I like this kind of stuff but I can feel the collective exhaustion from 2 years of politics and 3 simultaneous threads. In doing an inventory of my situation to see whether I can really afford to run for office, I've found several barriers, in addition to the surmountable barrier to application.
I work for the federal government and other public service institutions and have special restrictions on my involvement in politics. This isn't as big a deal as it would be for other federal employees since this job isn't going to last.
I am a US emigrant since I have the privilege of being able to be mobile, which makes my political resume hard to pin down to any one state.
My future job prospects are continuations of a lifetime of education and require chunks of 4 year commitments and significant time allocation. They also can occur in any state.
I have a mountain of student debt and may be considered a national security risk.
I have a certain degree of professionalism that makes me want to run a decent and organized campaign rather than one that is just a coversheet against a formerly unopposed incumbent.
I listed those because I suspect I share these hurdles with many people in my demographic who also happen to be young, liberal or liberal-leaning, and skilled enough to know how to do something like this. Public servants, federal employees, gig-economy contractors, people with high professional degrees - they all have more restrictions on government involvement than small business or farm owners (primarily republican) that have relatively stable locations and a free future. I think a lot of us are wondering the same thing - how we can best exercise our civic duty, as over-leveraged as we are.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+1
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
Meanwhile, I have a sizeable savings account, don't like my job, consider myself to have good people skills and public speaking ability, and both my state legislators appear to be red. One ran unopposed.
Lord Palingtonhe.him.hisHistory-loving pal!Registered Userregular
I'm a teacher in Texas. I wonder if I could pull off staying employed full time as well as being a member of the state legislature, since they only meet every two years anyway.
What the heck, I could use an extra $41k every two years.
Also I found out Ken Bone is running for mayor next year as an independent, heh
Ken Bone! Hell, the reaction he got from the left should have given us a clue to the problem we have.
We've got to get more 'inclusive' of people with different priorities. We shouldn't be asking, "How do you disagree", we should be asking, "Where do we agree and how can we get you on board to help with that"
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
Okay; before people either get overly defensive or overly cynical:
Liberals & socialists do participate. Low to middle income families also have a lot of obligations related to finding careers and/or just keeping the lights on at home, while high income families have much more free time. It sucks that this is the kind of terrain we have to work with, but getting angry at the people who have to work and/or can't spare much disposable income doesn't help.
Extremely wealthy cities in America (NYC, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., etc) lean more towards Democrats, but the wealthiest percentile groups in those cities certainly don't (...well, perhaps they do in L.A., but that's one outlier city). The financial district in NYC is pretty unlikely to have supported Clinton's bid with cashflow, for example. Meanwhile, extremely wealthy industrialists from impoverished places like Oklahoma pour almost the entire state's resources into supporting the GOP, and national radical Christian organizations are able to gather wealth from across the entire country from ideologues & fleeced elderly victims. This is why they can afford to put everyone on payroll and make them feel like a big 'ol party superstar.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
Okay; before people either get overly defensive or overly cynical:
Liberals & socialists do participate. Low to middle income families also have a lot of obligations related to finding careers and/or just keeping the lights on at home, while high income families have much more free time. It sucks that this is the kind of terrain we have to work with, but getting angry at the people who have to work and/or can't spare much disposable income doesn't help.
Extremely wealthy cities in America (NYC, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., etc) lean more towards Democrats, but the wealthiest percentile groups in those cities certainly don't (...well, perhaps they do in L.A., but that's one outlier city). The financial district in NYC is pretty unlikely to have supported Clinton's bid with cashflow, for example. Meanwhile, extremely wealthy industrialists from impoverished places like Oklahoma pour almost the entire state's resources into supporting the GOP, and national radical Christian organizations are able to gather wealth from across the entire country from ideologues & fleeced elderly victims. This is why they can afford to put everyone on payroll and make them feel like a big 'ol party superstar.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
At the same time, there is a time honored resistance to paying people on the left side of activism. Some of it is due to limited resources, but not all. We saw this during the mess with the reporting on the Clinton Foundation - one criticism that got brought up was how much they paid their staff (while ignoring the work that staff did.)
This is a serious and long running problem on the left, and it needs to be addressed.
