|
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 24 2017 13:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 13:14 ChristianS wrote:On April 24 2017 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 08:35 ChristianS wrote:On April 24 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 07:29 ChristianS wrote:
Understanding why Dems are disliked is absolutely interesting and worth exploring. Understanding why HRC was so disliked is just as useless as understanding Comey's impact on the election - it doesn't apply in the next election so it's useless. Wrong. Why Hillary is disliked is very similar to why the Democrats are disliked. Comey's shit is useless, but Hillary stands as a singular personification of what problems reside within the Democratic party. Not to mention she and her strongest supporters are the impetus behind a lot of this stuff. A good example would be campaign finance reform and Obama's lobbyist ban the DNC refused to reinstall after they lost the election. If they're similar you can criticize the Dems for them and HRC doesn't need to come into it. And how are they similar if Hillary was such a uniquely unpopular candidate anyway? A really good understanding of why people feel the way they do about Dems would be useful for winning elections. But if we got a really detailed analysis of how Hillary's mannerisms made her less popular, or if we learned a lot about specific CEOs she took a lot of money from and how that forced her to take specific positions, or even more detail about her email server and how she fucked it up and why - all of these would be absolutely useless for winning future elections unless we ran Hillary again for some reason. Otherwise, we might as well talk about the political dynamics surrounding politicians that still matter. Here's the problem with that. A lot of the Democrats still don't think a lot of these things are problems or significantly contributed to her loss. Just think back to how folks like Kwiz and plansix defended (I think Kwiz still will) Hillary's fundraising. Saying things like "we can't unilaterally disarm, or else Republicans will win", then Hillary raises and spends much more than Trump and still loses. So we get all the negatives of being just as bad or worse than Republicans on campaign finance, except they won anyway. That's not even getting into how much of the money was dumped into Hillary's campaign instead of helping the local candidates her supporters suggested needed someone like Hillary over Bernie. Basically you can go back over some of the glaringly obvious problems with Hillary and see that Democrats defended her or dismissed them as insignificant. Until Democrats realize they aren't insignificant and were a major contributing factor to why she lost (MORE IMPORTANT than Comey, Russia, etc), they won't have any interest in correcting it. Another example would be how Chelsea and Hillary went after Bernie for his healthcare plan. You can see the lingering rhetoric among some democrats still. I'm not sure that I agree with you about the fundraising, and I'm not sure what Chelsea and Hillary's commentary about healthcare was, but it doesn't matter for the point anyway. If the Democrats are doing shitty thing X, by all means point that out and point out why it's shitty. If shitty thing X was also something that helped kill Hillary's campaign, that certainly could be reasonable supporting evidence. But just like talking about Nixon or Harding or Dukakis, it's only useful to talk about insomuch as it also applies to current affairs. When we throw up the LL bat signal and the thread derails into a discussion about the degree of Hillary's shittiness, that isn't the case. We wind up in a long discussion of whether the democratic primary results were legitimate, or whether the emails were as damning as some people say, or whatever other part of the election people want to relitigate. Maybe next time we'll talk about how Hillary really should have come forward saying she had pneumonia before fainting on 9/11. It's all useless. It alienates Clinton supporters the same way Bernie supporters felt alienated in the election, and it does nothing to help figure out how to beat back Trump in 2018 or 2020 because they're peoblems peculiar to Hillary. If Democrats make a mental note to train their employees better about phishing and not to store classified documents on private servers, then no repeat analysis is useful going forward. Your first sentence negates the rest of your post. That you don't know about Hillary and Chelsea's commentary or why the fundraising is problematic puts you squarely in the camp that still needs to understand how and why they helped lead to her loss before you can understand how to address it within the party. Just take a look at someone like Peter Daou's twitter feed to get an appreciation of the delusion that lives strong in the Democratic party. Those people need to see the light before they will ever get on board with changing (or getting out of the way).
I was just trying to avoid derailing the discussion into one on those topics. And it doesn't negate the rest of the post because the rest of the post is explicitly written to not depend on any specific issue you're referring to. It's a general point about how the discussion about Clinton in this thread is consistently toxic and unproductive.
This is that cult of savviness thing in action. I make an argument; you don't respond to the argument at all, but just dismiss me as not "getting it." The fact that the thing I supposedly don't get is irrelevant to my argument doesn't matter; you've already dismissed me as one of the unknowing ones, so it doesn't matter.
Here, let's try to put this as simply as I can: if there are lessons to be learned from the 2016 election, let's talk about them. But talking about how bad Hillary is without any connection to a lesson that can be learned going forward is a waste of everyone's time. That goes for 90% of the "electable" discussion every time it comes up.
