|
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 April 23 2017 15:10 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2017 14:44 Gahlo wrote:On April 23 2017 14:36 ChristianS wrote:On April 23 2017 13:53 a_flayer wrote:
Nah man, it was Russias fault. Russia and misogynists. Its got nothin to do with the Democratic party, they are blameless and ran a flawless campaign. Has anyone said this? Or are you just being a troll? He's being a bit flippant because this is an argument that's been rehashed over and over. Some people here think the DNC was stupid in how they ran the campaign/who they backed in the primary. Some people here think that identity politics and outside influence had some effect and is reasonable to say it could have tipped the scales in the election. Others, though I haven't seen anybody explicitly espouse it here, are certain that the Democratic party lost because of no fault of their own. It's the song on the radio and is always on somehow and you just wish you could skip it every time it comes up. Has any commentator tried to argue the DNC didn't fuck up? Because I sure haven't seen that. Joshua Micah Marshall is the most Establishment Democrat commentator I read, and he still said Comey/Russia/etc. might have barely tipped the election, but proceeded to talk a lot about how the Dems messed up to let it get that close in the first place. It's this weird strawman that LL, GH and others keep erecting, burning to the ground, and erecting again. In a close election any small force that helped Trump, or any small force that could have helped Clinton and didn't, could be described as "why Trump won." And it would be true for all of them, because any small thing could have tipped the scale. But if no one is saying the Democrats didn't fuck up, then stop with the strawman and let's have an actual conversation.
You basically see it all the time on twitter or in comment threads though. People say that she ran a good campaign because she won the popular vote, or that her flaw was underestimating the racism and sexism of the American public, or that she lost because of divisive statements from Bernie that alienated lefties from voting, or RUSSIA, or EMAILS, or Comey. You have the weird spectacle of people going to anti-Trump rallies with signs that say "I'm With Her", who can't shut up about her popular vote win, who double down on this notion of her as the most qualified, best candidate ever who was unfairly targeted by the media, anti-feminists and other reactionary forces in society in order to put women down.
You should read Amanda Marcotte if you want the "Hillary did nothing wrong" point of view as well.
I think we should care about the Democratic Party because they are corrupt and ineffective, who can't unite to sabotage Trump when they are a minority, and who can't unite to pass legislation when they are the majority. I've read this a lot, and I agree with the idea: liberals care more about process than policy and will therefore always lose. They are not a good opposition party, and when they are back into power in they won't be able to undo the damage Trump has done because they are easy targets for corporate donors that prefer this or that policy which Trump enacted.
|
On April 23 2017 16:45 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2017 15:10 ChristianS wrote:On April 23 2017 14:44 Gahlo wrote:On April 23 2017 14:36 ChristianS wrote:On April 23 2017 13:53 a_flayer wrote:
Nah man, it was Russias fault. Russia and misogynists. Its got nothin to do with the Democratic party, they are blameless and ran a flawless campaign. Has anyone said this? Or are you just being a troll? He's being a bit flippant because this is an argument that's been rehashed over and over. Some people here think the DNC was stupid in how they ran the campaign/who they backed in the primary. Some people here think that identity politics and outside influence had some effect and is reasonable to say it could have tipped the scales in the election. Others, though I haven't seen anybody explicitly espouse it here, are certain that the Democratic party lost because of no fault of their own. It's the song on the radio and is always on somehow and you just wish you could skip it every time it comes up. Has any commentator tried to argue the DNC didn't fuck up? Because I sure haven't seen that. Joshua Micah Marshall is the most Establishment Democrat commentator I read, and he still said Comey/Russia/etc. might have barely tipped the election, but proceeded to talk a lot about how the Dems messed up to let it get that close in the first place. It's this weird strawman that LL, GH and others keep erecting, burning to the ground, and erecting again. In a close election any small force that helped Trump, or any small force that could have helped Clinton and didn't, could be described as "why Trump won." And it would be true for all of them, because any small thing could have tipped the scale. But if no one is saying the Democrats didn't fuck up, then stop with the strawman and let's have an actual conversation. A strawman you say? Show nested quote +Hillary Clinton Explains Why She Really Lost to Trump
Almost four months after her stunning defeat, Hillary Clinton on Thursday primarily blamed her loss to President Donald Trump on four factors that were beyond her control.
The former Democratic presidential candidate cited Russian meddling in the election, FBI Director James Comey's involvement toward the end of the race, WikiLeaks' theft of emails from her campaign chairman, and misogyny.
Russia. "A foreign power meddled with our election," she said, labeling it "an act of aggression." She called for an independent, bipartisan investigation into the Kremlin's involvement and said the probe should examine whether there was collusion with the Trump campaign.
Misogyny. "Certainly, misogyny played a role. That has to be admitted," she said. Clinton added that "some people — women included — had real problems" with the idea of a woman president.
Comey. Clinton cited as damaging to her campaign his unusual decision to release of a letter on October 28, less than two weeks before Election Day, that said he was looking at additional emails related to the FBI probe of the former secretary of state's use of a private server.
WikiLeaks. Weeks of disclosures of stolen emails from the personal account of then-Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, were particularly harmful, Clinton said, adding that it "played a much bigger role than I think many people yet understand." SourceNow, granted, she also admits there were "other reasons" (which remain undefined) but these were the main factors according to her. Not some strawwoman, Hillary Clinton says this herself. Rather than looking at the factors that were "within her control" she personally deems it necessary to highlight that the "major factors" were "beyond her control". And that's just utter bullshit. That's why I'm being "flippant".