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
Does it always have to be that way? There are way more organizations that are left-leaning than there are right-leaning ones. This something that I mentioned earlier and that still annoys me. We refuse to fall in line. Like I am certain there is overlap between LGBT, Feminist, and Worker Rights orgs. Like discrimination based on sex/orientation/etc would ding all these groups without fail. So then why don't we ever see them combine forces like the pro-life/gun rights organizations do? Why do we build walls against each other?
Because it's easy to make the left-leaning organizations bicker among themselves to be the first in line once the next round of human rights is mercifully distributed.
It's one of the benefits of being a single demographic instead of a bunch of them
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Because it's easy to make the left-leaning organizations bicker among themselves to be the first in line once the next round of human rights is mercifully distributed.
Because it's easy to make the left-leaning organizations bicker among themselves to be the first in line once the next round of human rights is mercifully distributed.
But how do we stop that bickering? Duck tape?
As I recall the first 13 colonies had a similar predicament
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
Does it always have to be that way? There are way more organizations that are left-leaning than there are right-leaning ones. This something that I mentioned earlier and that still annoys me. We refuse to fall in line. Like I am certain there is overlap between LGBT, Feminist, and Worker Rights orgs. Like discrimination based on sex/orientation/etc would ding all these groups without fail. So then why don't we ever see them combine forces like the pro-life/gun rights organizations do? Why do we build walls against each other?
Well, first, there are intersectional organizations like Act Blue & the ACLU.
There is quite a bit of fallout from leftist groups that used to just outright hate each other; for example, feminists used to be regularly boo'd off of the stage at socialist events because the left is full of people who think they are too smart to be sexist & too smart to have to bother with things like introspection. Those schisms are being mended, but it necessarily is slow work.
I'm also not sure if its accurate to frame the right-wing groups as being exceptionally cooperative; mostly, the 'cooperation' is a result of fanatical religious ideologues infiltrating and taking over a given lobbying arm. The NRA's corruption over the past 3~ decades is perhaps the best example: almost overnight, going from a bi-partisan hunting & fishing enthusiast club to a raging partisan organization full of white supremacists adorned with various crucifix ornaments.
This is probably not the model to look at for tips on how to build cooperation.
Setting aside all of the above, though: it is always going to be more difficult to build a coalition among people who actually take issues seriously and get 'into the weeds' instead of just collectively masturbating to This Week's Talking Point. Debate between groups is supposed to be a feature, not a bug - it's how we reach conclusions that are based on good evidence & argument. It does suck that today's cultural climate gives more power to groups that bind together over hyperbolic vagaries; I'm not sure how to address that problem or if it even can be addressed without becoming just another bunch of drones that regurgitate whatever gospel (at which point I fail to see the purpose of even being a political opposition).
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
Does it always have to be that way? There are way more organizations that are left-leaning than there are right-leaning ones. This something that I mentioned earlier and that still annoys me. We refuse to fall in line. Like I am certain there is overlap between LGBT, Feminist, and Worker Rights orgs. Like discrimination based on sex/orientation/etc would ding all these groups without fail. So then why don't we ever see them combine forces like the pro-life/gun rights organizations do? Why do we build walls against each other?
They really don't. My dad's an NRA member, has been for years, I read the magazines all the time when I was younger, and every now and again when I'm hanging around their house. I don't remember ever seeing a peep about abortion.
What they don't do is spend time fighting each other. Which is partly a function of them having a very strong overlaping demographics. Are there anti-gun pro-lifers and pro-choice, pro-guns people sure some. But not many
There is just more coherence on the GoP side of the fence. For example
And it actually makes for a lot of room for victories for one group being defeats for another. I thought the Ghost in the Shell / Whitewashing thread had/was a great example of this.
A women cast in a lead roll of a $300m dollar action movie; that's progress right?
Ha Ha Ha NOPE, cause she's straght, cis, and white. And I get the resistance to the 'wait your turn' type of argument, but its hard to build a working coalition, when large segments of it will see a partial victory as a call-to-arms defeat.
For another example, look at the torpedoing of A Birth of A Nation. Good job liberals, you managed to sink a movie about a fucking slave rebellion released a month before a racial charged election. VICTORY!
