• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 21:45
CEST 03:45
KST 10:45
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202561RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
Greatest Players of All Time: 2025 Update The StarCraft 2 GOAT - An in-depth analysis The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time EWC 2025 details: $700k total prize; GSL, DH Dallas confirmed
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BW General Discussion Dewalt's Show Matches in China
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
[G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food!
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 654 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8525

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 8523 8524 8525 8526 8527 10093 Next
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.
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12172 Posts
August 22 2017 20:31 GMT
#170481
On August 23 2017 05:25 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all.

Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk.


That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges.

The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance.


This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape outside.


^ You see this, this is what the Democratic party stands for, and thinks. They think they lost 1000+ seats because of 70k whitish voters in the suburbs and they don't need us (until they're looking for another scapegoat for losing).

That's why I keep pointing out that Democrats don't get it and too many people are giving them a pass for reasons I can't comprehend.


Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money.


They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling).


Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this:

Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus

Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smack of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism.


Bernie's townhall in WV is some. Where a Trump delegate and a Trump voting coal miner agreed with Bernie on several issues, one big one being healthcare.

On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them.

The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies.


You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating.

EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!?

Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all.

Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk.


That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges.

The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance.


This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source


but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparately to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.


Didn't hurt you had outlets like WaPo and MSNBC pushing lies about Bernie specifically aimed to decrease his support.

Not to say Bernie couldn't have done better. But the irony is his focus on economic issues as a way to address race issues is both what Democrats ridicule him for and say they want to do more of to appeal to the people Bernie got over Hillary.

Lots of Republicans agree on single points from the Democratic agenda.

I seem to remember a study into that with the ACA, that most people agreed on its points in isolation but the moment you put them together and called them the ACA/Obamacare they became against it.


Is there some new data on the popularity of progressive ideas or are we stuck with the not-so-recent polls where all of the major ideas got support from over 50% of Americans?
No will to live, no wish to die
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
August 22 2017 20:33 GMT
#170482
On August 23 2017 01:45 Plansix wrote:
I saw that yesterday and said "let them eat cake" outloud. Also that outfit is like 3-4 mortgage payments if you include the bag.

One of my friends is a fashion hawk and she just told me that bag she was carrying is 20K. So we have gone from three mortgage payments to a down payment on a house is many sections of the country. Flying around on the tax payer dime.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-22 20:38:39
August 22 2017 20:37 GMT
#170483
On August 23 2017 05:25 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:
[quote]
They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really.

Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them.

The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies.


You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating.

EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!?

Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all.

Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk.


That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges.

The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance.


This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source


but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparagingly to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.

I agree that an unqualified comparison with Obama's numbers is uncalled for, but the point remains that boiling down Hillary's loss into a neat and tidy 70k easily identifiable voters such that the party can at-large ignore everyone else is not a good idea.


Sure, but neither is over-reacting and changing the whole political course just because an election was lost. I really don't think that centrist politics is dead in the US or suddenly not a viable political platform. Most people still fall into that spectrum.

Progressives have a very energised base but they don't seem to represent the majority of the United States electorate or anything close to it. People in mature democracies grow tired of populists quickly. Give Trump a few more years and we'll see how much fun it is during the next election cycle.
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15686 Posts
August 22 2017 20:37 GMT
#170484
On August 23 2017 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 05:25 Gorsameth wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:
[quote]

That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges.

The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance.


This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape outside.


^ You see this, this is what the Democratic party stands for, and thinks. They think they lost 1000+ seats because of 70k whitish voters in the suburbs and they don't need us (until they're looking for another scapegoat for losing).

That's why I keep pointing out that Democrats don't get it and too many people are giving them a pass for reasons I can't comprehend.


Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money.


They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling).


Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this:

Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus

Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smack of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism.


Bernie's townhall in WV is some. Where a Trump delegate and a Trump voting coal miner agreed with Bernie on several issues, one big one being healthcare.

On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]

You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating.

EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!?

Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all.

Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk.


That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges.

The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance.


This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source


but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparately to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.


Didn't hurt you had outlets like WaPo and MSNBC pushing lies about Bernie specifically aimed to decrease his support.