|
On April 24 2017 13:32 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 13:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 13:14 ChristianS wrote:On April 24 2017 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 08:35 ChristianS wrote:On April 24 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 07:29 ChristianS wrote:
Understanding why Dems are disliked is absolutely interesting and worth exploring. Understanding why HRC was so disliked is just as useless as understanding Comey's impact on the election - it doesn't apply in the next election so it's useless. Wrong. Why Hillary is disliked is very similar to why the Democrats are disliked. Comey's shit is useless, but Hillary stands as a singular personification of what problems reside within the Democratic party. Not to mention she and her strongest supporters are the impetus behind a lot of this stuff. A good example would be campaign finance reform and Obama's lobbyist ban the DNC refused to reinstall after they lost the election. If they're similar you can criticize the Dems for them and HRC doesn't need to come into it. And how are they similar if Hillary was such a uniquely unpopular candidate anyway? A really good understanding of why people feel the way they do about Dems would be useful for winning elections. But if we got a really detailed analysis of how Hillary's mannerisms made her less popular, or if we learned a lot about specific CEOs she took a lot of money from and how that forced her to take specific positions, or even more detail about her email server and how she fucked it up and why - all of these would be absolutely useless for winning future elections unless we ran Hillary again for some reason. Otherwise, we might as well talk about the political dynamics surrounding politicians that still matter. Here's the problem with that. A lot of the Democrats still don't think a lot of these things are problems or significantly contributed to her loss. Just think back to how folks like Kwiz and plansix defended (I think Kwiz still will) Hillary's fundraising. Saying things like "we can't unilaterally disarm, or else Republicans will win", then Hillary raises and spends much more than Trump and still loses. So we get all the negatives of being just as bad or worse than Republicans on campaign finance, except they won anyway. That's not even getting into how much of the money was dumped into Hillary's campaign instead of helping the local candidates her supporters suggested needed someone like Hillary over Bernie. Basically you can go back over some of the glaringly obvious problems with Hillary and see that Democrats defended her or dismissed them as insignificant. Until Democrats realize they aren't insignificant and were a major contributing factor to why she lost (MORE IMPORTANT than Comey, Russia, etc), they won't have any interest in correcting it. Another example would be how Chelsea and Hillary went after Bernie for his healthcare plan. You can see the lingering rhetoric among some democrats still. I'm not sure that I agree with you about the fundraising, and I'm not sure what Chelsea and Hillary's commentary about healthcare was, but it doesn't matter for the point anyway. If the Democrats are doing shitty thing X, by all means point that out and point out why it's shitty. If shitty thing X was also something that helped kill Hillary's campaign, that certainly could be reasonable supporting evidence. But just like talking about Nixon or Harding or Dukakis, it's only useful to talk about insomuch as it also applies to current affairs. When we throw up the LL bat signal and the thread derails into a discussion about the degree of Hillary's shittiness, that isn't the case. We wind up in a long discussion of whether the democratic primary results were legitimate, or whether the emails were as damning as some people say, or whatever other part of the election people want to relitigate. Maybe next time we'll talk about how Hillary really should have come forward saying she had pneumonia before fainting on 9/11. It's all useless. It alienates Clinton supporters the same way Bernie supporters felt alienated in the election, and it does nothing to help figure out how to beat back Trump in 2018 or 2020 because they're peoblems peculiar to Hillary. If Democrats make a mental note to train their employees better about phishing and not to store classified documents on private servers, then no repeat analysis is useful going forward. Your first sentence negates the rest of your post. That you don't know about Hillary and Chelsea's commentary or why the fundraising is problematic puts you squarely in the camp that still needs to understand how and why they helped lead to her loss before you can understand how to address it within the party. Just take a look at someone like Peter Daou's twitter feed to get an appreciation of the delusion that lives strong in the Democratic party. Those people need to see the light before they will ever get on board with changing (or getting out of the way). I was just trying to avoid derailing the discussion into one on those topics. And it doesn't negate the rest of the post because the rest of the post is explicitly written to not depend on any specific issue you're referring to. It's a general point about how the discussion about Clinton in this thread is consistently toxic and unproductive. This is that cult of savviness thing in action. I make an argument; you don't respond to the argument at all, but just dismiss me as not "getting it." The fact that the thing I supposedly don't get is irrelevant to my argument doesn't matter; you've already dismissed me as one of the unknowing ones, so it doesn't matter. Here, let's try to put this as simply as I can: if there are lessons to be learned from the 2016 election, let's talk about them. But talking about how bad Hillary is without any connection to a lesson that can be learned going forward is a waste of everyone's time. That goes for 90% of the "electable" discussion every time it comes up.
That's fine, the whole point of my post was that I was being lumped into the folks who are just "haters" and that's not me. When I'm talking about Hillary it's always (at least most of the time) with pertinence to what's happening today and in the future of politics.
I'll admit Legal's strategy seems like it would be frustrating, but it's not unwarranted. Him dumping on Hillary has the presumed inference of all the other stuff that people ignored when they assured us that she was "electable", moreso than the currently most popular politician in the country.
There's a lot of stubborn ignorance wrapped up in the frustration with Legal's insistence on the "electability" argument but that's more of a them thing than a Legal thing.
For some additional context of how out of touch the Democratic party is.
EDIT: Pretty confident most of the threads Democrats and almost all of the left punditry are in that 28% that thinks Democrats aren't out of touch.
|
Canada11412 Posts
On April 24 2017 12:03 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 08:42 LegalLord wrote:
Wait, why is being informed of that right controversial in the slightest? It's a method of trying to trick the woman into having an emotional attachment to the unborn through either guilt or FOMO. I had to have an ultrasound to check out something with my liver and I could get a pretty decent look at what was going on without being asked if I cared to see the screen. If TV is anything like reality, the screen is shown to pregnant women.
