Any power you want to give the government we used to have to pretend Bush could have that power, now we have to pretend Donald motherfucking Trump would have that power.
One other thing to consider, a small silver lining in a sea of sludge - it looks like 60 million is the Republican cap. Our cap, based on Obama's numbers is in the 65 million range. It is possible for us to win, but we have to reallocate our votes. Which is what I think you guys are actually talking about. Right now certain zip codes just became immensely important, and if we have any hope of saving our republic, we have to pick up voters in those areas.
Or move there from dead red or true blue zip codes.
The truth, though, is that we are ignoring rural America.
And when I say this, I don't mean we need to pander to the policies they think they want. We need to educate them. We need to show that we even care what they think at all! Treating them like the enemy will never work.
What they claim they want is:
- Banning abortions
- Keeping minorities out of their communities
- No restrictions on guns, ever
If we bend on these, are we still liberals/progressives?
If we bend on these, why would they vote for is over the party that's always promised these?
Oh, and they hate when "liberal elites" try to educate them. They already know everything they want to know.
How, exactly, do you expect this situation to change?
You encourage turnout of people who agree with you, you continue to educate children, and you wait for racists and sexists to die.
We already outnumber them, we just need turnout.
The media killed turnout, and you know it. The media blew up the Comey shit.
The media fucked up everything. The media needs to change. I don't know how anyone cannot see this. We have to do something.
You're flipping cause and effect. The media covered what people wanted them to cover
Media agenda setting is incredibly powerful.
But the answer is just don't watch, don't give them clicks. Fuck them, especially the TV goliaths. Support good independent media with your money instead (TPM, for example) or even big papers that did a reasonable job like the Washington Post.
Media consumption is more diverse than ever. It has no agenda-setting power
And yet all the outlets cover basically the same stuff somehow. They herd and look at each other for scoops and insights on what they should cover and ultimately it becomes pretty homogeneous. Which is another pervasive way Fox is dangerous.
You're not going to like the answer about why for this election's candidates, or at least its source. It begins with a W and ends with a ikiLeaks, and regardless of the provenance of their material it was both
Any power you want to give the government we used to have to pretend Bush could have that power, now we have to pretend Donald motherfucking Trump would have that power.
Think about Trump with censorship powers.
I am not describing censorship.
Yes, you are. Whether you realise it or not.
No. I'm not.
Unless it's censorship to demand that certain information be printed on food labels.
More of us staying in the Midwest and fighting to change from within is a good start. Almost all my liberal friends from high school have moved to a coast.
That said, I still want to move to a state that actually gives a shit about teachers.
in order to win a presidential election, a very small percentage of them need to vote dem. that is it. the question is not "how do you change the mind of every republican voter", but "how do you change the mind of the people who previously voted obama but then voted trump / the latinos and african americans who switched to trump". presumably they are not irredeemable people immune to all reason
it would be impossible to persuade all rural types everywhere to change their minds, but there are plenty of reasonable ones who could be reached
For the umpteenth time, Trump got roughly the same total votes as Romney.
Seriously, why are you people so focused on changing the minds of the people who did vote??
Half your fucking country didn't vote! Focus on that, not on fighting tooth and nail to win over seventeen votes from Republicans!
sure, attempt to increase vote share. people who previously voted for obama but switched are not convinced republicans (a 16% swing from 2012 for those under $30k); they are perfectly credible targets for persuasion. the strategies are not exclusive; a democratic party which addresses the worries of lower class middle americans is also more appealing for other reasons, not least classic social justice type stuff
and to a degree having innovative, exciting new policies to help people who are feeling left behind or lost is exactly the type of thing that might increase turnout...!
surrealitycheck on
+12
Options
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
More of us staying in the Midwest and fighting to change from within is a good start. Almost all my liberal friends from high school have moved to a coast.
That said, I still want to move to a state that actually gives a shit about teachers.
And stay in the midwest?
Good luck threading that needle.
Exactly.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Any power you want to give the government we used to have to pretend Bush could have that power, now we have to pretend Donald motherfucking Trump would have that power.
Think about Trump with censorship powers.
I am not describing censorship.
Yes, you are. Whether you realise it or not.
No. I'm not.
Unless it's censorship to demand that certain information be printed on food labels.
case law + administrative law provide the guidelines and I'll be god damned if we say that only certain scrutinized news outlets are allowed to operate
scrutinized by who? the fucking trump administration? private press has tons of shit (I have spoken bitterly about breitbart et al in the past), but so does state-funded press, and the government having explicit control over the entire spectrum of news - through 'licensing' or whatever test you would like to administer - is quite clearly against the concept of freedom of the press
Even the fairness doctrine was fraught because there was a fundamental underlying point of contention about what ideology exactly could evaluate that objectively
I agree with the general contention that Fox News and Breitbart are horrible for democracy and nationbuilding but you can't really kill them through government action without betraying one principle of our society or another.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Oh my FUCK come on Colorado the ballot measure to remove slavery as a punishment for prisoners is still undecided. But probably losing from what I see. How was that a hard one?!