Ah, as a Dutchman I'm sure you'll appreciate that "she stuck her head out above the wheat field", something us Dutchies really hate. And of course in English we have "the bigger they are, the harder they fall".
It's not enough she lost. A full accounting on her part is required in which she explains all her character flaws and shows how despicable she truly is for ever having thought she could win the election.
Expect the DNC to find the lessons that need to be learned. Don't take Hillary to task for not admitting she wasn't actually "electable". And especially don't take her words as a fair and unbiased account of what went wrong in the campaign, lol.
|
Shit like "best candidate ever" continues to be a massive strawman. Seriously, some people on Twitter still support a political candidate they voted for, so we have to keep bludgeoning this undefended position ITT until the end of days? What's fucking insane is that as much as you guys continue to criticize the idea that Russia/Comey/racism/sexism swung the election you don't even give arguments as to why those factors weren't important. You just snark snark snark snark snark about "lol look at these dumb Democrats they don't even understand that Hillary ran a bad campaign."
Do you actually have a good argument as to why racism wasn't a big factor in this election? I mean, Donald Trump spent a lot of his time fomenting racial hatred and xenophobia, and that appeared to be a very successful tactic. Seriously, a guy who wouldn't even rent to blacks until the Nixon DoJ sued him about it runs a campaign on shit like "Mexico is sending rapists" and "we need stop and frisk to keep us safe from these urban gangsters," and then some Democrat points out that racism was a big factor in 2016 and everybody loses their shit.
If you want to criticize the Democratic party, fine. And if anyone tries to argue that the Clinton campaign wasn't flawed, feel free to argue with them about what you think the Clinton campaign did wrong. In the meantime, you're inventing the other side of an argument and then attacking it, and as long as you're doing both sides of the dialogue you might as well just do it offline and let us have an actual conversation.
|
On April 23 2017 13:33 Mohdoo wrote:
Shower Thought: Super delegates were used by the democratic party to suppress a populist. But then they lost to populism in the election. Basically worked against having the winning weapon of our political climate.
It depends on your priorities. If you want to win at all costs then yes, it potentially worked against them.
If you stand for something and have any shred of integrity then Super delegates serve an important function in maintaining the party.
Go ask the GOP how fun it is to suffer a hostile takeover of your own party.
There is more to politics then #winning
|
On April 23 2017 16:59 ChristianS wrote:Given that all four were major factors (well, Comey maybe not major, but definitely enough to swing the election), it's not bullshit. As has been explained a million times, multiple sufficient causes means there's a lot of things that can be accurately described as "the reason Trump won." Hillary Clinton is just about the worst possible person to assess the Democrats' mistakes in the 2016 election, and even she acknowledges the Democrats had other reasons they lost. So yes, I do say Show nested quote +Its got nothin to do with the Democratic party, they are blameless and ran a flawless campaign. is just a straw man. I don't know why you put "flippant" in quotes, I didn't say that. I said "troll." And given that you're focusing the conversation around criticizing a position that even Hillary Clinton isn't espousing, and nearly every other reasonable commentator from the left acknowledges the Dem campaign had a lot of flaws, "troll" continues to seem entirely appropriate. Granted you're not alone; LL and GH are often happy to erect this same strawman and pummel it for a while. But it's just as useless when they do it, too.
Eh, that particular quote is just an exaggeration, I'd say. At least, that's how I intended to use that. But you can call it a straw man if that's how you choose to perceive it, sure. And someone who responded to your "troll" statement mentioned "flippant", so there you go.
Speaking of exaggeration, even you want to attribute Russia (who ran a circlejerk Twitter-bot campaign) and Wikileaks (who published things she did - oh no!) as a 'major factor'. I'd say these are minute factors compared to the reason that Obama gave for Clinton's loss (a lack of campaign presence in the states where she lost). Maybe Clinton should have hired that Russian who helped run parts of the Obama and Sanders campaigns, both of which enjoyed successes that people didn't necessarily predict ("Oh, Sanders was more popular than we had thought, even though he lost" is a valid way of looking at it, wouldn't you say? - he had a hurdle to overcome simply in HRCs name recognition).
If you added up her inherit popularity as the first woman running and her history of achievements as a Democrat with a properly run grassroots/social media campaign, she would have easily won. Regardless of the paid speeches that she gave at Goldman Sachs without any coercion from Russia but still didn't want the general public to see (which then happened to be published by a third party who got their hands on them). Regardless of her inept handling of communication while she was Secretary of State where she deliberately initiated the increased supply of weapons to the Saudis and thus (without her personal intent, I'm sure, but still as a consequence) provided them with the means to begin their campaign to kill thousands of Yemeni civilians a couple of years down the line. Also regardless of whatever bullshit people who weren't going to vote for her anyway made up about Benghazi.
These things would not have mattered in the slightest if she had merely done as Obama said he had urged her to do - campaign in all the districts of the states that she needed (which is something that he said in a press briefing shortly after the election - before the mass hysteria about Russia was propagated in the media). If you personally visit all the districts and make your case, you get votes, and you win the election. That's why he said he won. That's the reason she lost. All the other things are relatively minor factors compared to this major shortcoming.