Not to say Bernie couldn't have done better. But the irony is his focus on economic issues as a way to address race issues is both what Democrats ridicule him for and say they want to do more of to appeal to the people Bernie got over Hillary.

Lots of Republicans agree on single points from the Democratic agenda.

I seem to remember a study into that with the ACA, that most people agreed on its points in isolation but the moment you put them together and called them the ACA/Obamacare they became against it.


Is there some new data on the popularity of progressive ideas or are we stuck with the not-so-recent polls where all of the major ideas got support from over 50% of Americans?


If "percentage of Americans" mattered, we would have congress and the presidency. It doesn't.
WolfintheSheep
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada14127 Posts
August 22 2017 20:39 GMT
#170485
On August 23 2017 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 05:25 Gorsameth wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:
[quote]

That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges.

The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance.


This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape outside.


^ You see this, this is what the Democratic party stands for, and thinks. They think they lost 1000+ seats because of 70k whitish voters in the suburbs and they don't need us (until they're looking for another scapegoat for losing).

That's why I keep pointing out that Democrats don't get it and too many people are giving them a pass for reasons I can't comprehend.


Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money.


They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling).


Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this:

Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus

Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smack of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism.


Bernie's townhall in WV is some. Where a Trump delegate and a Trump voting coal miner agreed with Bernie on several issues, one big one being healthcare.

On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]

You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating.

EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!?

Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all.

Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk.


That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges.

The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance.


This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source


but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparately to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.


Didn't hurt you had outlets like WaPo and MSNBC pushing lies about Bernie specifically aimed to decrease his support.

Not to say Bernie couldn't have done better. But the irony is his focus on economic issues as a way to address race issues is both what Democrats ridicule him for and say they want to do more of to appeal to the people Bernie got over Hillary.

Lots of Republicans agree on single points from the Democratic agenda.

I seem to remember a study into that with the ACA, that most people agreed on its points in isolation but the moment you put them together and called them the ACA/Obamacare they became against it.


Is there some new data on the popularity of progressive ideas or are we stuck with the not-so-recent polls where all of the major ideas got support from over 50% of Americans?

Feels silly to be talking about the popularity of health care "ideas", when the current government situation is a complete case in point in the discrepancy between ideas and legislation.

Repeal and replace was fairly popular (though, not majority popular I don't think?), but vague concepts are cheap, and actual law is hard (who knew how hard healthcare was?).
Average means I'm better than half of you.
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12172 Posts
August 22 2017 20:40 GMT
#170486
On August 23 2017 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:25 Gorsameth wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]

This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape outside.


^ You see this, this is what the Democratic party stands for, and thinks. They think they lost 1000+ seats because of 70k whitish voters in the suburbs and they don't need us (until they're looking for another scapegoat for losing).

That's why I keep pointing out that Democrats don't get it and too many people are giving them a pass for reasons I can't comprehend.


Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money.


They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling).


Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this:

Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus

Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smack of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism.


Bernie's townhall in WV is some. Where a Trump delegate and a Trump voting coal miner agreed with Bernie on several issues, one big one being healthcare.

On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all.

Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk.


That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges.

The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance.


This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source


but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparately to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.


Didn't hurt you had outlets like WaPo and MSNBC pushing lies about Bernie specifically aimed to decrease his support.

Not to say Bernie couldn't have done better. But the irony is his focus on economic issues as a way to address race issues is both what Democrats ridicule him for and say they want to do more of to appeal to the people Bernie got over Hillary.

Lots of Republicans agree on single points from the Democratic agenda.

I seem to remember a study into that with the ACA, that most people agreed on its points in isolation but the moment you put them together and called them the ACA/Obamacare they became against it.


Is there some new data on the popularity of progressive ideas or are we stuck with the not-so-recent polls where all of the major ideas got support from over 50% of Americans?


If "percentage of Americans" mattered, we would have congress and the presidency. It doesn't.


It matters in the context of the post I'm responding to.
No will to live, no wish to die
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13925 Posts
August 22 2017 20:41 GMT
#170487
I read a study that more people blame obama for Hurricane Katrina than Bush. People are dumb water is wet.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
August 22 2017 20:41 GMT
#170488
On August 23 2017 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:25 Gorsameth wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]

This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape outside.


