes, fwiw. But obviously I didn't mean you personnally, as you correctly noted.
I don't think the notion is false because I dislike it, I think it's factually false. That's not how democracy has ever worked, and to be honest I struggle to think of anything that has ever worked like that.
|
I see where Magpie and oneofthem are coming from in criticizing leftists who are just there to bash the system. I get why they say these people aren't worth courting favor with because they're never going to be happy with the system regardless of what you give them. But I think it's disingenuous to label all Bernie supporters this way. If the ultra-progressive left made up the entirety of Bernie's support, he would never have reached the level of support he did.
I agree with Nebuchad's assessment here. Criticism of Hillary is not synonymous with criticism of the center-left's ideology. It's just criticism of Hillary as a candidate that wasn't able to beat one of the worst candidates in history.
|
On February 12 2017 03:34 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 03:29 Acrofales wrote:On February 12 2017 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2017 03:03 Plansix wrote:
I think the current irritation is that the super progressives take the "we told you so" high ground, while also saying Clinton didn't earn their votes. The primaries were rigged in Clinton favor(forget several million votes), so the whole "earn peoples votes" argument doesn't apply here. The discussion is circular, frustrating and will not matter a year from now. Well, we did tell you so, so we do have the high ground. Hopefully we're going to use this high ground to destroy incorrect arguments like "a centrist has a better chance of getting elected by default because America", rather than just to assert superiority with no purpose. We can be wrong too, and I'm sure you have examples where we have been wrong. It's never fun to be wrong, I understand that, and especially not when that caused orange to be the new black, but at some point we're going to have to move on from this and we need to move in the right direction. You're assuming that just because Hillary lost, she was less electable than Bernie. The latter does not follow from the former. We simply have no idea how Bernie would have done. Small consolation is that he could not have done worse. But what-if scenarios are really pointless here. Bernie list the primaries, which were definitely unfair, which is a crying shame and the DNC should fix that, and try to repair the damage that did. But standing on your high ground and gloating, is both unfounded and rather silly. She didn't just lose. She lost to Donald J. Freaking Trump. But you know, that's all right, there's already a lot of progress for this conversation in what you have said here. "We have no idea who would do better" is much much better than the "She's obviously more electable" that we had before.
Exactly what I think when I hear the popular vote arguments. No, it should've been a blowout because this is Donald J Trump. 3 million run up in the coasts is pathetic.
Fix the party apparatus so Democratic primary voters and not party elites (getting the right endorsements and aid from the biased structure) have more of a say from the outset. Then future candidates must earn their primary votes. Also, weak bench overall ... not a lot of up-and-comers from state governments or younger national representatives.
|
On February 12 2017 04:47 TheYango wrote:But I think it's disingenuous to label all Bernie supporters this way. If the ultra-progressive left made up the entirety of Bernie's support, he would never have reached the level of support he did.
Bingo. As I've said a million times, nothing highlights the Clinton campaign's incompetence quite as colorfully as losing Wisconsin. Wisconsin is the perfect example of what group of people lost her the election. She assumed this traditionally left-leaning group with support her, even though it had ALREADY left her during the primary. Bernie beat her in all the same ways Trump ultimately beat her. But her and her campaign's idiocy and arrogance prevented them from responding and taking Bernie's shtick seriously. They relied on identity politics instead of giving a very disgruntled group what they needed.
|
On February 12 2017 04:37 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 04:17 zlefin wrote:On February 12 2017 04:12 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2017 04:07 zlefin wrote:
why does losing have to involve a "fault" and be someone's "fault", can't it just be an outcome that happens sometimes?
and how is one to apportion "fault" for such a thing? and what layers?
partly I think people are reacting to your choice and use of the word fault nebuch.