Everything is "a reason". There's a need to differentiate between major and minor, though, and I think a lot of people are attributing the loss to the wrong 'major reasons'.
|
On April 23 2017 17:20 ChristianS wrote:
Shit like "best candidate ever" continues to be a massive strawman. Seriously, some people on Twitter still support a political candidate they voted for, so we have to keep bludgeoning this undefended position ITT until the end of days? What's fucking insane is that as much as you guys continue to criticize the idea that Russia/Comey/racism/sexism swung the election you don't even give arguments as to why those factors weren't important. You just snark snark snark snark snark about "lol look at these dumb Democrats they don't even understand that Hillary ran a bad campaign."
Do you actually have a good argument as to why racism wasn't a big factor in this election? I mean, Donald Trump spent a lot of his time fomenting racial hatred and xenophobia, and that appeared to be a very successful tactic. Seriously, a guy who wouldn't even rent to blacks until the Nixon DoJ sued him about it runs a campaign on shit like "Mexico is sending rapists" and "we need stop and frisk to keep us safe from these urban gangsters," and then some Democrat points out that racism was a big factor in 2016 and everybody loses their shit.
If you want to criticize the Democratic party, fine. And if anyone tries to argue that the Clinton campaign wasn't flawed, feel free to argue with them about what you think the Clinton campaign did wrong. In the meantime, you're inventing the other side of an argument and then attacking it, and as long as you're doing both sides of the dialogue you might as well just do it offline and let us have an actual conversation.
You can blame voters for being racist and sexist, and as we know virtually everyone has unexamined race/gender biases that influence their thinking, but what's the point? You might as well blame voters for being stupid or tribalistic or ignorant or complacent. The reason that's not a helpful way of thinking at all is that it's pretty hard to change humanity over the course of a few years, cultural attitudes take decades to change and human psychology changes pretty much never. What do you think you're achieving by blaming election outcomes on voter stupidity? Much worse is the type of sentiment I see often which is when people start to gloat about how Trump voters will suffer due to Trump's policies.
The reason the Democratic Party is important is that essentially all leftwing activism, in order to amount to anything, has to eventually be funneled through the political system, and the Democrats are one's only hope there. If they are structurally losing all their elections, and are ineffective once in power, then that's a problem which should be noted.
And if you look at structural factors that influence elections, it's not like the DP was actually useful in addressing gerrymandering, voting rights restrictions, union busting, electoral reforms, campaign financing. I've seen this all the time: some sort of leftwing candidate exists at a local level and the DNC funds their opponent to maintain control over the party. And they have no views on society which resonate with the majority, they are unable to effectively advocate for single payer, social welfare, higher minimum wages, labor standards, higher taxes, free college, regulating banks, breaking up monopolies, defunding the military, ending the war on drugs/terror etc.
The Democratic Party is where leftwing organizing goes to die, and it's because of people like Hillary Clinton (a college Republican!) who represents this completely bloodless form of neo-liberalism where you discuss policy on this incremental, wonkish level that always ends up affirming the status quo and which just enshrines existing inequalities and but makes them less harsh in order to assuage one's moral guilt. All debated in ways that nobody understands the necessity of it.
I don't know if I can evaluate Clinton's charisma very well, but honestly I don't think she's a good speaker (watching her makes me cringe) and she is incapable of articulating policies in a way that you believe in her and understand their importance. She has no narrative other than: "make history by voting for me" & "I'm not Donald Trump".
|
Edit: @a_flayer:
And now for the million and first time, yes, multiple sufficient causes means that all of the things you mentioned are also very good reasons why things turned out the ways they did. But you must not have been paying much attention if you think that Russia and Wikileaks weren't a major factor in the outcome. Seriously, there was more than a month of constant oppo dumps about Clinton that were dragging her down in every single news cycle. A lot of them were just straight up lies based on a false interpretation of the quotes (e.g. the "weighting polls" bullshit). Now if you wanna say that focusing on things like Wikileaks or Comey is useless at this point because the Democrats should focus on stuff they can change about the next election (e.g. better focus on economic issues, local organizing, etc.), rather than stuff that is unlikely to be repeated (e.g. the Comey letter).
Seriously, it's just straight up dense to talk about her "inherent popularity as the first woman running." Seriously, what evidence do you have that that one is a net positive? On the one side you've got excitement at the first woman president, on the other you've got sexism. If you were responding to Clinton apologists who argue that sexism lost her the election, it would at least be nice that you're addressing their points head on instead of just saying "lol you don't get it," but you're still not really doing that.
Then you're selling this idea that the main thing that really mattered was making personal appearances in every district, despite the fact that it's hardly even agreed upon that all the local campaigning by politicians even makes that big a difference. I vaguely remember Nate Silver writing an analysis about that, and concluding that there's not great evidence that making personal visits to battleground states makes a significant difference at all. Certainly not as significant as global campaign-shaking factors, like a big damaging news story that dominates an entire news cycle (e.g. the Comey letter).
That's not to say that she shouldn't have visited districts. For all I know that could have made the difference. But this is exactly the point: if I say "she would have won if it weren't for the Wikileaks dumps," and you say "she would have won if she campaigned in every district in battleground states," we haven't disagreed with each other. Either counterfactual might have been enough to swing the election the other way. You're then going an extra step and saying "lol, but Clinton supporters refuse to accept that Clinton made any mistakes in the campaign, and insist it was just because of these outside factors." But again, nobody in the thread is saying that. Even Clinton herself isn't really saying that, and as stated previously, she is just about the worst person you could ask to do a post mortem on this. I'm sure she'll live out the remainder of her life wondering what she could have done to prevent every shitty thing that happens under Trump, until she dies ashamed and unfulfilled. Maybe one of you will get the chance to lick some of those tears off her face before she goes.
