|
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 December 14 2017 01:14 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2017 00:57 kollin wrote:On December 14 2017 00:40 LegalLord wrote:
Perhaps what one could learn from all this is that it’s not just about the other person sucking but also about finding people who genuinely want to vote for you, not just reluctantly, and getting them to vote. I know it’s easy to play the shitty game of identity politics and “have you seen the other guy” but Jones did what both Trump and Sanders did to fight well above their weight class: they inspired key voting blocs to turn out in droves for them. Isn't inspiring key voting blocs to turn out an extremely euphemistic way of saying identity politics? Only if you already intended to say identity politics in the first place and want to shoehorn it in. You dont have to play identity politics to get people to turn out and vote, you have to inspire them. There are plenty of universal issues that need to be addressed, and can be addressed without going off the deep end.
I mean you don't have to but it literally just succeeded in flipping Alabama. Winning elections in the 21st century is about building broad electoral coalitions, and appealing to particular groups in society is how you do that. That doesn't mean 'vote for me because I'm a woman', or 'vote for me because I'm black' - Doug Jones is a white man after all - but it means understanding the tactics necessary to unite enough voters to win. Saying 'you have to inspire people' is literally doing this.
|
On December 14 2017 01:20 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 01:14 Trainrunnef wrote:On December 14 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2017 00:57 kollin wrote:On December 14 2017 00:40 LegalLord wrote:
Perhaps what one could learn from all this is that it’s not just about the other person sucking but also about finding people who genuinely want to vote for you, not just reluctantly, and getting them to vote. I know it’s easy to play the shitty game of identity politics and “have you seen the other guy” but Jones did what both Trump and Sanders did to fight well above their weight class: they inspired key voting blocs to turn out in droves for them. Isn't inspiring key voting blocs to turn out an extremely euphemistic way of saying identity politics? Only if you already intended to say identity politics in the first place and want to shoehorn it in. You dont have to play identity politics to get people to turn out and vote, you have to inspire them. There are plenty of universal issues that need to be addressed, and can be addressed without going off the deep end. I mean you don't have to but it literally just succeeded in flipping Alabama. Winning elections in the 21st century is about building broad electoral coalitions, and appealing to particular groups in society is how you do that. That doesn't mean 'vote for me because I'm a woman', or 'vote for me because I'm black' - Doug Jones is a white man after all - but it means understanding the tactics necessary to unite enough voters to win. Saying 'you have to inspire people' is literally doing this.
This election also did a great job at showing blacks didn't swarm Obama just because he was black. When they feel like someone legitimately intends to help them, they show up. It's rare that someone seems like they actually care about blacks. Jones pulled that off.
|
On December 14 2017 01:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 01:20 kollin wrote:On December 14 2017 01:14 Trainrunnef wrote:On December 14 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2017 00:57 kollin wrote:On December 14 2017 00:40 LegalLord wrote:
Perhaps what one could learn from all this is that it’s not just about the other person sucking but also about finding people who genuinely want to vote for you, not just reluctantly, and getting them to vote. I know it’s easy to play the shitty game of identity politics and “have you seen the other guy” but Jones did what both Trump and Sanders did to fight well above their weight class: they inspired key voting blocs to turn out in droves for them. Isn't inspiring key voting blocs to turn out an extremely euphemistic way of saying identity politics? Only if you already intended to say identity politics in the first place and want to shoehorn it in. You dont have to play identity politics to get people to turn out and vote, you have to inspire them. There are plenty of universal issues that need to be addressed, and can be addressed without going off the deep end. I mean you don't have to but it literally just succeeded in flipping Alabama. Winning elections in the 21st century is about building broad electoral coalitions, and appealing to particular groups in society is how you do that. That doesn't mean 'vote for me because I'm a woman', or 'vote for me because I'm black' - Doug Jones is a white man after all - but it means understanding the tactics necessary to unite enough voters to win. Saying 'you have to inspire people' is literally doing this. This election also did a great job at showing blacks didn't swarm Obama just because he was black. When they feel like someone legitimately intends to help them, they show up. It's rare that someone seems like they actually care about blacks. Jones pulled that off.
From reports, many of the black organizers said they do not specifically support Jones, but were voting for him to send a message both the party and him that their issues matter.
Black voters didn’t vote for Obama because of his skin. They voted for him because he lived through the same experience that many black Americans live through and would understand them when they talked about it. That he wouldn’t dismiss them as whiners or being hysterical.