In what sense is it a trick if you are showing what's going on inside of the woman? Seeing it doesn't change the reality of whether it is or is not a living person (offspring, to use the preferred anglicized Latin). I will grant you the proposed law is an attempt to decrease the number of abortions by another avenue, attempting to combat the 'blob of cells' or 'foreign uterine matter" euphemisms. But if body autonomy is the highest ethical consideration and is morally sound, an ultra-sound ought not to change anything, ethically or emotionally. Is it a trick if you are showing what is?
|
yes, obviously. Just like showing you highly emotional footage of some event can be used to change your political opinion. Trying to influence behaviour by provoking an emotional reaction is an age old trick. Say the pregnancy is actually dangerous for the woman and she sees this imagery of the ultra-sound and decides against an abortion although it would be medically reasonable, how is that not manipulation? There's no such thing as showing you "what is"
|
The electability thing is innately the problem I'm talking about. He says we should have realized because of email server and Benghazi and w/e else that she wasn't actually more electable. Putting aside whether that's even true, it's completely centered around issues peculiar to Hillary. The whole thing boils down to: one of the candidates tried to make the case during the primary that people should vote for her because she'd have a better chance in the general. That's it. Nevermind that every other candidate also tried to make that case because that's what you do in a primary. It's now his whole raison d'etre to remind everyone that she tried to say she was electable, but didn't get elected. Of course now the LL bat signal is up so we can expect another tirade about her delectable electability.
But fair enough, you (@GH, if that wasn't clear) don't bludgeon us with your homebrew meme all day. I think it was about a day ago I was lumping you in with LL, but at the time I was criticizing the practice of strawmanning anybody who talks about Russia, Comey, Wikileaks, etc. as important factors in the election by claiming those people don't think Hillary's campaign also made mistakes (a_flayer in particular was constructing this strawman explicitly). As far as I can tell everyone ITT is at a place of "clearly the Dems made mistakes for the election to get that close, let's try to identify those mistakes and correct them." There's probably some disagreement about what those mistakes are, and it doesn't help when someone who defends some action on the part of the Dems gets caricatured with "lol you just don't get it, you still think it was just Russians and Comey that went wrong."
But okay, if you don't think you're strawmanning people like that I'll point it out when I think it's happening and in the meantime retract the criticism.
|
On April 24 2017 14:23 ChristianS wrote:
The electability thing is innately the problem I'm talking about. He says we should have realized because of email server and Benghazi and w/e else that she wasn't actually more electable. Putting aside whether that's even true, it's completely centered around issues peculiar to Hillary. The whole thing boils down to: one of the candidates tried to make the case during the primary that people should vote for her because she'd have a better chance in the general. That's it. Nevermind that every other candidate also tried to make that case because that's what you do in a primary. It's now his whole raison d'etre to remind everyone that she tried to say she was electable, but didn't get elected. Of course now the LL bat signal is up so we can expect another tirade about her delectable electability.
But fair enough, you (@GH, if that wasn't clear) don't bludgeon us with your homebrew meme all day. I think it was about a day ago I was lumping you in with LL, but at the time I was criticizing the practice of strawmanning anybody who talks about Russia, Comey, Wikileaks, etc. as important factors in the election by claiming those people don't think Hillary's campaign also made mistakes (a_flayer in particular was constructing this strawman explicitly). As far as I can tell everyone ITT is at a place of "clearly the Dems made mistakes for the election to get that close, let's try to identify those mistakes and correct them." There's probably some disagreement about what those mistakes are, and it doesn't help when someone who defends some action on the part of the Dems gets caricatured with "lol you just don't get it, you still think it was just Russians and Comey that went wrong."
But okay, if you don't think you're strawmanning people like that I'll point it out when I think it's happening and in the meantime retract the criticism.
Thank you.
Thoughts on Democrats being 10 points behind Trump in "in touch" with the concerns of most Americans (Do we all appreciate how unbelievably bad this is btw)?
Fair to say when comparing the Democrats and Bernie (the most popular politician in the country) that we should probably give more credibility to what Bernie says Americans want/care about than the Democratic party?
|
On April 24 2017 13:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 13:32 ChristianS wrote:On April 24 2017 13:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 13:14 ChristianS wrote:On April 24 2017 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 08:35 ChristianS wrote:On April 24 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 07:29 ChristianS wrote:
Understanding why Dems are disliked is absolutely interesting and worth exploring. Understanding why HRC was so disliked is just as useless as understanding Comey's impact on the election - it doesn't apply in the next election so it's useless. Wrong. Why Hillary is disliked is very similar to why the Democrats are disliked. Comey's shit is useless, but Hillary stands as a singular personification of what problems reside within the Democratic party. Not to mention she and her strongest supporters are the impetus behind a lot of this stuff. A good example would be campaign finance reform and Obama's lobbyist ban the DNC refused to reinstall after they lost the election. If they're similar you can criticize the Dems for them and HRC doesn't need to come into it. And how are they similar if Hillary was such a uniquely unpopular candidate anyway? A really good understanding of why people feel the way they do about Dems would be useful for winning elections. But if we got a really detailed analysis of how Hillary's mannerisms made