In the meantime, stop shitting on a position that appears entirely non-existent in the thread, and all but non-existent even outside of it. It's a waste of everyone's time.
|
On April 23 2017 17:04 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2017 15:10 ChristianS wrote:On April 23 2017 14:44 Gahlo wrote:On April 23 2017 14:36 ChristianS wrote:On April 23 2017 13:53 a_flayer wrote:
Nah man, it was Russias fault. Russia and misogynists. Its got nothin to do with the Democratic party, they are blameless and ran a flawless campaign. Has anyone said this? Or are you just being a troll? He's being a bit flippant because this is an argument that's been rehashed over and over. Some people here think the DNC was stupid in how they ran the campaign/who they backed in the primary. Some people here think that identity politics and outside influence had some effect and is reasonable to say it could have tipped the scales in the election. Others, though I haven't seen anybody explicitly espouse it here, are certain that the Democratic party lost because of no fault of their own. It's the song on the radio and is always on somehow and you just wish you could skip it every time it comes up. Has any commentator tried to argue the DNC didn't fuck up? Because I sure haven't seen that. Joshua Micah Marshall is the most Establishment Democrat commentator I read, and he still said Comey/Russia/etc. might have barely tipped the election, but proceeded to talk a lot about how the Dems messed up to let it get that close in the first place. It's this weird strawman that LL, GH and others keep erecting, burning to the ground, and erecting again. In a close election any small force that helped Trump, or any small force that could have helped Clinton and didn't, could be described as "why Trump won." And it would be true for all of them, because any small thing could have tipped the scale. But if no one is saying the Democrats didn't fuck up, then stop with the strawman and let's have an actual conversation. You basically see it all the time on twitter or in comment threads though. People say that she ran a good campaign because she won the popular vote, or that her flaw was underestimating the racism and sexism of the American public, or that she lost because of divisive statements from Bernie that alienated lefties from voting, or RUSSIA, or EMAILS, or Comey. You have the weird spectacle of people going to anti-Trump rallies with signs that say "I'm With Her", who can't shut up about her popular vote win, who double down on this notion of her as the most qualified, best candidate ever who was unfairly targeted by the media, anti-feminists and other reactionary forces in society in order to put women down. You should read Amanda Marcotte if you want the "Hillary did nothing wrong" point of view as well. I think we should care about the Democratic Party because they are corrupt and ineffective, who can't unite to sabotage Trump when they are a minority, and who can't unite to pass legislation when they are the majority. I've read this a lot, and I agree with the idea: liberals care more about process than policy and will therefore always lose. They are not a good opposition party, and when they are back into power in they won't be able to undo the damage Trump has done because they are easy targets for corporate donors that prefer this or that policy which Trump enacted.
I know this runs contrary to the mantra of this thread, but... some people actually do like Hillary Clinton. And some people, particularly women, had an emotional investment in her candidacy.
So, they carry her signs, and talk about her positives and her successes. Crazy, isn't it? It's almost like they're simply fans.
Like my father still has his Walter Mondale button from 1984. What's his problem? Mondale lost, so he should throw it in the garbage, right?
Hillary's fans don't just see her as a status-quo college-Republican milk-toast. They see her as a woman in public service, who for one reason or another, they relate to.
I know it's difficult to believe if you base Hillary Clinton's persona based entirely off the TeamLiquid election thread, or the internet in general. And honestly, I wouldn't say I particularly like Hillary Clinton, although I've always given her credit for being competent (and for competency alone I would sacrifice a loved pet to get her in office right now). But, nonetheless, other people, a lot of people, actually do like her.
So, please, continue this invigorating and important discussion for another 20 pages. It's not old, deflective, or petty at all.
|
On April 23 2017 18:13 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2017 17:20 ChristianS wrote:
Shit like "best candidate ever" continues to be a massive strawman. Seriously, some people on Twitter still support a political candidate they voted for, so we have to keep bludgeoning this undefended position ITT until the end of days? What's fucking insane is that as much as you guys continue to criticize the idea that Russia/Comey/racism/sexism swung the election you don't even give arguments as to why those factors weren't important. You just snark snark snark snark snark about "lol look at these dumb Democrats they don't even understand that Hillary ran a bad campaign."
Do you actually have a good argument as to why racism wasn't a big factor in this election? I mean, Donald Trump spent a lot of his time fomenting racial hatred and xenophobia, and that appeared to be a very successful tactic. Seriously, a guy who wouldn't even rent to blacks until the Nixon DoJ sued him about it runs a campaign on shit like "Mexico is sending rapists" and "we need stop and frisk to keep us safe from these urban gangsters," and then some Democrat points out that racism was a big factor in 2016 and everybody loses their shit.
If you want to criticize the Democratic party, fine. And if anyone tries to argue that the Clinton campaign wasn't flawed, feel free to argue with them about what you think the Clinton campaign did wrong. In the meantime, you're inventing the other side of an argument and then attacking it, and as long as you're doing both sides of the dialogue you might as well just do it offline and let us have an actual conversation. You can blame voters for being racist and sexist, and as we know virtually everyone has unexamined race/gender biases that influence their thinking, but what's the point?