^ You see this, this is what the Democratic party stands for, and thinks. They think they lost 1000+ seats because of 70k whitish voters in the suburbs and they don't need us (until they're looking for another scapegoat for losing).

That's why I keep pointing out that Democrats don't get it and too many people are giving them a pass for reasons I can't comprehend.


Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money.


They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling).


Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this:

Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus

Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smack of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism.


Bernie's townhall in WV is some. Where a Trump delegate and a Trump voting coal miner agreed with Bernie on several issues, one big one being healthcare.

On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all.

Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk.


That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges.

The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance.


This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source


but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparately to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.


Didn't hurt you had outlets like WaPo and MSNBC pushing lies about Bernie specifically aimed to decrease his support.

Not to say Bernie couldn't have done better. But the irony is his focus on economic issues as a way to address race issues is both what Democrats ridicule him for and say they want to do more of to appeal to the people Bernie got over Hillary.

Lots of Republicans agree on single points from the Democratic agenda.

I seem to remember a study into that with the ACA, that most people agreed on its points in isolation but the moment you put them together and called them the ACA/Obamacare they became against it.


Is there some new data on the popularity of progressive ideas or are we stuck with the not-so-recent polls where all of the major ideas got support from over 50% of Americans?


If "percentage of Americans" mattered, we would have congress and the presidency. It doesn't.

Who is "we" exactly?
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
August 22 2017 20:48 GMT
#170489
On August 23 2017 05:41 Sermokala wrote:
I read a study that more people blame obama for Hurricane Katrina than Bush. People are dumb water is wet.

Yeah, I wish people would stop citing polls to prove legislation is viable. It is viable when you get it through congress. I think single payer would be great, but no one is going to be pumped about a third round of healthcare fights at the national level. That political capital is going to be spent on other issues. Push that thing through at the state level and make it functional.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12172 Posts
August 22 2017 20:52 GMT
#170490
On August 23 2017 05:48 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 05:41 Sermokala wrote:
I read a study that more people blame obama for Hurricane Katrina than Bush. People are dumb water is wet.

Yeah, I wish people would stop citing polls to prove legislation is viable. It is viable when you get it through congress. I think single payer would be great, but no one is going to be pumped about a third round of healthcare fights at the national level. That political capital is going to be spent on other issues. Push that thing through at the state level and make it functional.


I'm responding to a post that said Bernie's town hall in WV isn't evidence of anything because that's just republicans agreeing with democrats on a single point, which happens. This was all sparked by the question: "Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism?"

Could you explain the relevance of congress in this specific discussion?
No will to live, no wish to die
Seuss
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States10536 Posts
August 22 2017 20:53 GMT
#170491
On August 23 2017 05:37 Nyxisto wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 05:25 farvacola wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them.

The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies.


You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating.

EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!?

Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all.

Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk.


That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges.

The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance.


This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source


but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparagingly to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.

I agree that an unqualified comparison with Obama's numbers is uncalled for, but the point remains that boiling down Hillary's loss into a neat and tidy 70k easily identifiable voters such that the party can at-large ignore everyone else is not a good idea.


Sure, but neither is over-reacting and changing the whole political course just because an election was lost. I really don't think that centrist politics is dead in the US or suddenly not a viable political platform. Most people still fall into that spectrum.

Progressives have a very energised base but they don't seem to represent the majority of the United States electorate or anything close to it. People in mature democracies grow tired of populists quickly. Give Trump a few more years and we'll see how much fun it is during the next election cycle.


This past election wasn't an isolated event, it was the culmination of the direction the Democractic party has been heading for decades. It's not an overreaction to change direction when you realize you're off course so long as you're thoughtful about what direction you're changing to.
"I am not able to carry all this people alone, for they are too heavy for me." -Moses (Numbers 11:14)
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15686 Posts
August 22 2017 20:58 GMT
#170492
On August 23 2017 05:41 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:25 Gorsameth wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
[quote]

How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape outside.


^ You see this, this is what the Democratic party stands for, and thinks. They think they lost 1000+ seats because of 70k whitish voters in the suburbs and they don't need us (until they're looking for another scapegoat for losing).

That's why I keep pointing out that Democrats don't get it and too many people are giving them a pass for reasons I can't comprehend.


Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money.


They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling).


Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this:

Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus

Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smack of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism.


Bernie's townhall in WV is some. Where a Trump delegate and a Trump voting coal miner agreed with Bernie on several issues, one big one being healthcare.

On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:
[quote]

That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges.

The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance.


This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source


but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparately to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.


Didn't hurt you had outlets like WaPo and MSNBC pushing lies about Bernie specifically aimed to decrease his support.

Not to say Bernie couldn't have done better. But the irony is his focus on economic issues as a way to address race issues is both what Democrats ridicule him for and say they want to do more of to appeal to the people Bernie got over Hillary.

Lots of Republicans agree on single points from the Democratic agenda.

I seem to remember a study into that with the ACA, that most people agreed on its points in isolation but the moment you put them together and called them the ACA/Obamacare they became against it.


Is there some new data on the popularity of progressive ideas or are we stuck with the not-so-recent polls where all of the major ideas got support from over 50% of Americans?


If "percentage of Americans" mattered, we would have congress and the presidency. It doesn't.

Who is "we" exactly?


democrats? "the left", I dunno, whatever you wanna call it. The large group of people running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to appear slightly unified?
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-22 21:06:22
August 22 2017 21:05 GMT
#170493
On August 23 2017 05:53 Seuss wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 05:37 Nyxisto wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:25 farvacola wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]

You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating.

EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!?

Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all.

Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk.


That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges.

The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance.


This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source


but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparagingly to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.

I agree that an unqualified comparison with Obama's numbers is uncalled for, but the point remains that boiling down Hillary's loss into a neat and tidy 70k easily identifiable voters such that the party can at-large ignore everyone else is not a good idea.


Sure, but neither is over-reacting and changing the whole political course just because an election was lost. I really don't think that centrist politics is dead in the US or suddenly not a viable political platform. Most people still fall into that spectrum.

Progressives have a very energised base but they don't seem to represent the majority of the United States electorate or anything close to it. People in mature democracies grow tired of populists quickly. Give Trump a few more years and we'll see how much fun it is during the next election cycle.


This past election wasn't an isolated event, it was the culmination of the direction the Democractic party has been heading for decades. It's not an overreaction to change direction when you realize you're off course so long as you're thoughtful about what direction you're changing to.


But policy wise they're not really off course. If you poll the voters on the issues I think there's pretty widespread support for Dem policies. What they're actually losing is the culture war and the ground game because Republicans control every talk radio station in the country and have people like Mercer pump ungodly sums of money into the whole process.

So instead of having Bernie and Hillary tear each other apart at the top about relatively small policy differences, have Gates and Bezos buy up every radio station in the country and prevent Republicans from drawing the voter districts like they want.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
August 22 2017 21:10 GMT
#170494
On August 23 2017 05:52 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 05:48 Plansix wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:41 Sermokala wrote:
I read a study that more people blame obama for Hurricane Katrina than Bush. People are dumb water is wet.

Yeah, I wish people would stop citing polls to prove legislation is viable. It is viable when you get it through congress. I think single payer would be great, but no one is going to be pumped about a third round of healthcare fights at the national level. That political capital is going to be spent on other issues. Push that thing through at the state level and make it functional.


I'm responding to a post that said Bernie's town hall in WV isn't evidence of anything because that's just republicans agreeing with democrats on a single point, which happens. This was all sparked by the question: "Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism?"

Could you explain the relevance of congress in this specific discussion?

I wasn’t responding to you in that, so no. I was just supporting the idea that approval polls are not for abstract policy proposals tend to drop when they stop being abstract.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
August 22 2017 21:13 GMT
#170495
On August 23 2017 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:25 Gorsameth wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]

This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape outside.


^ You see this, this is what the Democratic party stands for, and thinks. They think they lost 1000+ seats because of 70k whitish voters in the suburbs and they don't need us (until they're looking for another scapegoat for losing).

That's why I keep pointing out that Democrats don't get it and too many people are giving them a pass for reasons I can't comprehend.


Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money.


They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling).


Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this:

Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus

Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smack of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism.


Bernie's townhall in WV is some. Where a Trump delegate and a Trump voting coal miner agreed with Bernie on several issues, one big one being healthcare.

On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all.

Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk.


That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges.

The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance.