her less popular, or if we learned a lot about specific CEOs she took a lot of money from and how that forced her to take specific positions, or even more detail about her email server and how she fucked it up and why - all of these would be absolutely useless for winning future elections unless we ran Hillary again for some reason. Otherwise, we might as well talk about the political dynamics surrounding politicians that still matter. Here's the problem with that. A lot of the Democrats still don't think a lot of these things are problems or significantly contributed to her loss. Just think back to how folks like Kwiz and plansix defended (I think Kwiz still will) Hillary's fundraising. Saying things like "we can't unilaterally disarm, or else Republicans will win", then Hillary raises and spends much more than Trump and still loses. So we get all the negatives of being just as bad or worse than Republicans on campaign finance, except they won anyway. That's not even getting into how much of the money was dumped into Hillary's campaign instead of helping the local candidates her supporters suggested needed someone like Hillary over Bernie. Basically you can go back over some of the glaringly obvious problems with Hillary and see that Democrats defended her or dismissed them as insignificant. Until Democrats realize they aren't insignificant and were a major contributing factor to why she lost (MORE IMPORTANT than Comey, Russia, etc), they won't have any interest in correcting it. Another example would be how Chelsea and Hillary went after Bernie for his healthcare plan. You can see the lingering rhetoric among some democrats still. I'm not sure that I agree with you about the fundraising, and I'm not sure what Chelsea and Hillary's commentary about healthcare was, but it doesn't matter for the point anyway. If the Democrats are doing shitty thing X, by all means point that out and point out why it's shitty. If shitty thing X was also something that helped kill Hillary's campaign, that certainly could be reasonable supporting evidence. But just like talking about Nixon or Harding or Dukakis, it's only useful to talk about insomuch as it also applies to current affairs. When we throw up the LL bat signal and the thread derails into a discussion about the degree of Hillary's shittiness, that isn't the case. We wind up in a long discussion of whether the democratic primary results were legitimate, or whether the emails were as damning as some people say, or whatever other part of the election people want to relitigate. Maybe next time we'll talk about how Hillary really should have come forward saying she had pneumonia before fainting on 9/11. It's all useless. It alienates Clinton supporters the same way Bernie supporters felt alienated in the election, and it does nothing to help figure out how to beat back Trump in 2018 or 2020 because they're peoblems peculiar to Hillary. If Democrats make a mental note to train their employees better about phishing and not to store classified documents on private servers, then no repeat analysis is useful going forward. Your first sentence negates the rest of your post. That you don't know about Hillary and Chelsea's commentary or why the fundraising is problematic puts you squarely in the camp that still needs to understand how and why they helped lead to her loss before you can understand how to address it within the party. Just take a look at someone like Peter Daou's twitter feed to get an appreciation of the delusion that lives strong in the Democratic party. Those people need to see the light before they will ever get on board with changing (or getting out of the way). I was just trying to avoid derailing the discussion into one on those topics. And it doesn't negate the rest of the post because the rest of the post is explicitly written to not depend on any specific issue you're referring to. It's a general point about how the discussion about Clinton in this thread is consistently toxic and unproductive. This is that cult of savviness thing in action. I make an argument; you don't respond to the argument at all, but just dismiss me as not "getting it." The fact that the thing I supposedly don't get is irrelevant to my argument doesn't matter; you've already dismissed me as one of the unknowing ones, so it doesn't matter. Here, let's try to put this as simply as I can: if there are lessons to be learned from the 2016 election, let's talk about them. But talking about how bad Hillary is without any connection to a lesson that can be learned going forward is a waste of everyone's time. That goes for 90% of the "electable" discussion every time it comes up. That's fine, the whole point of my post was that I was being lumped into the folks who are just "haters" and that's not me. When I'm talking about Hillary it's always (at least most of the time) with pertinence to what's happening today and in the future of politics. I'll admit Legal's strategy seems like it would be frustrating, but it's not unwarranted. Him dumping on Hillary has the presumed inference of all the other stuff that people ignored when they assured us that she was "electable", moreso than the currently most popular politician in the country. There's a lot of stubborn ignorance wrapped up in the frustration with Legal's insistence on the "electability" argument but that's more of a them thing than a Legal thing. For some additional context of how out of touch the Democratic party is. https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/856132623676170240
From the ABC/WP poll if I'm not mistaken. Dems are way out of touch; I think the most surprising result was they polled who people would vote for today, and Trump wins the popular vote.
But to the point: Dems need to get over the tough loss and stop blaming voter sexism/stupidity and Russia for the loss of their gal. She ran a terrible campaign that only looked close because of a weak opposition candidate.
Trump just suffered a big blow to his Obamacare promises. He's looked weak on backing away from 100-days pledges. His twitter feed is a near-daily reminder of his ego and spitefulness. He likes garish gold displays and playing loads of golf. This is the guy that you can't beat in empathy with your average American.
So "reinvent" yourselves with whatever new slogans will fly, have more to your platform than Trump Is Bad and We're Not Letting Putin Get Away with It, and start connecting with your base. It should be easy to run ahead of the embarrassing GOP organization but y'all are making it look like it's amateur hour at DNC HQ.