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
Does it always have to be that way? There are way more organizations that are left-leaning than there are right-leaning ones. This something that I mentioned earlier and that still annoys me. We refuse to fall in line. Like I am certain there is overlap between LGBT, Feminist, and Worker Rights orgs. Like discrimination based on sex/orientation/etc would ding all these groups without fail. So then why don't we ever see them combine forces like the pro-life/gun rights organizations do? Why do we build walls against each other?
Well, first, there are intersectional organizations like Act Blue & the ACLU.
There is quite a bit of fallout from leftist groups that used to just outright hate each other; for example, feminists used to be regularly boo'd off of the stage at socialist events because the left is full of people who think they are too smart to be sexist & too smart to have to bother with things like introspection. Those schisms are being mended, but it necessarily is slow work.
I'm also not sure if its accurate to frame the right-wing groups as being exceptionally cooperative; mostly, the 'cooperation' is a result of fanatical religious ideologues infiltrating and taking over a given lobbying arm. The NRA's corruption over the past 3~ decades is perhaps the best example: almost overnight, going from a bi-partisan hunting & fishing enthusiast club to a raging partisan organization full of white supremacists adorned with various crucifix ornaments.
This is probably not the model to look at for tips on how to build cooperation.
Because it's easy to make the left-leaning organizations bicker among themselves to be the first in line once the next round of human rights is mercifully distributed.
But how do we stop that bickering? Duck tape?
I've been racking my brain since Brexit with that question.
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
Does it always have to be that way? There are way more organizations that are left-leaning than there are right-leaning ones. This something that I mentioned earlier and that still annoys me. We refuse to fall in line. Like I am certain there is overlap between LGBT, Feminist, and Worker Rights orgs. Like discrimination based on sex/orientation/etc would ding all these groups without fail. So then why don't we ever see them combine forces like the pro-life/gun rights organizations do? Why do we build walls against each other?
They really don't. My dad's an NRA member, has been for years, I read the magazines all the time when I was younger, and every now and again when I'm hanging around their house. I don't remember ever seeing a peep about abortion.
What they don't do is spend time fighting each other. Which is partly a function of them having a very strong overlaping demographics. Are there anti-gun pro-lifers and pro-choice, pro-guns people sure some. But not many
There is just more coherence on the GoP side of the fence. For example
And it actually makes for a lot of room for victories for one group being defeats for another. I thought the Ghost in the Shell / Whitewashing thread had/was a great example of this.
A women cast in a lead roll of a $300m dollar action movie; that's progress right?
Ha Ha Ha NOPE, cause she's straght, cis, and white. And I get the resistance to the 'wait your turn' type of argument, but its hard to build a working coalition, when large segments of it will see a partial victory as a call-to-arms defeat.
For another example, look at the torpedoing of A Birth of A Nation. Good job liberals, you managed to sink a movie about a fucking slave rebellion released a month before a racial charged election. VICTORY!
I don't know if the Birth of a Nation thing can really be criticized for that. You could just as easily have had the exact opposite reaction: "Good job liberals, you managed to laud a movie about rape by a rapist released a month before an election where sexual assault allegations played a major role."
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
Does it always have to be that way? There are way more organizations that are left-leaning than there are right-leaning ones. This something that I mentioned earlier and that still annoys me. We refuse to fall in line. Like I am certain there is overlap between LGBT, Feminist, and Worker Rights orgs. Like discrimination based on sex/orientation/etc would ding all these groups without fail. So then why don't we ever see them combine forces like the pro-life/gun rights organizations do? Why do we build walls against each other?
They really don't. My dad's an NRA member, has been for years, I read the magazines all the time when I was younger, and every now and again when I'm hanging around their house. I don't remember ever seeing a peep about abortion.
What they don't do is spend time fighting each other. Which is partly a function of them having a very strong overlaping demographics. Are there anti-gun pro-lifers and pro-choice, pro-guns people sure some. But not many
There is just more coherence on the GoP side of the fence. For example
And it actually makes for a lot of room for victories for one group being defeats for another. I thought the Ghost in the Shell / Whitewashing thread had/was a great example of this.
A women cast in a lead roll of a $300m dollar action movie; that's progress right?
Ha Ha Ha NOPE, cause she's straght, cis, and white. And I get the resistance to the 'wait your turn' type of argument, but its hard to build a working coalition, when large segments of it will see a partial victory as a call-to-arms defeat.