The dreaded identity politics is just a demonizing the idea that peoples identities have value based on their experiences and they might problems they would like addressed related to that identity. Growing up poor is an identity and we have no problem saying that poor children should be supported.
|
On December 14 2017 00:59 Sadist wrote:
Alabama just looks like a turnout issue for Republicans due to the candidate.
Probably like the general election for Hillary.
The 74% of white men who voted for Moore is frustrating. I see that kinda divide in my workplace in Michigan. Its really hard to convince these guys not to vote republican. They dont have much empathy unless an issue directly affects them personally. Only then do they ever seem to change their mind.
Its like they grew up without all of the empathy training people normally get as children.
It is really awful, I know a handful of men myself who are like that, they are very entitled, always full of grievances and if you quiz them long enough it always expresses itself as an anti-minority sentiment such as homophobia or xenophobia.
That is why someone like Bannon is a fraud, he pretends to care about economic populism, which should include support for labor, opposition to Wall Street and Silicon Valley, and higher taxes on the wealthy. But his base never has a consistent anti-elitist stance and spends all its energy blaming the most vulnerable and marginal people instead.
|
|
|
The calls of bias against the investigation are ridiculous. Its as of they are arguing the only people who should be allowed to investigate trump are his supporters.
|
On December 14 2017 01:51 Sadist wrote:
The calls of bias against the investigation are ridiculous. Its as of they are arguing the only people who should be allowed to investigate trump are his supporters.
i find it to be more an admission of an inability on their own part to even understand a world in which a person can operate outside their own petty tribalism. classic projection. which is odd, it’s not like they weren’t working with dems under previous presidents. but that’s just a sign of the times.
|
Mueller is a Republican and its illegal to consider political donations or party affiliation when filling positions in the Justice department, including the FBI.
I would also point out that attacking them is a cowards act. They are not allowed to respond. The same with Judges.
|
On December 14 2017 01:51 Sadist wrote:
The calls of bias against the investigation are ridiculous. Its as of they are arguing the only people who should be allowed to investigate trump are his supporters.
Not 'as if', they are arguing for it.
Mueller was a perfectly fine man for the job when he was chosen, and once he started to find things he got progressively worse for the job. Because in their eyes his job wasn't to find the truth, but to find nothing majorly wrong.
|
On December 14 2017 01:14 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2017 00:57 kollin wrote:On December 14 2017 00:40 LegalLord wrote:
Perhaps what one could learn from all this is that it’s not just about the other person sucking but also about finding people who genuinely want to vote for you, not just reluctantly, and getting them to vote. I know it’s easy to play the shitty game of identity politics and “have you seen the other guy” but Jones did what both Trump and Sanders did to fight well above their weight class: they inspired key voting blocs to turn out in droves for them. Isn't inspiring key voting blocs to turn out an extremely euphemistic way of saying identity politics? Only if you already intended to say identity politics in the first place and want to shoehorn it in. You dont have to play identity politics to get people to turn out and vote, you have to inspire them. There are plenty of universal issues that need to be addressed, and can be addressed without going off the deep end.
Yeah, this. But some people insist on seeing things only in terms of race or gender or something and stoke tensions just because they think identity is the underlying issue. I'm sure some people really enjoy framing this win as a race war though.
|
But the people who are raising the issues like "gay rights" or the ability for a transgender person to use whatever bathroom don't see those issues as "identity politics." That is just existence for them. Voter suppression isn't happening to white women. It is happening to racial minorities in specific states. Identity politics is a label thrust onto people, not one they actively seek.
|
On December 14 2017 02:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 01:14 Trainrunnef wrote:On December 14 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2017 00:57 kollin wrote:On December 14 2017 00:40 LegalLord wrote:
Perhaps what one could learn from all this is that it’s not just about the other person sucking but also about finding people who genuinely want to vote for you, not just reluctantly, and getting them to vote. I know it’s easy to play the shitty game of identity politics and “have you seen the other guy” but Jones did what both Trump and Sanders did to fight well above their weight class: they inspired key voting blocs to turn out in droves for them. Isn't inspiring key voting blocs to turn out an extremely euphemistic way of saying identity politics? Only if you already intended to say identity politics in the first place and want to shoehorn it in. You dont have to play identity politics to get people to turn out and vote, you have to inspire them. There are plenty of universal issues that need to be addressed, and can be addressed without going off the deep end. Yeah, this. But some people insist on seeing things only in terms of race or gender or something and stoke tensions just because they think identity is the underlying issue.
gee I wonder if addressing a minorities specific issues would 'inspire' that minority to vote for you.
