US Politics Mega-thread - Page 427

On July 07 2018 06:06 Nebuchad wrote:
You guys need to stop caring about whether a slogan invites criticism by the republicans, it's not like they're going to stop criticizing you if you're precise enough in your elocution. It's more important to project strength and create energy.

On July 07 2018 08:03 screamingpalm wrote:


I'm not the best at semantics, but neoliberal to me (literally "new liberals") really came to prominence under Bill Clinton and the "New Democrats" with the policy implications attached. It existed before that, but he and the Blue Dogs that took over the party really made it popular and mainstream. Republicans can call the Clintons commies or leftists all they want, but I would strongly disagree. The UK version of Clinton was Blair. Sure they are left of the modern Republican base, but that isn't saying much. There are a few Republicans that are well to the left of neoliberals though. Mike Norman is an example.

On July 07 2018 08:20 Plansix wrote:

This is the most accurate description of what happened to the Democratic party coming from a progressive poster in some time. After getting crushed for three elections in a row from running on left leaning economic ideas, the Clinton's style of economics took over. Which was basically doing what the Republicans wanted to pass bills.

Now the reality is that the Democrats never valued charisma as a running characteristic, which is a big reason why most of their candidates bombed. But the shift to neoliberalism was because left leaning politics getting them killed across the US.

On July 07 2018 08:20 Plansix wrote:

This is the most accurate description of what happened to the Democratic party coming from a progressive poster in some time. After getting crushed for three elections in a row from running on left leaning economic ideas, the Clinton's style of economics took over. Which was basically doing what the Republicans wanted to pass bills.

Now the reality is that the Democrats never valued charisma as a running characteristic, which is a big reason why most of their candidates bombed. But the shift to neoliberalism was because left leaning politics getting them killed across the US.

On July 07 2018 08:28 Nebuchad wrote:


I'm not exactly surprised that the more leftwing candidate had trouble getting traction in the middle of the cold war in the US. Very easy to paint them as the enemy, and I'm sure they had to differentiate themselves from the "far" left drastically cause the "far" left was the enemy for them as well, which means their message couldn't be very powerful.

As for the 1980s, it was a rather global movement to the right because the URSS was failing, most places had that shift. Thatcher in England, even in France where they had a socdem president at the time (Mitterrand) they had to go back way to the center because the left was not a viable solution anymore.

On July 07 2018 08:37 Plansix wrote:

There was a great push for social support system in the 1960s. That is when we established all of left leaning parts of the US goverment. Medicare, civil rights movement, shoring up social security, section 8 housing, and so on. But they didn't call it socialism. They called establishing a "Great Society" and "war on poverty." They fucking sold it to the US people, but it was a hard sell. But right leaning politics took over slowly through the 1970s and 1980s.

On July 07 2018 08:40 GreenHorizons wrote:


Those were concessions to a society on the brink. They tried assassinating their way out first, social support was winning despite opposition from political powers, not because of it. The streets were on fire and nuclear annihilation loomed, setting up/'expanding some social programs to buy them a decade or so was well worth it in their calculations.

On July 07 2018 08:50 Nebuchad wrote:
Main difference is that when a shift to the left happens, the other guys can go "oh shit, let's do assassinations, coups d'état, let's pretend marijuana is super dangerous so that we can put our political opponents in prison", and when a shift to the right happens, we mostly go "Meh, that's too bad. Let's meet them in the middle."

On July 07 2018 08:20 Plansix wrote:

This is the most accurate description of what happened to the Democratic party coming from a progressive poster in some time. After getting crushed for three elections in a row from running on left leaning economic ideas, the Clinton's style of economics took over. Which was basically doing what the Republicans wanted to pass bills.

Now the reality is that the Democrats never valued charisma as a running characteristic, which is a big reason why most of their candidates bombed. But the shift to neoliberalism was because left leaning politics getting them killed across the US.

On July 07 2018 08:53 Plansix wrote:

Again, that was after 12 years of trying to go left and losing. Hell, the only reason Jimmy Carter did so well was because Nixon was Nixon. The left has been losings for a long time in the US.

On July 07 2018 08:57 Plansix wrote:
There has never been a shift towards charisma, it is critical to getting elected. Always has been. It is the main reason Trump is in office.

On July 07 2018 08:20 Plansix wrote:

This is the most accurate description of what happened to the Democratic party coming from a progressive poster in some time. After getting crushed for three elections in a row from running on left leaning economic ideas, the Clinton's style of economics took over. Which was basically doing what the Republicans wanted to pass bills.

Now the reality is that the Democrats never valued charisma as a running characteristic, which is a big reason why most of their candidates bombed. But the shift to neoliberalism was because left leaning politics getting them killed across the US.

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — Barack Obama’s message to Democrats: Stop dreaming of him.

Speaking at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser Thursday here in the lush backyard of two party megadonors, Obama warned of a country and world on the brink — “you are right to be concerned,” he told the crowd — but said they’d flub their chance to change that if they kept pining for a magical savior.

“Do not wait for the perfect message, don’t wait to feel a tingle in your spine because you’re expecting politicians to be so inspiring and poetic and moving that somehow, ‘OK, I’ll get off my couch after all and go spend the 15-20 minutes it takes for me to vote,’” Obama said in his first public comments in months, which only a few reporters and no cameras were allowed in for. “Because that’s part of what happened in the last election. I heard that too much.”

“Boil it down,” Obama said, reiterating an argument he made on the campaign trail for Ralph Northam in 2017 about the existential challenge Trump poses to America. “If we don’t vote, then this democracy doesn’t work.”

He almost accepted some of the blame for the state of the party, though he framed it less as the DNC atrophying from years of benign neglect while he was in the White House and being saddled with his reelection campaign debt and more as people making the mistake of falling too much in love with him.