Possibly, yeah. We can certainly use other words if you want, I don't plan to prosecute Hillary for losing to Donald. I really dislike the notion that someone loses an election because of the people who didn't vote for them. This is the perfect framing for repeating the same mistakes, and given what Trump represents for the world I would really appreciate it if you didn't repeat the same mistakes. I didn't make mistakes. so saying "you" there is kinda funny. even meaning you americans, many americans didn't make mistakes; so how to assign which ones made a mistake, and which exact mistake they made is a difficult issue. and of course what systemic changes would reduce the incidence of mistakes. you may dislike the notion, that's understandable, but that doesn't mean the notion is false (nor am I necessarily claiming it's true). there are many ways of looking at things which have some validity, but are imperfect representations. certainly it's most productive to focus on the question what could you have done differently. but it's hard for people to be optimal all the time, especially when there's some validity to the argument that someone else had a morally blameworthy action. Just because you voted correctly doesn't mean you didn't make any mistakes, fwiw. But obviously I didn't mean you personnally, as you correctly noted. I don't think the notion is false because I dislike it, I think it's factually false. That's not how democracy has ever worked, and to be honest I struggle to think of anything that has ever worked like that.
i'm of course entirely aware of the first point you made; but I also noted the issue with even saying it in a "you americans" sense.
it'd depend in part on what exactly you mean by "someone loses an election because of the people who didn't vote for them",
and on which ethical frameworks for voting and decision-making are being used, there are several plausible and reasonable frameworks one can use.
you made a statement, but how people interpret what you meant by that statement can vary quite widely; and subtle shades of meaning + varying partisan interpretations + partisan bias can lead to quite different interpretations.
probably not really worth going through the detail for though.
PS some of this stuff is kinda like a team lost a match in dota, and they're raging at their teammates.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 12 2017 04:47 TheYango wrote:
I see where Magpie and oneofthem are coming from in criticizing leftists who are just there to bash the system. I get why they say these people aren't worth courting favor with because they're never going to be happy with the system regardless of what you give them. But I think it's disingenuous to label all Bernie supporters this way. If the ultra-progressive left made up the entirety of Bernie's support, he would never have reached the level of support he did.
I agree with Nebuchad's assessment here. Criticism of Hillary is not synonymous with criticism of the center-left's ideology. It's just criticism of Hillary as a candidate that wasn't able to beat one of the worst candidates in history.
the hardcore segment is maybe 15-25% of bernie voters, but the problem is their influence on the fencesitters.
we know that political identity plays a strong role in how people receive and interpret news. attacking hillary on her vulnerable points from within 'the left' just plays much better than if it's republicans attacking her.
coming from 'the left,' attacks and various dubious tier commentary/stylized news directed against hillary have the ability to dampen enthusiasm and peel away voters, and we all know the negative attacks against hillary from the left didn't stop at all through election day.
given how close the final numbers were, the marginal loss of support for hillary in a few states was very instrumental, particularly florida and michigan. had she won those two she would be prez.
the other issue i see is the continued downplaying of trump's strength as a candidate. yes, he polled very badly, but if we are going to look at this thing hindsight, the huge turnout of disgruntled voters in the midwest/rust belt was also a huge swing that was not anticipated. we have to take this and the ultimate partyline loyalty of suburban republicans into account when evaluating his strength as a candidate. the activation of this segment of the population is, or has the potential to be a tidal shift.
this is not only relevant for assessing the 2016 election but also for assessing 2018 and 2020. assuming that trump would be held responsible for his mishaps may not hold true, especially if he manages to pass huge tax cuts and continues to drive a wedge between urban and rural voters. getting him out in 2020 is still a huge challenge, unless the dems get united behind someone with broader appeal, such as jason kander
|
On February 12 2017 05:43 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 04:47 TheYango wrote:
I see where Magpie and oneofthem are coming from in criticizing leftists who are just there to bash the system. I get why they say these people aren't worth courting favor with because they're never going to be happy with the system regardless of what you give them. But I think it's disingenuous to label all Bernie supporters this way. If the ultra-progressive left made up the entirety of Bernie's support, he would never have reached the level of support he did.
I agree with Nebuchad's assessment here. Criticism of Hillary is not synonymous with criticism of the center-left's ideology. It's just criticism of Hillary as a candidate that wasn't able to beat one of the worst candidates in history. the hardcore segment is maybe 15-25% of bernie voters, but the problem is their influence on the fencesitters. we know that political identity plays a strong role in how people receive and interpret news. attacking hillary on her vulnerable points from within 'the left' just plays much better than if it's republicans attacking her. coming from 'the left,' attacks and various dubious tier commentary/stylized news directed against hillary have the ability to dampen enthusiasm and peel away voters, and we all know the negative attacks against hillary from the left didn't stop at all through election day. given how close the final numbers were, the marginal loss of support for hillary in a few states was very instrumental, particularly florida and michigan. had she won those two she would be prez.