|
On April 24 2017 14:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 13:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 13:32 ChristianS wrote:On April 24 2017 13:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 13:14 ChristianS wrote:On April 24 2017 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 08:35 ChristianS wrote:On April 24 2017 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 07:29 ChristianS wrote:
Understanding why Dems are disliked is absolutely interesting and worth exploring. Understanding why HRC was so disliked is just as useless as understanding Comey's impact on the election - it doesn't apply in the next election so it's useless. Wrong. Why Hillary is disliked is very similar to why the Democrats are disliked. Comey's shit is useless, but Hillary stands as a singular personification of what problems reside within the Democratic party. Not to mention she and her strongest supporters are the impetus behind a lot of this stuff. A good example would be campaign finance reform and Obama's lobbyist ban the DNC refused to reinstall after they lost the election. If they're similar you can criticize the Dems for them and HRC doesn't need to come into it. And how are they similar if Hillary was such a uniquely unpopular candidate anyway? A really good understanding of why people feel the way they do about Dems would be useful for winning elections. But if we got a really detailed analysis of how Hillary's mannerisms made her less popular, or if we learned a lot about specific CEOs she took a lot of money from and how that forced her to take specific positions, or even more detail about her email server and how she fucked it up and why - all of these would be absolutely useless for winning future elections unless we ran Hillary again for some reason. Otherwise, we might as well talk about the political dynamics surrounding politicians that still matter. Here's the problem with that. A lot of the Democrats still don't think a lot of these things are problems or significantly contributed to her loss. Just think back to how folks like Kwiz and plansix defended (I think Kwiz still will) Hillary's fundraising. Saying things like "we can't unilaterally disarm, or else Republicans will win", then Hillary raises and spends much more than Trump and still loses. So we get all the negatives of being just as bad or worse than Republicans on campaign finance, except they won anyway. That's not even getting into how much of the money was dumped into Hillary's campaign instead of helping the local candidates her supporters suggested needed someone like Hillary over Bernie. Basically you can go back over some of the glaringly obvious problems with Hillary and see that Democrats defended her or dismissed them as insignificant. Until Democrats realize they aren't insignificant and were a major contributing factor to why she lost (MORE IMPORTANT than Comey, Russia, etc), they won't have any interest in correcting it. Another example would be how Chelsea and Hillary went after Bernie for his healthcare plan. You can see the lingering rhetoric among some democrats still. I'm not sure that I agree with you about the fundraising, and I'm not sure what Chelsea and Hillary's commentary about healthcare was, but it doesn't matter for the point anyway. If the Democrats are doing shitty thing X, by all means point that out and point out why it's shitty. If shitty thing X was also something that helped kill Hillary's campaign, that certainly could be reasonable supporting evidence. But just like talking about Nixon or Harding or Dukakis, it's only useful to talk about insomuch as it also applies to current affairs. When we throw up the LL bat signal and the thread derails into a discussion about the degree of Hillary's shittiness, that isn't the case. We wind up in a long discussion of whether the democratic primary results were legitimate, or whether the emails were as damning as some people say, or whatever other part of the election people want to relitigate. Maybe next time we'll talk about how Hillary really should have come forward saying she had pneumonia before fainting on 9/11. It's all useless. It alienates Clinton supporters the same way Bernie supporters felt alienated in the election, and it does nothing to help figure out how to beat back Trump in 2018 or 2020 because they're peoblems peculiar to Hillary. If Democrats make a mental note to train their employees better about phishing and not to store classified documents on private servers, then no repeat analysis is useful going forward. Your first sentence negates the rest of your post. That you don't know about Hillary and Chelsea's commentary or why the fundraising is problematic puts you squarely in the camp that still needs to understand how and why they helped lead to her loss before you can understand how to address it within the party. Just take a look at someone like Peter Daou's twitter feed to get an appreciation of the delusion that lives strong in the Democratic party. Those people need to see the light before they will ever get on board with changing (or getting out of the way). I was just trying to avoid derailing the discussion into one on those topics. And it doesn't negate the rest of the post because the rest of the post is explicitly written to not depend on any specific issue you're referring to. It's a general point about how the discussion about Clinton in this thread is consistently toxic and unproductive. This is that cult of savviness thing in action. I make an argument; you don't respond to the argument at all, but just dismiss me as not "getting it." The fact that the thing I supposedly don't get is irrelevant to my argument doesn't matter; you've already dismissed me as one of the unknowing ones, so it doesn't matter. Here, let's try to put this as simply as I can: if there are lessons to be learned from the 2016 election, let's talk about them. But talking about how bad Hillary is without any connection to a lesson that can be learned going forward is a waste of everyone's time. That goes for 90% of the "electable" discussion every time it comes up. That's fine, the whole point of my post was that I was being lumped into the folks who are just "haters" and that's not me. When I'm talking about Hillary it's always (at least most of the time) with pertinence to what's happening today and in the future of politics. I'll admit Legal's strategy seems like it would be frustrating, but it's not unwarranted. Him dumping on Hillary has the presumed inference of all the other stuff that people ignored when they assured us that she was "electable", moreso than the currently most popular politician in the country. There's a lot of stubborn ignorance wrapped up in the frustration with Legal's insistence on the "electability" argument but that's more of a them thing than a Legal thing. For some additional context of how out of touch the Democratic party is. https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/856132623676170240 From the ABC/WP poll if I'm not mistaken. Dems are way out of touch; I think the most surprising result was they polled who people would vote for today, and Trump wins the popular vote. But to the point: Dems need to get over the tough loss and stop blaming voter sexism/stupidity and Russia for the loss of their gal. She ran a terrible campaign that only looked close because of a weak opposition candidate. Trump just suffered a big blow to his Obamacare promises. He's looked weak on backing away from 100-days pledges. His twitter feed is a near-daily reminder of his ego and spitefulness. He likes garish gold displays and playing loads of golf. This is the guy that you can't beat in empathy with your average American. So "reinvent" yourselves with whatever new slogans will fly, have more to your platform than Trump Is Bad and We're Not Letting Putin Get Away with It, and start connecting with your base. It should be easy to run ahead of the embarrassing GOP organization but y'all are making it look like it's amateur hour at DNC HQ.
This, I think, is at the core of LL's brow beating into people about the "electability".
DEMOCRATS ARE LOSING BY 10 POINTS ON "in touch with concerns of most people in the US" to THIS GUY!?!?![[image loading]](http://staticimg.myfirstclasslife.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/27074414/We-Aint-Lion.jpg)
That should be devastating to the entirety of people at the helm of the DNC/Democratic party for the last decade. But Democrats are seeming to shrug it off, and even more astonishingly holding the guy desperately trying to help them in contempt and resentment instead of rallying to him.
|
Things that aren't irrelevant but that the non-Clinton group wishes would be:
- Clinton's influence on the party.
- Russia witch hunt that goes well beyond a genuine search for criminals into a political strategy.
- Selective willingness to use the findings of the intelligence community to push their agenda, while denouncing them when it works for the opposite party.