Also I wonder how much the fact that Moore came out to say the US was better when black people were slaves (not in quite those exact words) helped bring out the black vote.
|
On December 13 2017 23:57 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2017 23:55 kollin wrote:On December 13 2017 23:51 farvacola wrote:On December 13 2017 23:50 kollin wrote:
Is it common for either party to give up contesting seats if they don't think they have a chance? Do Republicans commonly not contest firmly blue seats? Depends on the district in question, but Democrats tend to give up on difficult races moreso than Republicans. Are resources so limited for Democrats that they feel they need to do this? It seems absolutely insane to me not to just run someone, and I can't help but feel that it's no wonder the general 'message' of the Democrats isn't penetrating particular areas if they literally abandon the democratic process like that. Chalk it up to how impotent the DNC has become, though the across the board weakening of unions is also at fault here. Hopefully, Jones' win will shake up establishment attitudes towards ostensibly long shot races.
The Dems in the South began a slow collapse with the Civil Rights era. A good chunk of the party (white people), including the elected officials and potential candidates, literally got up and left. There was no one to replace them. Tons of Republican politicians today started their careers as Democrats, but switched around a decade or two ago. There were a handful of politicians who stuck with the party who were institutions in and of themselves like Mike Beebe from AK (and to slightly less extent, Joe Manchin), but they've more or less aged out and retired. What would have been the next generation of Dems simply became Republicans.
Outside of extreme edge cases like what happened yesterday where Jones gets 90% of the 2016 election vote while Moore gets half (or the LA gov's race a few years back where the Republican party was a complete cluster), the numbers just aren't there for Dems to take office in many southern states.
EDIT: Georgia has a shot. Interestingly, Phil Bredesen is now running for Corker's seat. Just a couple months ago he said that he wouldn't run because the numbers weren't there. But having veterans run isn't the same as rebuilding the party, unfortunately.
|
|
|
On December 14 2017 02:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 02:09 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2017 01:14 Trainrunnef wrote:On December 14 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2017 00:57 kollin wrote:On December 14 2017 00:40 LegalLord wrote:
Perhaps what one could learn from all this is that it’s not just about the other person sucking but also about finding people who genuinely want to vote for you, not just reluctantly, and getting them to vote. I know it’s easy to play the shitty game of identity politics and “have you seen the other guy” but Jones did what both Trump and Sanders did to fight well above their weight class: they inspired key voting blocs to turn out in droves for them. Isn't inspiring key voting blocs to turn out an extremely euphemistic way of saying identity politics? Only if you already intended to say identity politics in the first place and want to shoehorn it in. You dont have to play identity politics to get people to turn out and vote, you have to inspire them. There are plenty of universal issues that need to be addressed, and can be addressed without going off the deep end. Yeah, this. But some people insist on seeing things only in terms of race or gender or something and stoke tensions just because they think identity is the underlying issue. gee I wonder if addressing a minorities specific issues would 'inspire' that minority to vote for you. Also I wonder how much the fact that Moore came out to say the US was better when black people were slaves (not in quite those exact words) helped bring out the black vote.
Undoubtedly so, but if the takeaway from all this, as it has been with previous candidates, is that you should campaign on "my opponent is a racist, sexist, evil bigot" - rather than on getting a candidate who is able to inspire positive change - then evidently we're going to see 2016 on repeat for years to come. For example - do you think Jones' record prosecuting the KKK counts for anything, or is it just that he's a warm body opposing Moore?
Jones is a great opportunity, a sign of a 2018 chance to undo the damage done by losing the best chance Democrats had to take back Congress in 2016. It can be wasted if it turns into a game of trying to find the nastiest ways possible to paint the opponent as a bad dude, rather than seek to inspire people to vote for a candidate with a genuine message. And the latter isn't about identity politics and stoking racial tensions, it's about offering real solutions rather than name-calling.
|
With all the sour grapes Hillary has about how it's all Comey's fault she lost... I don't think so.