This is precisely the question I ask every time leftists decide to a) reiterate one more time how distasteful Clinton was, or b) relitigate the 2016 democratic primary. What's the point? Half the time Clinton defenders are citing things like Comey or Wikileaks, it's to defend themselves against Sanders supporters who are spending so much time mocking – gloating, almost – that Clinton lost after arguing she'd be more likely to win in the general. It's like two criminals who get sent to jail, and one of them decides to spend his days laughing at the other one for getting caught. So then Clinton supporters have to give reasons that they couldn't have anticipated Clinton's loss during the primary, and shit like Wikileaks or Russian interference are things they're using to bat off the Sanders supporters who are gloating about how right they were in the primary. That's the shit that's pointless.
So if we want to be forward-looking and constructive, let's stop talking about Hillary Clinton's merits or faults until we have any reason to believe that she'll be running for national office again. Because until she does, spending pages and pages of the thread discussing her shortcomings is just as useless as lamenting the Comey letter.
|
On April 23 2017 18:28 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2017 18:13 Grumbels wrote:On April 23 2017 17:20 ChristianS wrote:
Shit like "best candidate ever" continues to be a massive strawman. Seriously, some people on Twitter still support a political candidate they voted for, so we have to keep bludgeoning this undefended position ITT until the end of days? What's fucking insane is that as much as you guys continue to criticize the idea that Russia/Comey/racism/sexism swung the election you don't even give arguments as to why those factors weren't important. You just snark snark snark snark snark about "lol look at these dumb Democrats they don't even understand that Hillary ran a bad campaign."
Do you actually have a good argument as to why racism wasn't a big factor in this election? I mean, Donald Trump spent a lot of his time fomenting racial hatred and xenophobia, and that appeared to be a very successful tactic. Seriously, a guy who wouldn't even rent to blacks until the Nixon DoJ sued him about it runs a campaign on shit like "Mexico is sending rapists" and "we need stop and frisk to keep us safe from these urban gangsters," and then some Democrat points out that racism was a big factor in 2016 and everybody loses their shit.
If you want to criticize the Democratic party, fine. And if anyone tries to argue that the Clinton campaign wasn't flawed, feel free to argue with them about what you think the Clinton campaign did wrong. In the meantime, you're inventing the other side of an argument and then attacking it, and as long as you're doing both sides of the dialogue you might as well just do it offline and let us have an actual conversation. You can blame voters for being racist and sexist, and as we know virtually everyone has unexamined race/gender biases that influence their thinking, but what's the point? This is precisely the question I ask every time leftists decide to a) reiterate one more time how distasteful Clinton was, or b) relitigate the 2016 democratic primary. What's the point? Half the time Clinton defenders are citing things like Comey or Wikileaks, it's to defend themselves against Sanders supporters who are spending so much time mocking – gloating, almost – that Clinton lost after arguing she'd be more likely to win in the general.
This seems like a fiction of your own making. It casts Clinton supporters (who are the most numerous and powerful faction within the party) as powerless, having to bring up Wikileaks only for self-defense against the constant assault by the Sanders faction. In reality Sanders supporters have nothing to do with the anti-Russia hysteria in vogue among liberals as an explanation for the election outcome, that's a purely organic creation fomented by lots of D. operatives.
|
On April 23 2017 18:24 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2017 17:04 Grumbels wrote:On April 23 2017 15:10 ChristianS wrote:On April 23 2017 14:44 Gahlo wrote:On April 23 2017 14:36 ChristianS wrote:On April 23 2017 13:53 a_flayer wrote:
Nah man, it was Russias fault. Russia and misogynists. Its got nothin to do with the Democratic party, they are blameless and ran a flawless campaign. Has anyone said this? Or are you just being a troll? He's being a bit flippant because this is an argument that's been rehashed over and over. Some people here think the DNC was stupid in how they ran the campaign/who they backed in the primary. Some people here think that identity politics and outside influence had some effect and is reasonable to say it could have tipped the scales in the election. Others, though I haven't seen anybody explicitly espouse it here, are certain that the Democratic party lost because of no fault of their own. It's the song on the radio and is always on somehow and you just wish you could skip it every time it comes up. Has any commentator tried to argue the DNC didn't fuck up? Because I sure haven't seen that. Joshua Micah Marshall is the most Establishment Democrat commentator I read, and he still said Comey/Russia/etc. might have barely tipped the election, but proceeded to talk a lot about how the Dems messed up to let it get that close in the first place. It's this weird strawman that LL, GH and others keep erecting, burning to the ground, and erecting again. In a close election any small force that helped Trump, or any small force that could have helped Clinton and didn't, could be described as "why Trump won." And it would be true for all of them, because any small thing could have tipped the scale. But if no one is saying the Democrats didn't fuck up, then stop with the strawman and let's have an actual conversation. You basically see it all the time on twitter or in comment threads though. People say that she ran a good campaign because she won the popular vote, or that her flaw was underestimating the racism and sexism of the American public, or that she lost because of divisive statements from Bernie that alienated lefties from voting, or RUSSIA, or EMAILS, or Comey. You have the weird spectacle of people going to anti-Trump rallies with signs that say "I'm With Her", who can't shut up about her popular vote win, who double down on this notion of her as the most qualified, best candidate ever who was unfairly targeted by the media, anti-feminists and other reactionary forces in society in order to put women down. You should read Amanda Marcotte if you want the "Hillary did nothing wrong" point of view as well. I think we should care about the Democratic Party because they are corrupt and ineffective, who can't unite to sabotage Trump when they are a minority, and who can't unite to pass legislation when they are the majority. I've read this a lot, and I agree with the idea: liberals care more about process than policy and will therefore always lose. They are not a good opposition party, and when they are back into power in they won't be able to undo the damage Trump has done because they are easy targets for corporate donors that prefer this or that policy which Trump enacted. I know this runs contrary to the mantra of this thread, but... some people actually do like Hillary Clinton. And some people, particularly women, had an emotional investment in her candidacy. So, they carry her signs, and talk about her positives and her successes. Crazy, isn't it? It's almost like they're simply fans. Like my father still has his Walter Mondale button from 1984. What's his problem? Mondale lost, so he should throw it in the garbage, right? Hillary's fans don't just see her as a status-quo college-Republican milk-toast. They see her as a woman in public service, who for one reason or another, they relate to. I know it's difficult to believe if you base Hillary Clinton's persona based entirely off the TeamLiquid election thread, or the internet in general. And honestly, I wouldn't say I particularly like Hillary Clinton, although I've always given her credit for being competent (and for competency alone I would sacrifice a loved pet to get her in office right now). But, nonetheless, other people, a lot of people, actually do like her. So, please, continue this invigorating and important discussion for another 20 pages. It's not old, deflective, or petty at all.