Respectfully, even though they don't "deserve" respect based on how they treat others.
Slowly, repeatedly, respectfully, and over time.
I've been trying for years. It doesn't work because they simply deny, deny, deny.
The only time their opinion has changed is when they were directly affected by it - health care. My dad came down with a pretty bad throat infection here in Australia. He saw a doctor and got a full round of antibiotics for something like $100. Ever since then, they've spoken rather highly of certain reforms even though they demonize the ACA. :?
工事中
+4
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
I see the DNC is going back to the well. It's like they'll learn nothing from this loss.
I can't take electoral college whining seriously. If Trump had a bare majority in the popular vote and Clinton had 300+ electoral votes, literally none of you would think this was a bad thing. I sure wouldn't!
If things were different they'd totally be different! Nice argument. Real smart.
And it's wrong. I've disliked the EC ever since I learned about it in US Government class in high school. It's an undemocratic system in a country that supposedly values democracy. It's bullshit.
Don't accuse me of hypocrisy, especially when you have absolutely no fucking idea what I believe. You're a silly goose.
case law + administrative law provide the guidelines and I'll be god damned if we say that only certain scrutinized news outlets are allowed to operate
scrutinized by who? the fucking trump administration? private press has tons of shit (I have spoken bitterly about breitbart et al in the past), but so does state-funded press, and the government having explicit control over the entire spectrum of news - through 'licensing' or whatever test you would like to administer - is quite clearly against the concept of freedom of the press
Even the fairness doctrine was fraught because there was a fundamental underlying point of contention about what ideology exactly could evaluate that objectively
Man, my proposal is absurdly less violating for the first amendment than the fairness doctrine was.
I am saying "You must put a visible disclaimer if you are a for-profit organization".
The truth, though, is that we are ignoring rural America.
And when I say this, I don't mean we need to pander to the policies they think they want. We need to educate them. We need to show that we even care what they think at all! Treating them like the enemy will never work.
You cannot educate them. They do not want to educated.
We cannot afford to throw our allies - who suffer from discrimination and violence - under the bus just to appease racists and sexists. We can make outreach to people who voted for Obama, yet we somehow lost this time. We can focus on finding out who stayed home and why. We can try to energize our party and harness the populist anger.
But under no circumstances should we sacrifice the people who we desperately need to protect, to pick up votes in rural areas.
Bullshit. This is defeatist.
Something to consider.
My mother is a strong Trump supporter. I sent along a link to the 'Day 1 of Trump's America' that's been circulating along Facebook from Twitter, showing reports of hate crimes around the US.
She flat out denies that it's happening. She insists that the 'liberal media' is throwing a fit, and that these incidents are probably being staged by liberals. She sent me a link to O'Keefe's video showing Democrats being paid to protest in Trump rallies as "proof" that liberals do shitty things.
The problem is that she lives in a bubble. Every time I try to push back on her claims, she flat out denies it. When I push her for evidence, she claims that it "wouldn't change your mind, so why bother?". She insists that "Oblama" is causing the racial divide in the US, and this sentiment is echoed by my father. He doesn't vote (for stupid reasons), but it's a persistent mindset that they've had for years.
Albeit this is an anecdote, but I would have to agree with Roz there. They simply do not want to be educated. They live in a self-reinforcing bubble that's taught them to deny everything, and it's incredibly frustrating.
It's frustrating for me, because my (Asian) partner is now terrified of traveling to the US. And my family is going to frame this as not their fault, not the fault of Trump or the Republicans - it's the liberal media's fault for lying to us.
How can you possibly engage someone like this?
Someone like that, maybe you can't.
But think of it like gay marriage: when people thought The Gays were some kind of strange Other, it was inconceivable to them that they would support gay marriage. But when it was their neighbors, their sons and daughters, they changed.
case law + administrative law provide the guidelines and I'll be god damned if we say that only certain scrutinized news outlets are allowed to operate
scrutinized by who? the fucking trump administration? private press has tons of shit (I have spoken bitterly about breitbart et al in the past), but so does state-funded press, and the government having explicit control over the entire spectrum of news - through 'licensing' or whatever test you would like to administer - is quite clearly against the concept of freedom of the press
Even the fairness doctrine was fraught because there was a fundamental underlying point of contention about what ideology exactly could evaluate that objectively
Man, my proposal is absurdly less violating for the first amendment than the fairness doctrine was.