|
|
|
On December 14 2017 02:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 02:14 Gorsameth wrote:On December 14 2017 02:09 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2017 01:14 Trainrunnef wrote:On December 14 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2017 00:57 kollin wrote:On December 14 2017 00:40 LegalLord wrote:
Perhaps what one could learn from all this is that it’s not just about the other person sucking but also about finding people who genuinely want to vote for you, not just reluctantly, and getting them to vote. I know it’s easy to play the shitty game of identity politics and “have you seen the other guy” but Jones did what both Trump and Sanders did to fight well above their weight class: they inspired key voting blocs to turn out in droves for them. Isn't inspiring key voting blocs to turn out an extremely euphemistic way of saying identity politics? Only if you already intended to say identity politics in the first place and want to shoehorn it in. You dont have to play identity politics to get people to turn out and vote, you have to inspire them. There are plenty of universal issues that need to be addressed, and can be addressed without going off the deep end. Yeah, this. But some people insist on seeing things only in terms of race or gender or something and stoke tensions just because they think identity is the underlying issue. gee I wonder if addressing a minorities specific issues would 'inspire' that minority to vote for you. Also I wonder how much the fact that Moore came out to say the US was better when black people were slaves (not in quite those exact words) helped bring out the black vote. Undoubtedly so, but if the takeaway from all this, as it has been with previous candidates, is that you should campaign on "my opponent is a racist, sexist, evil bigot" - rather than on getting a candidate who is able to inspire positive change - then evidently we're going to see 2016 on repeat for years to come. For example - do you think Jones' record prosecuting the KKK counts for anything, or is it just that he's a warm body opposing Moore? Jones is a great opportunity, a sign of a 2018 chance to undo the damage done by losing the best chance Democrats had to take back Congress in 2016. It can be wasted if it turns into a game of trying to find the nastiest ways possible to paint the opponent as a bad dude, rather than seek to inspire people to vote for a candidate with a genuine message. And the latter isn't about identity politics and stoking racial tensions, it's about offering real solutions rather than name-calling.
Ofc you need a good candidate as a base, Moore proved this. He was so bad he couldn't even win Alabama.
But I think its also wrong to pretend that 'just be like Jones' is going to get you to win red states.
Jones, no matter how amazing he is as a candidate, could not win Alabama without Moore being the worst possible shit ever.
|
On December 14 2017 02:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2017 02:23 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2017 02:14 Gorsameth wrote:On December 14 2017 02:09 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2017 01:14 Trainrunnef wrote:On December 14 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2017 00:57 kollin wrote:On December 14 2017 00:40 LegalLord wrote:
Perhaps what one could learn from all this is that it’s not just about the other person sucking but also about finding people who genuinely want to vote for you, not just reluctantly, and getting them to vote. I know it’s easy to play the shitty game of identity politics and “have you seen the other guy” but Jones did what both Trump and Sanders did to fight well above their weight class: they inspired key voting blocs to turn out in droves for them. Isn't inspiring key voting blocs to turn out an extremely euphemistic way of saying identity politics? Only if you already intended to say identity politics in the first place and want to shoehorn it in. You dont have to play identity politics to get people to turn out and vote, you have to inspire them. There are plenty of universal issues that need to be addressed, and can be addressed without going off the deep end. Yeah, this. But some people insist on seeing things only in terms of race or gender or something and stoke tensions just because they think identity is the underlying issue. gee I wonder if addressing a minorities specific issues would 'inspire' that minority to vote for you. Also I wonder how much the fact that Moore came out to say the US was better when black people were slaves (not in quite those exact words) helped bring out the black vote. Undoubtedly so, but if the takeaway from all this, as it has been with previous candidates, is that you should campaign on "my opponent is a racist, sexist, evil bigot" - rather than on getting a candidate who is able to inspire positive change - then evidently we're going to see 2016 on repeat for years to come. For example - do you think Jones' record prosecuting the KKK counts for anything, or is it just that he's a warm body opposing Moore? Jones is a great opportunity, a sign of a 2018 chance to undo the damage done by losing the best chance Democrats had to take back Congress in 2016. It can be wasted if it turns into a game of trying to find the nastiest ways possible to paint the opponent as a bad dude, rather than seek to inspire people to vote for a candidate with a genuine message. And the latter isn't about identity politics and stoking racial tensions, it's about offering real solutions rather than name-calling. Ofc you need a good candidate as a base, Moore proved this. He was so bad he couldn't even win Alabama. But I think its also wrong to pretend that 'just be like Jones' is going to get you to win red states. Jones, no matter how amazing he is as a candidate, could not win Alabama without Moore being the worst possible shit ever.
It's always a combination of factors. But the thing is, there are lots of bad Republican candidates all over the place and it's not hard to find one of those that could potentially be unseated. The real problem is that the Democrats are stupid enough to think that drawing attention to that badness - generally in a fashion akin to identity politics circlejerking - will influence voting in any meaningful way. When the reality is that you need to offer some sign of change to actually get anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