Yeah, so what's your point? People generally don't like her, but this observation is useless because some subset of white, liberal feminists identify with her? And maybe people tend to double down on their candidates after a loss, but this still makes for pretty pathetic #Resistance against Trump and it really shouldn't be indulged in.
|
There's another factor that really is being criminally forgotten -- Hillary Clinton has been fucking defamed for at least 25 years now. Through books, television, "documentaries", etc., she has been accused of everything from rape and murder, to obscure corruption.
Could it possibly be, could some of you maybe try to understand, that the chip on some of her fan's shoulders is large for a reason?
And even in loss, even within her own political party, she can't just be left alone. Did Team Liquid spend 100 pages criticizing John Kerry for losing to that idiot Bush? Did we lament not electing the "true leftist" Dennis Kucinich? No.
So just give it a rest. I'd love to see 15 pages where LegalLord doesn't manage to completely detour this thread into Hillary land with the most obvious fucking bait. It's truly gotten pathetic.
|
On April 23 2017 18:48 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2017 18:24 Leporello wrote:On April 23 2017 17:04 Grumbels wrote:On April 23 2017 15:10 ChristianS wrote:On April 23 2017 14:44 Gahlo wrote:On April 23 2017 14:36 ChristianS wrote:On April 23 2017 13:53 a_flayer wrote:
Nah man, it was Russias fault. Russia and misogynists. Its got nothin to do with the Democratic party, they are blameless and ran a flawless campaign. Has anyone said this? Or are you just being a troll? He's being a bit flippant because this is an argument that's been rehashed over and over. Some people here think the DNC was stupid in how they ran the campaign/who they backed in the primary. Some people here think that identity politics and outside influence had some effect and is reasonable to say it could have tipped the scales in the election. Others, though I haven't seen anybody explicitly espouse it here, are certain that the Democratic party lost because of no fault of their own. It's the song on the radio and is always on somehow and you just wish you could skip it every time it comes up. Has any commentator tried to argue the DNC didn't fuck up? Because I sure haven't seen that. Joshua Micah Marshall is the most Establishment Democrat commentator I read, and he still said Comey/Russia/etc. might have barely tipped the election, but proceeded to talk a lot about how the Dems messed up to let it get that close in the first place. It's this weird strawman that LL, GH and others keep erecting, burning to the ground, and erecting again. In a close election any small force that helped Trump, or any small force that could have helped Clinton and didn't, could be described as "why Trump won." And it would be true for all of them, because any small thing could have tipped the scale. But if no one is saying the Democrats didn't fuck up, then stop with the strawman and let's have an actual conversation. You basically see it all the time on twitter or in comment threads though. People say that she ran a good campaign because she won the popular vote, or that her flaw was underestimating the racism and sexism of the American public, or that she lost because of divisive statements from Bernie that alienated lefties from voting, or RUSSIA, or EMAILS, or Comey. You have the weird spectacle of people going to anti-Trump rallies with signs that say "I'm With Her", who can't shut up about her popular vote win, who double down on this notion of her as the most qualified, best candidate ever who was unfairly targeted by the media, anti-feminists and other reactionary forces in society in order to put women down. You should read Amanda Marcotte if you want the "Hillary did nothing wrong" point of view as well. I think we should care about the Democratic Party because they are corrupt and ineffective, who can't unite to sabotage Trump when they are a minority, and who can't unite to pass legislation when they are the majority. I've read this a lot, and I agree with the idea: liberals care more about process than policy and will therefore always lose. They are not a good opposition party, and when they are back into power in they won't be able to undo the damage Trump has done because they are easy targets for corporate donors that prefer this or that policy which Trump enacted. I know this runs contrary to the mantra of this thread, but... some people actually do like Hillary Clinton. And some people, particularly women, had an emotional investment in her candidacy. So, they carry her signs, and talk about her positives and her successes. Crazy, isn't it? It's almost like they're simply fans. Like my father still has his Walter Mondale button from 1984. What's his problem? Mondale lost, so he should throw it in the garbage, right? Hillary's fans don't just see her as a status-quo college-Republican milk-toast. They see her as a woman in public service, who for one reason or another, they relate to. I know it's difficult to believe if you base Hillary Clinton's persona based entirely off the TeamLiquid election thread, or the internet in general. And honestly, I wouldn't say I particularly like Hillary Clinton, although I've always given her credit for being competent (and for competency alone I would sacrifice a loved pet to get her in office right now). But, nonetheless, other people, a lot of people, actually do like her. So, please, continue this invigorating and important discussion for another 20 pages. It's not old, deflective, or petty at all. Yeah, so what's your point? People generally don't like her, but this observation is useless because some subset of white, liberal feminists identify with her? And maybe people tend to double down on their candidates after a loss, but this still makes for pretty pathetic #Resistance against Trump and it really shouldn't be indulged in.