- Acceptance of mass leaking within Trump's administration because it's some sort of just desserts for Wikileaks.
- Maintaining all the disgusting elements of the party that are what Hillary Clinton at her worst personified, with little to no indication of any desire to change.
All of which are pretty relevant to the bullshit talking points surrounding "electability" and/or the "Trump-Putin-Comey alliance" which I mention often.
|
On April 24 2017 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 14:23 ChristianS wrote:
The electability thing is innately the problem I'm talking about. He says we should have realized because of email server and Benghazi and w/e else that she wasn't actually more electable. Putting aside whether that's even true, it's completely centered around issues peculiar to Hillary. The whole thing boils down to: one of the candidates tried to make the case during the primary that people should vote for her because she'd have a better chance in the general. That's it. Nevermind that every other candidate also tried to make that case because that's what you do in a primary. It's now his whole raison d'etre to remind everyone that she tried to say she was electable, but didn't get elected. Of course now the LL bat signal is up so we can expect another tirade about her delectable electability.
But fair enough, you (@GH, if that wasn't clear) don't bludgeon us with your homebrew meme all day. I think it was about a day ago I was lumping you in with LL, but at the time I was criticizing the practice of strawmanning anybody who talks about Russia, Comey, Wikileaks, etc. as important factors in the election by claiming those people don't think Hillary's campaign also made mistakes (a_flayer in particular was constructing this strawman explicitly). As far as I can tell everyone ITT is at a place of "clearly the Dems made mistakes for the election to get that close, let's try to identify those mistakes and correct them." There's probably some disagreement about what those mistakes are, and it doesn't help when someone who defends some action on the part of the Dems gets caricatured with "lol you just don't get it, you still think it was just Russians and Comey that went wrong."
But okay, if you don't think you're strawmanning people like that I'll point it out when I think it's happening and in the meantime retract the criticism. Thank you. Thoughts on Democrats being 10 points behind Trump in "in touch" with the concerns of most Americans (Do we all appreciate how unbelievably bad this is btw)? Fair to say when comparing the Democrats and Bernie (the most popular politician in the country) that we should probably give more credibility to what Bernie says Americans want/care about than the Democratic party?
I don't have many thoughts on it. Not very exciting, I know, but I'm not very familiar with this type of polling and what it's actually a measure of. It seems like both the DNC and the RNC usually have lower approval ratings than specific Republicans or Democrats, which sorta makes sense given that you don't need to sell people on voting for the RNC, you need to sell them on voting for specific Republicans. 28 still seems pretty low, and it's hard to say what people are even basing that on right now. Democrats are doing a Unity Tour snd stuff, but I doubt that messaging even has enough penetration for people to be deciding based on that stuff. I guess a lot of it is probably just residual sentiment from the election?
I'm happy to listen to what Bernie thinks Americans want/care about. I won't just take his word as gospel, but I certainly value his opinion.
|
On April 24 2017 14:47 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 14:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:23 ChristianS wrote:
The electability thing is innately the problem I'm talking about. He says we should have realized because of email server and Benghazi and w/e else that she wasn't actually more electable. Putting aside whether that's even true, it's completely centered around issues peculiar to Hillary. The whole thing boils down to: one of the candidates tried to make the case during the primary that people should vote for her because she'd have a better chance in the general. That's it. Nevermind that every other candidate also tried to make that case because that's what you do in a primary. It's now his whole raison d'etre to remind everyone that she tried to say she was electable, but didn't get elected. Of course now the LL bat signal is up so we can expect another tirade about her delectable electability.
But fair enough, you (@GH, if that wasn't clear) don't bludgeon us with your homebrew meme all day. I think it was about a day ago I was lumping you in with LL, but at the time I was criticizing the practice of strawmanning anybody who talks about Russia, Comey, Wikileaks, etc. as important factors in the election by claiming those people don't think Hillary's campaign also made mistakes (a_flayer in particular was constructing this strawman explicitly). As far as I can tell everyone ITT is at a place of "clearly the Dems made mistakes for the election to get that close, let's try to identify those mistakes and correct them." There's probably some disagreement about what those mistakes are, and it doesn't help when someone who defends some action on the part of the Dems gets caricatured with "lol you just don't get it, you still think it was just Russians and Comey that went wrong."
But okay, if you don't think you're strawmanning people like that I'll point it out when I think it's happening and in the meantime retract the criticism. Thank you. Thoughts on Democrats being 10 points behind Trump in "in touch" with the concerns of most Americans (Do we all appreciate how unbelievably bad this is btw)? Fair to say when comparing the Democrats and Bernie (the most popular politician in the country) that we should probably give more credibility to what Bernie says Americans want/care about than the Democratic party? I don't have many thoughts on it. Not very exciting, I know, but I'm not very familiar with this type of polling and what it's actually a measure of. It seems like both the DNC and the RNC usually have lower approval ratings than specific Republicans or Democrats, which sorta makes sense given that you don't need to sell people on voting for the RNC, you need to sell them on voting for specific Republicans. 28 still seems pretty low, and it's hard to say what people are even basing that on right now. Democrats are doing a Unity Tour snd stuff, but I doubt that messaging even has enough penetration for people to be deciding based on that stuff. I guess a lot of it is probably just residual sentiment from the election? I'm happy to listen to what Bernie thinks Americans want/care about. I won't just take his word as gospel, but I certainly value his opinion.
This is better than usual but still pretty bad. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE Democrats period.