I am saying "You must put a visible disclaimer if you are a for-profit organization".
The fairness doctrine was only applicable to broadcast tv in exchange for use of public airwaves.
Possibly with some highly visible listing of information indicating where your money comes from, who owns you, etc.
I'm more interested in how this would expose or kill Fox News or anti-critical-thought, anti-truth right wing media though. Assuming that the sticker warning proposal isn't constitutionally fraught, what does this do? Breitbart and all the right wing internet conspiracy shitholes don't require much money or backing to operate.
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Possibly with some highly visible listing of information indicating where your money comes from, who owns you, etc.
I'm more interested in how this would expose or kill Fox News or anti-critical-thought, anti-truth right wing media though. Assuming that the sticker warning proposal isn't constitutionally fraught, what does this do? Breitbart and all the right wing internet conspiracy shitholes don't require much money or backing to operate.
More to the point, the people that watch those channels are just gonna buy into the idea that the backers of the stuff they consume are the good guys anyway.
Posts
Yes, you are. Whether you realise it or not.
Or move there from dead red or true blue zip codes.
You're not going to like the answer about why for this election's candidates, or at least its source. It begins with a W and ends with a ikiLeaks, and regardless of the provenance of their material it was both
No. I'm not.
Unless it's censorship to demand that certain information be printed on food labels.
Slowly.
Repeatedly.
Respectfully, even though they don't "deserve" respect based on how they treat others.
Slowly, repeatedly, respectfully, and over time.
And stay in the midwest?
Good luck threading that needle.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
sure, attempt to increase vote share. people who previously voted for obama but switched are not convinced republicans (a 16% swing from 2012 for those under $30k); they are perfectly credible targets for persuasion. the strategies are not exclusive; a democratic party which addresses the worries of lower class middle americans is also more appealing for other reasons, not least classic social justice type stuff
and to a degree having innovative, exciting new policies to help people who are feeling left behind or lost is exactly the type of thing that might increase turnout...!
Wolf Blitzer is a fucking moron and is representative of everything wrong with CNN.
God I hate that fucking channel so much.
The limitations are well defined by case law and "winky really really wants it" isn't on the list.
Add Pentagon Papers case to your reading list and actually read it, don't just skim the Wikipedia page
Exactly.
Food labels aren't political speech.
scrutinized by who? the fucking trump administration? private press has tons of shit (I have spoken bitterly about breitbart et al in the past), but so does state-funded press, and the government having explicit control over the entire spectrum of news - through 'licensing' or whatever test you would like to administer - is quite clearly against the concept of freedom of the press
Even the fairness doctrine was fraught because there was a fundamental underlying point of contention about what ideology exactly could evaluate that objectively
I agree with the general contention that Fox News and Breitbart are horrible for democracy and nationbuilding but you can't really kill them through government action without betraying one principle of our society or another.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I've been trying for years. It doesn't work because they simply deny, deny, deny.
The only time their opinion has changed is when they were directly affected by it - health care. My dad came down with a pretty bad throat infection here in Australia. He saw a doctor and got a full round of antibiotics for something like $100. Ever since then, they've spoken rather highly of certain reforms even though they demonize the ACA. :?
If things were different they'd totally be different! Nice argument. Real smart.
And it's wrong. I've disliked the EC ever since I learned about it in US Government class in high school. It's an undemocratic system in a country that supposedly values democracy. It's bullshit.
Don't accuse me of hypocrisy, especially when you have absolutely no fucking idea what I believe. You're a silly goose.
Man, my proposal is absurdly less violating for the first amendment than the fairness doctrine was.
I am saying "You must put a visible disclaimer if you are a for-profit organization".
it might not be a bad idea to rework it such that it's less lopsided, but the adversarial rural/urban divide is already bad enough as is
But think of it like gay marriage: when people thought The Gays were some kind of strange Other, it was inconceivable to them that they would support gay marriage. But when it was their neighbors, their sons and daughters, they changed.
Not all of them. But enough.
The fairness doctrine was only applicable to broadcast tv in exchange for use of public airwaves.
That reasoning doesn't apply here
I'm more interested in how this would expose or kill Fox News or anti-critical-thought, anti-truth right wing media though. Assuming that the sticker warning proposal isn't constitutionally fraught, what does this do? Breitbart and all the right wing internet conspiracy shitholes don't require much money or backing to operate.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
More to the point, the people that watch those channels are just gonna buy into the idea that the backers of the stuff they consume are the good guys anyway.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.