Are some of them liberal feminists? Oh, boy, these labels. What is a feminist anymore, besides some utterly vilified strawman? I wouldn't say they all are. But my point is Hillary has fans: deal with it.
So, yes, talking about Hillary fans like there's something inherently wrong with them is completely useless, I agree.
|
On April 23 2017 18:58 Leporello wrote:
There's another factor that really is being criminally forgotten -- Hillary Clinton has been fucking defamed for at least 25 years now. Through books, television, "documentaries", etc., she has been accused of everything from rape and murder, to obscure corruption.
Could it possibly be, could some of you maybe try to understand, that the chip on some of her fan's shoulders is large for a reason?
If she was successfully defamed for 25 years she shouldn't run for office because it means she's a political liability to the party. She's not entitled to the presidency just because she was demonized.
And even in loss, even within her own political party, she can't just be left alone. Did Team Liquid spend 100 pages criticizing John Kerry for losing to that idiot Bush? Did we lament not electing the "true leftist" Dennis Kucinich? No.
So just give it a rest. I'd love to see 15 pages where LegalLord doesn't manage to completely detour this thread into Hillary land with the most obvious fucking bait. It's truly gotten pathetic.
I didn't think criticizing Hillary was useful in the run-up to the election because the focus was on supporting her against Trump, and I don't think it's that useful now other than as a means to attack the Democratic Party establishment for being useless. But, Hillary is still one of the most prominent figures in politics, she still has a lot of influence, and she still played a pivotal role in the election of Trump. Framing criticism of Hillary as somehow mean-spirited seems a bit dubious. She does need to be held accountable, both for her role in the election and her role in shaping the Democratic Party.
And actually, one benefit to discrediting her is that it removes her as a voice of opposition to Trump, a role that is ill-suited to her and that she is incapable of fulfilling effectively.
|
|
|
Oh well, let the future generations worry about it. Right now I need to make more money.
|
On April 23 2017 19:35 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2017 18:58 Leporello wrote:
There's another factor that really is being criminally forgotten -- Hillary Clinton has been fucking defamed for at least 25 years now. Through books, television, "documentaries", etc., she has been accused of everything from rape and murder, to obscure corruption.
Could it possibly be, could some of you maybe try to understand, that the chip on some of her fan's shoulders is large for a reason? If she was successfully defamed for 25 years she shouldn't run for office because it means she's a political liability to the party. She's not entitled to the presidency just because she was demonized. Show nested quote +And even in loss, even within her own political party, she can't just be left alone. Did Team Liquid spend 100 pages criticizing John Kerry for losing to that idiot Bush? Did we lament not electing the "true leftist" Dennis Kucinich? No.
So just give it a rest. I'd love to see 15 pages where LegalLord doesn't manage to completely detour this thread into Hillary land with the most obvious fucking bait. It's truly gotten pathetic. I didn't think criticizing Hillary was useful in the run-up to the election because the focus was on supporting her against Trump, and I don't think it's that useful now other than as a means to attack the Democratic Party establishment for being useless. But, Hillary is still one of the most prominent figures in politics, she still has a lot of influence, and she still played a pivotal role in the election of Trump. Framing criticism of Hillary as somehow mean-spirited seems a bit dubious. She does need to be held accountable, both for her role in the election and her role in shaping the Democratic Party. And actually, one benefit to discrediting her is that it removes her as a voice of opposition to Trump, a role that is ill-suited to her and that she is incapable of fulfilling effectively.
No. Held accountable for what?! Her "role"?
Well, here's my accounting, based on the facts we have: She did her job. She didn't spend campaign funds on drugs and prostitutes or something. She didn't do or say something terrible, like admit on recording to sexual molestations. Or are you saying she should have, since apparently Americans vote for that sort of thing nowadays?
She requires no more accounting than John Kerry or Al Gore need to be held accountable... or the DNC, or the media, or the entire political process.
But for some reason, this time around, some of us are demanding some sort of capitulation solely from the candidate? What is this? She bears some ultimate responsibility for the election that needs addressing? Why? Because she's had the misfortune of being accused of every crime imaginable for 25 years? Isn't that the actual difference between her and the other Democrat candidates that lost? No, not enough. We need more "accounting". Let's talk more about WikiLeaks or some such thing -- as if any of it was anything more than the same old insinuations and allegations that lead to nowhere. Pffft.
I wasn't a fan of her in primary, but man, dealing with her critics lately, makes me sympathize for her. I've always sympathized with the colossal amount of pure bullshit this woman has had to deal with. How does she not scream at the cameras, you know?
She doesn't owe you, me, or the country any accounting. She's not guilty of a crime, despite the 1,001 nauseating allegations. She lost a nationwide election against a reality-TV creep, with an electorate that has become increasingly uninformed, misinformed, apathetic, and sensationalized.