Yes, but that is her problem to address. This is one of the core problems with a lot of democrats. They complain about how people perceive things, receive news(bitch about fox news), but fail to do anything to address it but throw their hands up in the air.
|
On February 12 2017 05:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 05:43 oneofthem wrote:On February 12 2017 04:47 TheYango wrote:
I see where Magpie and oneofthem are coming from in criticizing leftists who are just there to bash the system. I get why they say these people aren't worth courting favor with because they're never going to be happy with the system regardless of what you give them. But I think it's disingenuous to label all Bernie supporters this way. If the ultra-progressive left made up the entirety of Bernie's support, he would never have reached the level of support he did.
I agree with Nebuchad's assessment here. Criticism of Hillary is not synonymous with criticism of the center-left's ideology. It's just criticism of Hillary as a candidate that wasn't able to beat one of the worst candidates in history. the hardcore segment is maybe 15-25% of bernie voters, but the problem is their influence on the fencesitters. we know that political identity plays a strong role in how people receive and interpret news. attacking hillary on her vulnerable points from within 'the left' just plays much better than if it's republicans attacking her. coming from 'the left,' attacks and various dubious tier commentary/stylized news directed against hillary have the ability to dampen enthusiasm and peel away voters, and we all know the negative attacks against hillary from the left didn't stop at all through election day. given how close the final numbers were, the marginal loss of support for hillary in a few states was very instrumental, particularly florida and michigan. had she won those two she would be prez. Yes, but that is her problem to address. This is one of the core problems with a lot of democrats. They complain about how people perceive things, receive news(bitch about fox news), but fail to do anything to address it but throw their hands up in the air.
or, perhaps they are taking some measures to address it, but are also griping about it some?
and unsurprisingly, you hear more about the griping than the boring work of addressing it, so you think it's mostly griping with little real planning work.
especially since the real work is often done in committee structures and more behind the scenes; not in secret of course, just not something glaringly obvious. so easy to mix if you're not looking for it.
or maybe not. i'ts hard to say,.
|
Trump received no shortage of criticism from the right as well. It's not like Hillary was the only candidate subject to criticism within her own camp.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 12 2017 05:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 05:43 oneofthem wrote:On February 12 2017 04:47 TheYango wrote:
I see where Magpie and oneofthem are coming from in criticizing leftists who are just there to bash the system. I get why they say these people aren't worth courting favor with because they're never going to be happy with the system regardless of what you give them. But I think it's disingenuous to label all Bernie supporters this way. If the ultra-progressive left made up the entirety of Bernie's support, he would never have reached the level of support he did.
I agree with Nebuchad's assessment here. Criticism of Hillary is not synonymous with criticism of the center-left's ideology. It's just criticism of Hillary as a candidate that wasn't able to beat one of the worst candidates in history. the hardcore segment is maybe 15-25% of bernie voters, but the problem is their influence on the fencesitters. we know that political identity plays a strong role in how people receive and interpret news. attacking hillary on her vulnerable points from within 'the left' just plays much better than if it's republicans attacking her. coming from 'the left,' attacks and various dubious tier commentary/stylized news directed against hillary have the ability to dampen enthusiasm and peel away voters, and we all know the negative attacks against hillary from the left didn't stop at all through election day. given how close the final numbers were, the marginal loss of support for hillary in a few states was very instrumental, particularly florida and michigan. had she won those two she would be prez. Yes, but that is her problem to address. This is one of the core problems with a lot of democrats. They complain about how people perceive things, receive news(bitch about fox news), but fail to do anything to address it but throw their hands up in the air. she's not involved in this mess anymore. at some point the activist leftists have to take responsibility for what they write and say. it's just not going to happen though.
if you mean during the campaign, she really did make a lot of concessions and got a lot of centrists angry about some of them, such as the dumb plan of free college. it's just that these concessions had no impact with some voters. media lack of coverage of policy, and the depth of loathing against hillary were factors here. recall some of you guys were downplaying the damage from scars left by the primary, that part was wrong. you don't turn around people who believe hillary is the spawn of satan in a few months.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
