|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On 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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?).
|
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.
|
I read a study that more people blame obama for Hurricane Katrina than Bush. People are dumb water is wet.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
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?
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
Remember that time everyone got upset because Michelle Obama told people to eat a vegetable?
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