Okay, once you accept that the American public generally dislikes Democrats more (or close to) Trump, this should be an obvious sign that what Democrats are saying/doing is TERRIBLY unpopular. What's not unpopular though are the things they support that overlap with what Bernie supports.
The most basic takeaway is that Democrats need to be more like Bernie, not that Bernie and his supporters need to be more like Hillary/Democrats/Republicans/Trump. We're still waiting for Democrats to recognize that, are you there yet?
|
Canada11412 Posts
On April 24 2017 14:19 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, obviously. Just like showing you highly emotional footage of some event can be used to change your political opinion. Trying to influence behaviour by provoking an emotional reaction is an age old trick. Say the pregnancy is actually dangerous for the woman and she sees this imagery of the ultra-sound and decides against an abortion although it would be medically reasonable, how is that not manipulation? There's no such thing as showing you "what is"
Well, alright. So makes the ultrasound footage emotional and manipulative? It's not like people will be doctoring the footage, putting emotionally compelling music underneath and having a low voice saying "this is the BABY you are going to kill!" And what if the pregnancy is not dangerous... as are the majority of cases. What is it about seeing the sterile, clinical ultrasound footage sans soundtrack and voiceover that is emotional and manipulative?
|
On April 24 2017 14:58 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 14:19 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, obviously. Just like showing you highly emotional footage of some event can be used to change your political opinion. Trying to influence behaviour by provoking an emotional reaction is an age old trick. Say the pregnancy is actually dangerous for the woman and she sees this imagery of the ultra-sound and decides against an abortion although it would be medically reasonable, how is that not manipulation? There's no such thing as showing you "what is" Well, alright. So makes the ultrasound footage emotional and manipulative? It's not like people will be doctoring the footage, putting emotionally compelling music underneath and having a low voice saying "this is the BABY you are going to kill!" And what if the pregnancy is not dangerous... as are the majority of cases. What is it about seeing the sterile, clinical ultrasound footage sans soundtrack and voiceover that is emotional and manipulative?
I hate that this topic even comes up here so a bunch of dudes can talk about what restrictions on women are fair without a sense of the problematic nature of them not being in the conversations, but it's not just the emotional stuff iirc, it's that this is used to delay the process in general as scheduling the ultrasound is an additional thing that must be completed increasing the potential for a woman to miss her window.
I think leaving abortion up to women (meaning women, their doctors, and their faith) to decide would be a small concession in a country that didn't even let them vote for most of it's existence.
|
Wasn't it not that they need to perform an ultrasound, but simply that they need to know that the option is available?
|
I'd have liked to have seen in that poll whether the people asked identify Bernie as part of the Democratic party they view as out of touch. It isn't as though generic American #1 making up that majority out of touch really knows the difference or gives a flying fuck about the nitty gritty of the current party politics. Sadly he doesn't come up in the poll at all as far as I can tell.
I do hope all the silly "oh noes Trump woulda won the popular vote today !11!1" stuff dies in a fire, that's not what opinion polls like this are for at all.
|
On April 24 2017 15:05 LegalLord wrote:
Wasn't it not that they need to perform an ultrasound, but simply that they need to know that the option is available?
Probably for this law, I didn't bother to read it, as again, I find the conversation far more nauseating than the worst of your delectably electable stuff.
Mostly just wanted to say that if there is a single place where men didn't demand to have the final say, abortion should be it. But as it stands men are saying women are not capable of resolving this without men having the final determination on what they can and can't do.
I imagine this is kind of what white guilt feels like.
Like Men, just stop being such unrelenting control freaks so that you can defer to women on this one single issue. Is that really so hard?
On April 24 2017 15:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'd have liked to have seen in that poll whether the people asked identify Bernie as part of the Democratic party they view as out of touch. It isn't as though generic American #1 making up that majority out of touch really knows the difference or gives a flying fuck about the nitty gritty of the current party politics. Sadly he doesn't come up in the poll at all as far as I can tell.
I do hope all the silly "oh noes Trump woulda won the popular vote today !11!1" stuff dies in a fire, that's not what opinion polls like this are for at all.
These are the takeaways that show No, the democratic party isn't ready to come to grips with the current political climate.
|
Canada11412 Posts
On April 24 2017 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 14:58 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 14:19 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, obviously. Just like showing you highly emotional footage of some event can be used to change your political opinion. Trying to influence behaviour by provoking an emotional reaction is an age old trick. Say the pregnancy is actually dangerous for the woman and she sees this imagery of the ultra-sound and decides against an abortion although it would be medically reasonable, how is that not manipulation? There's no such thing as showing you "what is" Well, alright. So makes the ultrasound footage emotional and manipulative? It's not like people will be doctoring the footage, putting emotionally compelling music underneath and having a low voice saying "this is the BABY you are going to kill!" And what if the pregnancy is not dangerous... as are the majority of cases. What is it about seeing the sterile, clinical ultrasound footage sans soundtrack and voiceover that is emotional and manipulative? I hate that this topic even comes up here so a bunch of dudes can talk about what restrictions on women are fair without a sense of the problematic nature of them not being in the conversations, but it's not just the emotional stuff iirc, it's that this is used to delay the process in general as scheduling the ultrasound is an additional thing that must be completed increasing the potential for a woman to miss her window. I think leaving abortion up to women (meaning women, their doctors, and their faith) to decide would be a small concession in a country that didn't even let them vote for most of it's existence.