“I’ll be honest with you, if I have a regret during my presidency, it is that people were so focused on me and the battles we were having, particularly after we lost the House, that folks stopped paying attention up and down the ballot,” Obama said.


****

Instead, he talked mostly in general terms about how the Republicans and Democrats tell “different stories.”

“There’s a fundamental contrast of how we view the world,” Obama said. “We are seeing the consequences of when one vision is realized, or in charge.”

The event was the first of three fundraisers Obama is doing in California this week, with two scheduled Friday in San Francisco for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. Thursday night’s event was to boost a DNC that is still struggling to reassert and refinance itself a year and a half into the chairmanship of Perez and with the massive undertaking of the 2020 election looming just behind the midterms. On that front, Obama said, Democrats could learn from Republicans, who have continued rapidly building out their infrastructure and fundraising despite Trump’s daily pummeling of the GOP to reshape it in his image.

“They don’t worry about inspiration,” Obama said. “They worry about winning the seat and they are very systematic about work not just at the presidential level but at the congressional and state legislative levels.”

But the tension between the desperation among many Democrats that Obama needs to lead the charge against Trump and the shift away that the former president and Democratic officials are pushing played out in Perez himself: He called Obama out onto the stage by saying, “Let’s give it up for the real president of the United States,” then 20 minutes later, downplayed what he called “political venture capitalists — they want to find the next Barack Obama” — who aren’t focused on the nuts and bolts of party building.

Opinions were divided within the audience, too.

“You only have a few super candidates,” said former California Gov. Gray Davis, applauding the focus on mechanics.

“Notwithstanding his post-partisan rhetoric, Democrats need him, his inspiration, his energy and his memory to get through these dark days,” said Eric Bauman, the California Democratic chairman who is helping lead efforts for his party to flip several key nearby House seats.

The event stuck to the focus-on-the-midterms message, with Christina Aguilera performing Aretha Franklin’s “Think” (“You better think / Think about what you’re trying to do to me”) and the hosts handing out gift bags in the end with a big red bag of Intelligentsia coffee beans inside and a “Stay Energized for November” sticker on front.

On July 07 2018 09:05 Introvert wrote:


Ok, a LOT of laugh inducing things have been posted here today, but this is a good one. We just had 8 years where the Democratic party mindless supported a president they and the media treated like a super star. In fact, Obama knows it. It was nice of him to wait until his moment was gone though!

On July 07 2018 09:12 Nebuchad wrote:


Was I saying any of these? =)

On July 07 2018 09:22 Introvert wrote:


No offense, but I find your analysis of why things are the way they are here to be... wrong. As well as what could be. (Still don't know why you thought some random could unseat Feinstein.)

For instance, I'm not sure that it's true that in America your right or left designation depends on your social views, at least not until 2014 or later, maybe. If we take the GOP as a proxy, then we can see this. The GOP pays lip service to social conservatives, but at the federal level espeically, they desperately avoid talking about social issues. They all try their hardest to talk about the economy, or foreign policy, or something like that. Because we have a two party system, you do find people in the right aligned party talking social issues, but those people are moved aside.

That being said, there is a well defended theory that the popularity of people like Rick Santorum (in 2012, at leas) wasn't the religious side of his persona, but the working class kinda blue collar side. But looking at the people who run the party at the federal level you'd be hard pressed to say they define themselves on social issues rather than economic ones. At the state level there is more variance. But your sweeping pronouncement is wrong, even if we allow that you obviously don't mean it to apply to everyone.

On July 07 2018 09:22 Introvert wrote:


No offense, but I find your analysis of why things are the way they are here to be... wrong.

For instance, I'm not sure that it's true that in America your right or left designation depends on your social views, at least not until 2014 or later, maybe. If we take the GOP as a proxy, then we can see this. The GOP pays lip service to social conservatives, but at the federal level espeically, they desperately avoid talking about social issues. They all try their hardest to talk about the economy, or foreign policy, or something like that. Because we have a two party system, you do find people in the right aligned party talking social issues, but those people are moved aside.

That being said, there is a well defended theory that the popularity of people like Rick Santorum (in 2012, at leas) wasn't the religious side of his persona, but the working class kinda blue collar side. But looking at the people who run the party at the federal level you'd be hard pressed to say they define themselves on social issues rather than economic ones. At the state level there is more variance. But your sweeping pronouncement is wrong, even if we allow that you obviously don't mean it to apply to everyone.

On July 07 2018 09:32 GreenHorizons wrote:

Is there any non-Republican you could vote for against Trump in 2020 (regardless of their chance at getting a Democratic nomination)?

On July 07 2018 09:22 Introvert wrote:


No offense, but I find your analysis of why things are the way they are here to be... wrong. As well as what could be. (Still don't know why you thought some random could unseat Feinstein.)

For instance, I'm not sure that it's true that in America your right or left designation depends on your social views, at least not until 2014 or later, maybe. If we take the GOP as a proxy, then we can see this. The GOP pays lip service to social conservatives, but at the federal level espeically, they desperately avoid talking about social issues. They all try their hardest to talk about the economy, or foreign policy, or something like that. Because we have a two party system, you do find people in the right aligned party talking social issues, but those people are moved aside.

That being said, there is a well defended theory that the popularity of people like Rick Santorum (in 2012, at leas) wasn't the religious side of his persona, but the working class kinda blue collar side. But looking at the people who run the party at the federal level you'd be hard pressed to say they define themselves on social issues rather than economic ones. At the state level there is more variance. But your sweeping pronouncement is wrong, even if we allow that you obviously don't mean it to apply to everyone.