This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source


but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparately to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.


Didn't hurt you had outlets like WaPo and MSNBC pushing lies about Bernie specifically aimed to decrease his support.

Not to say Bernie couldn't have done better. But the irony is his focus on economic issues as a way to address race issues is both what Democrats ridicule him for and say they want to do more of to appeal to the people Bernie got over Hillary.

Lots of Republicans agree on single points from the Democratic agenda.

I seem to remember a study into that with the ACA, that most people agreed on its points in isolation but the moment you put them together and called them the ACA/Obamacare they became against it.


Is there some new data on the popularity of progressive ideas or are we stuck with the not-so-recent polls where all of the major ideas got support from over 50% of Americans?


If "percentage of Americans" mattered, we would have congress and the presidency. It doesn't.

I hear ideas like 'increasing government benefits to the poor paid for by people that earn more than me' are incredibly possible. Or decreasing premiums without compromising your relationship with your current physician. In general, it conflates noble societal goals (which, in general, nobody stands against unless you're some hyperpartisan) with inherent rights and tradeoffs.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15686 Posts
August 22 2017 21:24 GMT
#170496
On August 23 2017 06:13 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:25 Gorsameth wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
[quote]

How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape outside.


^ You see this, this is what the Democratic party stands for, and thinks. They think they lost 1000+ seats because of 70k whitish voters in the suburbs and they don't need us (until they're looking for another scapegoat for losing).

That's why I keep pointing out that Democrats don't get it and too many people are giving them a pass for reasons I can't comprehend.


Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money.


They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling).


Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this:

Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus

Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smack of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism.


Bernie's townhall in WV is some. Where a Trump delegate and a Trump voting coal miner agreed with Bernie on several issues, one big one being healthcare.

On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:
[quote]

That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges.

The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance.


This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source


but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparately to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.


Didn't hurt you had outlets like WaPo and MSNBC pushing lies about Bernie specifically aimed to decrease his support.

Not to say Bernie couldn't have done better. But the irony is his focus on economic issues as a way to address race issues is both what Democrats ridicule him for and say they want to do more of to appeal to the people Bernie got over Hillary.

Lots of Republicans agree on single points from the Democratic agenda.

I seem to remember a study into that with the ACA, that most people agreed on its points in isolation but the moment you put them together and called them the ACA/Obamacare they became against it.


Is there some new data on the popularity of progressive ideas or are we stuck with the not-so-recent polls where all of the major ideas got support from over 50% of Americans?


If "percentage of Americans" mattered, we would have congress and the presidency. It doesn't.

I hear ideas like 'increasing government benefits to the poor paid for by people that earn more than me' are incredibly possible. Or decreasing premiums without compromising your relationship with your current physician. In general, it conflates noble societal goals (which, in general, nobody stands against unless you're some hyperpartisan) with inherent rights and tradeoffs.


I don't understand what you are saying here.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
August 22 2017 21:31 GMT
#170497
On August 23 2017 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 06:13 Danglars wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:25 Gorsameth wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]

^ You see this, this is what the Democratic party stands for, and thinks. They think they lost 1000+ seats because of 70k whitish voters in the suburbs and they don't need us (until they're looking for another scapegoat for losing).

That's why I keep pointing out that Democrats don't get it and too many people are giving them a pass for reasons I can't comprehend.


Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money.


They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling).


Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this:

Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus

Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smack of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism.


Bernie's townhall in WV is some. Where a Trump delegate and a Trump voting coal miner agreed with Bernie on several issues, one big one being healthcare.

On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]

This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source


but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparately to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.


Didn't hurt you had outlets like WaPo and MSNBC pushing lies about Bernie specifically aimed to decrease his support.

Not to say Bernie couldn't have done better. But the irony is his focus on economic issues as a way to address race issues is both what Democrats ridicule him for and say they want to do more of to appeal to the people Bernie got over Hillary.

Lots of Republicans agree on single points from the Democratic agenda.

I seem to remember a study into that with the ACA, that most people agreed on its points in isolation but the moment you put them together and called them the ACA/Obamacare they became against it.


Is there some new data on the popularity of progressive ideas or are we stuck with the not-so-recent polls where all of the major ideas got support from over 50% of Americans?