You realize that what you are saying, assumes a certain position from the outset. To borrow from Louis CK: it's either like crapping or it's like killing a baby. It's only one of those two things. It's no other things. "A bunch of dudes can talk about restrictions on women" assumes the crapping position from the outset... but that's the entire point of the controversy because if it's the second, then it seems that men should speak out with women... unless you are like Louis CK and think it is the second, but women should be able to kill 'em anyways because life is overrated.
|
I'm just not sure >50% of the 67% that view the Democratic party as out of touch don't also view the second place finisher in the Democratic primary as not a member of the Democratic party.
Unless you're instead saying that a poll designed to measure aggregate public opinion is the best way to estimate election results which just baffles me
|
On April 24 2017 15:17 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:58 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 14:19 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, obviously. Just like showing you highly emotional footage of some event can be used to change your political opinion. Trying to influence behaviour by provoking an emotional reaction is an age old trick. Say the pregnancy is actually dangerous for the woman and she sees this imagery of the ultra-sound and decides against an abortion although it would be medically reasonable, how is that not manipulation? There's no such thing as showing you "what is" Well, alright. So makes the ultrasound footage emotional and manipulative? It's not like people will be doctoring the footage, putting emotionally compelling music underneath and having a low voice saying "this is the BABY you are going to kill!" And what if the pregnancy is not dangerous... as are the majority of cases. What is it about seeing the sterile, clinical ultrasound footage sans soundtrack and voiceover that is emotional and manipulative? I hate that this topic even comes up here so a bunch of dudes can talk about what restrictions on women are fair without a sense of the problematic nature of them not being in the conversations, but it's not just the emotional stuff iirc, it's that this is used to delay the process in general as scheduling the ultrasound is an additional thing that must be completed increasing the potential for a woman to miss her window. I think leaving abortion up to women (meaning women, their doctors, and their faith) to decide would be a small concession in a country that didn't even let them vote for most of it's existence. You realize that what you are saying, assumes a certain position from the outset. To borrow from Louis CK: it's either like crapping or it's like killing a baby. It's only one of those two things. It's no other things. "A bunch of dudes can talk about restrictions on women" assumes the crapping position from the outset... but that's the entire point of the controversy because if it's the second, then it seems that men should speak out with women... unless you are like Louis CK and think it is the second, but women should be able to kill 'em anyways because life is overrated.
I understand your point, but no. That was a great special but my point is that even if it is killing babies men kill countless babies every year so they should just let women at least have the final say on the ones inside of them and men can have the rest.
Put yet another way, Women don't and never have had the final say on anything (politically speaking) in this country. Are you and other men really so obnoxious that you can't give them autonomy over this one thing, being the contents of their own bodies?
On April 24 2017 15:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm just not sure >50% of the 67% that view the Democratic party as out of touch don't also view the second place finisher in the Democratic primary as not a member of the Democratic party.
Unless you're instead saying that a poll designed to measure aggregate public opinion is the best way to estimate election results which just baffles me
There's a quote feature for a reason.
That you're worried about that of all things speaks for itself though.
|
On April 24 2017 15:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 15:17 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2017 14:58 Falling wrote:On April 24 2017 14:19 Nyxisto wrote:
yes, obviously. Just like showing you highly emotional footage of some event can be used to change your political opinion. Trying to influence behaviour by provoking an emotional reaction is an age old trick. Say the pregnancy is actually dangerous for the woman and she sees this imagery of the ultra-sound and decides against an abortion although it would be medically reasonable, how is that not manipulation? There's no such thing as showing you "what is" Well, alright. So makes the ultrasound footage emotional and manipulative? It's not like people will be doctoring the footage, putting emotionally compelling music underneath and having a low voice saying "this is the BABY you are going to kill!" And what if the pregnancy is not dangerous... as are the majority of cases. What is it about seeing the sterile, clinical ultrasound footage sans soundtrack and voiceover that is emotional and manipulative? I hate that this topic even comes up here so a bunch of dudes can talk about what restrictions on women are fair without a sense of the problematic nature of them not being in the conversations, but it's not just the emotional stuff iirc, it's that this is used to delay the process in general as scheduling the ultrasound is an additional thing that must be completed increasing the potential for a woman to miss her window. I think leaving abortion up to women (meaning women, their doctors, and their faith) to decide would be a small concession in a country that didn't even let them vote for most of it's existence. You realize that what you are saying, assumes a certain position from the outset. To borrow from Louis CK: it's either like crapping or it's like killing a baby. It's only one of those two things. It's no other things. "A bunch of dudes can talk about restrictions on women" assumes the crapping position from the outset... but that's the entire point of the controversy because if it's the second, then it seems that men should speak out with women... unless you are like Louis CK and think it is the second, but women should be able to kill 'em anyways because life is overrated. I understand your point, but no. That was a great special but my point is that even if it is killing babies men kill countless babies every year so they should just let women at least have the final say on the ones inside of them and men can have the rest. Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 15:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm just not sure >50% of the 67% that view the Democratic party as out of touch don't also view the second place finisher in the Democratic primary as not a member of the Democratic party.
Unless you're instead saying that a poll designed to measure aggregate public opinion is the best way to estimate election results which just baffles me There's a quote feature for a reason. That you're worried about that of all things speaks for itself though.
It doubly speaks to the fact that the actual poll shows Clinton winning by 4% in everyone polled though that's getting 0 reporting ofc.
That said I probably should have quoted you. I also just got back from a night out so apologies if I'm not really making sense. I really do wish that they had included a Sanders question in the poll though, it would validate a lot of other polls so sorry if that sounded overly snarky.
Edit: It didn't help that I received an anecdote at the night out that there are definitely people who still really really hate "Berniebros" which probably wouldn't help her opinion of the Dem party right now but that's obviously a silly think to draw any conclusions on
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