But you're not asking for accounting of any of the numerous factors involved in this very unique election. In fact, you seem to be calling these other factors distractions and hysteria. The real fault lies with her, everything else is just an "excuse". You're asking for her to be "accounted". I find that very strange, and no offense, a little simple. The idea that Hillary is responsible for Trump is just... how do you even begin to believe that? Don't you think there are a lot of extenuating factors that lead to a thing like Trump getting elected?
And believe this: your wish that she be blacklisted from the Democratic Party, or written off somehow, is fantasy. If she wants to be mayor of New York City, then that will probably happen. And I don't see why it shouldn't.
|
Sen. Bernie Sanders is campaigning for Omaha, Neb., mayoral candidate Heath Mello Thursday night, and he's not apologizing for it.
"Absolutely, and I want him to win," Sanders, I-Vt., told NPR Thursday, after a rally in Grand Prairie, Texas.
The Thursday event with Mello, a Nebraska state senator who's running as a Democrat in the mayoral race, is one of several rallies Sanders is holding across the country this week. It's part of a Democratic National Committee-organized unity tour with DNC Chair Tom Perez.
The Omaha event wasn't that notable – just one of several red state visits on the DNC itinerary — until Thursday morning. That's when Ilyse Hogue, the president of abortion rights advocate NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued a statement blasting Sanders and Perez for spending time and resources campaigning alongside a Democrat who opposes abortion rights.
"The actions today by the DNC to embrace and support a candidate for office who will strip women – one of the most critical constituencies for the party – of our basic rights and freedom is not only disappointing, it is politically stupid," Hogue said. "Today's action makes this so-called 'fight back tour' look more like a throw-back tour for women and our rights."
Mello has co-sponsored several bills in Nebraska's unicameral legislature that would restrict abortion rights, including a 2009 measure requiring doctors to inform women seeking abortions about the availability of an ultrasound.
Sanders pushed back against the criticism. "The truth is that in some conservative states there will be candidates that are popular candidates who may not agree with me on every issue. I understand it. That's what politics is about," Sanders told NPR.
"If we are going to protect a woman's right to choose, at the end of the day we're going to need Democratic control over the House and the Senate, and state governments all over this nation," he said. "And we have got to appreciate where people come from, and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda. But I think you just can't exclude people who disagree with us on one issue."
But that call for pragmatism doesn't mesh with the main message Sanders has been delivering this week: a call for a more aggressive and progressive Democratic party. In the same interview, he blamed Republican gains at the state and federal level on "the failure of the Democratic Party to have a progressive agenda, to bring people into this party, to mobilize people."
The DNC is doing its best to distance itself from the Mello endorsement. Party staffers were quick to tell reporters that it was Sanders', and not the DNC's, idea to hold a rally for Mello.
Perez issued a statement emphasizing the DNC's strong support for abortion rights, but staying away from the central question of whether or not Mello should be the beneficiary of a DNC rally. "The Democratic Party's platform states clearly our support for every woman's right to make their own choices about their reproductive health and to have access to safe abortion services," Perez said in the statement. "As DNC Chair, I stand by that position unequivocally, as I have my entire life."
Perez will not be at the Omaha rally, because he stepped away from the unity tour Thursday to attend fundraising events in Georgia, where Democrat Jon Ossoff is competing in a June 20 runoff to fill the suburban Atlanta House seat vacated by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. He nearly won the seat outright this week.
Ossoff will face Karen Handel, a former Georgia secretary of state who also resigned from the Susan G. Komen Foundation amid a controversy over that group's decision to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood, a decision that was later reversed
http://www.npr.org/2017/04/20/524962482/sanders-defends-campaigning-for-anti-abortion-rights-democrat
|
I wasn't a fan of her in primary, but man, dealing with her critics lately, makes me sympathize for her. I've always sympathized with the colossal amount of pure bullshit this woman has had to deal with.
I find this very repellent. She was one step away from becoming the most powerful politician in the world, with power over life and death, whose every decision would have a profound effect on the lives of literally billions of people. She's not some private citizen who doesn't deserve all of this scrutiny, and God forbid we hurt the feelings of someone with (already) so much blood on her hands. Oh, let's give her the mayorship of New York as a consolation prize.
And believe this: your wish that she be blacklisted from the Democratic Party, or written off somehow, is fantasy.
Maybe it would be a good thing for people on the left to have actual influence in the Democratic Party, instead of the high degree of control by establishment liberals like Hillary Clinton who in Europe would be center-right politicians.
--
Anyhow, it is not about Hillary Clinton as an individual, the point is the process that lead to an obviously weak candidate like Clinton being the default choice for a party which has been devastated electorally this last decade and which doesn't have a platform that resonates with people. The problem is that the Democratic Party for the last 16 years has been mostly lackluster at implementing their ostensible agenda. They're not very well liked by the public and they are not very effective opposition to Trump.
If you care about progressive politics you should care about reform of the Democratic Party in order to make it an effective voice for progressive policies, and an effective force at resisting the advance of the rightwing dystopia. Breaking the hold over the Democratic Party by establishment ghouls like Clinton should be part of that.
|
On April 24 2017 00:28 Grumbels wrote:
Anyhow, it is not about Hillary Clinton as an individual, the point is the process that lead to an obviously weak candidate like Clinton being the default choice for a party which has been devastated electorally this last decade and which doesn't have a platform that resonates with people. The problem is that the Democratic Party for the last 16 years has been mostly lackluster at implementing their ostensible agenda. They're not very well liked by the public and they are not very effective opposition to Trump.
Do you think that the Republican Party (at a national level) is materially better on these points?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