If "percentage of Americans" mattered, we would have congress and the presidency. It doesn't.

I hear ideas like 'increasing government benefits to the poor paid for by people that earn more than me' are incredibly possible. Or decreasing premiums without compromising your relationship with your current physician. In general, it conflates noble societal goals (which, in general, nobody stands against unless you're some hyperpartisan) with inherent rights and tradeoffs.


I don't understand what you are saying here.

You are not alone. But that might be the entire point.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Nevuk
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States16280 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-22 21:44:37
August 22 2017 21:43 GMT
#170498
On August 23 2017 05:33 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 01:45 Plansix wrote:
I saw that yesterday and said "let them eat cake" outloud. Also that outfit is like 3-4 mortgage payments if you include the bag.

One of my friends is a fashion hawk and she just told me that bag she was carrying is 20K. So we have gone from three mortgage payments to a down payment on a house is many sections of the country. Flying around on the tax payer dime.

She's since apologized



but not before it came back to light that she wrote a memoir of her gap year in africa that turned out to be uh, at best, slightly racist fiction, and that her law school had accreditation pulled after only 10% passed the bar exam.

One major point of dispute is Linton's recounting of two raids by Congolese rebels.
"Taken by surprise, I spent a night huddled with others in an old straw hut, hoping not to be found as we listened to the engines of the rebel boats drawing near," she writes.

Linton writes of her concern for Zimba, the HIV-positive orphan girl with whom she forged a "special bond." (Linton describes her as a "smiling gap-toothed child with HIV whose greatest joy was to sit on my lap and drink from a bottle of Coca-Cola.")

Linton later recounts a second rebel attack that caused her to flee into the jungle, where "gunshots echoed through the bush and seemed to be getting closer."

She says she left Zambia after that attack.

However, many people in Zambia and from other countries in the region say there are no records of Congolese rebels invading Zambian villages the way Linton describes.
[..]
Linton's claims about rebel raids aren't the only points of dispute in the short Telegraph excerpt. She writes about "the Hutu-Tutsi conflict in neighboring Congo." That conflict took place in Rwanda.

Linton also refers to "monsoon season" in Zambia, even though the country does not have one. (It does have a rainy season.) People also say it does not have the kind of jungle she wrote about fleeing into.




www.buzzfeed.com
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
August 22 2017 21:53 GMT
#170499
Remember that time everyone got upset because Michelle Obama told people to eat a vegetable?
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
August 22 2017 22:05 GMT
#170500
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:28 Nevuk wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]

Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees.

EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan.

Sure, the DNC is stupid and you were right, they are stupid. But just a month ago I had to watch progressives threatening to primary a senator in three years as a viable political strategy to get what they want. A plan so deeply stupid it made me want to take a nap. And I will watch them make this mistake again and again, doing everything possible to not be taken seriously. Everyone should just try to keep their own people from being stupid, rather than yelling saying “You are dumber than me, told you.”




Counter point : Tea party

Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020.

They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really.

Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them.

The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies.


You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating.

EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!?

Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all.

Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk.


That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges.

The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance.


This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like

"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES

ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?

REVOLUTION

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


One thing that would go a loooong way towards reconciling the far left and I guess the center left where I sit would be if they stopped blaming money and corporations as the cause of all ills. Yes, people and companies have vested interests, or there's usually a pretty good reason for the way things work. Most people aren't maliciously standing in the way of progress. The left (being deliberately vague with the term) conveniently diagnoses the problem and solution as the system and replace the system respectively rather than providing any sort of nuance.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Prev 1 8523 8524 8525 8526 8527 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 8h 15m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 155
RuFF_SC2 66
Vindicta 46
NoRegreT_ 37
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 3702
Sexy 28
Terrorterran 15
Icarus 5
Dota 2
monkeys_forever867
Counter-Strike
Fnx 2485
Stewie2K777
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King211
Other Games
summit1g12752
tarik_tv11073
shahzam672
C9.Mang0221
ViBE209
JimRising 136
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick860
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 85
• davetesta37
• RyuSc2 24
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 72
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift4794
• Stunt198
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
8h 15m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
12h 15m
CSO Cup
14h 15m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
16h 15m
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
1d 7h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 12h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 16h
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Online Event
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Esports World Cup 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.