For another example, look at the torpedoing of A Birth of A Nation. Good job liberals, you managed to sink a movie about a fucking slave rebellion released a month before a racial charged election. VICTORY!
Wow, okay. Your the first person to actually give me a good decent explanation for it. I guess I should have realized the core issue by my experiences learning about the differences between White/Black feminism.
Equality for all is nice but who gets equality first? Our limited resources compound the problem and a stubborn refusal to accept partial victories. I'll come back to edit this post later when I have some type of solution.
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
Does it always have to be that way? There are way more organizations that are left-leaning than there are right-leaning ones. This something that I mentioned earlier and that still annoys me. We refuse to fall in line. Like I am certain there is overlap between LGBT, Feminist, and Worker Rights orgs. Like discrimination based on sex/orientation/etc would ding all these groups without fail. So then why don't we ever see them combine forces like the pro-life/gun rights organizations do? Why do we build walls against each other?
Well, first, there are intersectional organizations like Act Blue & the ACLU.
There is quite a bit of fallout from leftist groups that used to just outright hate each other; for example, feminists used to be regularly boo'd off of the stage at socialist events because the left is full of people who think they are too smart to be sexist & too smart to have to bother with things like introspection. Those schisms are being mended, but it necessarily is slow work.
I'm also not sure if its accurate to frame the right-wing groups as being exceptionally cooperative; mostly, the 'cooperation' is a result of fanatical religious ideologues infiltrating and taking over a given lobbying arm. The NRA's corruption over the past 3~ decades is perhaps the best example: almost overnight, going from a bi-partisan hunting & fishing enthusiast club to a raging partisan organization full of white supremacists adorned with various crucifix ornaments.
This is probably not the model to look at for tips on how to build cooperation.
sure, but *Score Board*
Well, I would point out that the score board only looks they way it does because one specific demographic is over-represented thanks to the Electoral College numbers, but whatever. It's easy to win when you can simply cheat, regardless of your strategy.
And it actually makes for a lot of room for victories for one group being defeats for another. I thought the Ghost in the Shell / Whitewashing thread had/was a great example of this.
A women cast in a lead roll of a $300m dollar action movie; that's progress right?
Ha Ha Ha NOPE, cause she's straght, cis, and white. And I get the resistance to the 'wait your turn' type of argument, but its hard to build a working coalition, when large segments of it will see a partial victory as a call-to-arms defeat.
I'm really not so sure that disagreements over GitS casting are really the straw the broke the camel's back in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan.
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
Does it always have to be that way? There are way more organizations that are left-leaning than there are right-leaning ones. This something that I mentioned earlier and that still annoys me. We refuse to fall in line. Like I am certain there is overlap between LGBT, Feminist, and Worker Rights orgs. Like discrimination based on sex/orientation/etc would ding all these groups without fail. So then why don't we ever see them combine forces like the pro-life/gun rights organizations do? Why do we build walls against each other?
They really don't. My dad's an NRA member, has been for years, I read the magazines all the time when I was younger, and every now and again when I'm hanging around their house. I don't remember ever seeing a peep about abortion.
What they don't do is spend time fighting each other. Which is partly a function of them having a very strong overlaping demographics. Are there anti-gun pro-lifers and pro-choice, pro-guns people sure some. But not many
There is just more coherence on the GoP side of the fence. For example
And it actually makes for a lot of room for victories for one group being defeats for another. I thought the Ghost in the Shell / Whitewashing thread had/was a great example of this.
A women cast in a lead roll of a $300m dollar action movie; that's progress right?
Ha Ha Ha NOPE, cause she's straght, cis, and white. And I get the resistance to the 'wait your turn' type of argument, but its hard to build a working coalition, when large segments of it will see a partial victory as a call-to-arms defeat.
For another example, look at the torpedoing of A Birth of A Nation. Good job liberals, you managed to sink a movie about a fucking slave rebellion released a month before a racial charged election. VICTORY!
I don't know if the Birth of a Nation thing can really be criticized for that. You could just as easily have had the exact opposite reaction: "Good job liberals, you managed to laud a movie about rape by a rapist released a month before an election where sexual assault allegations played a major role."
It's two sides of the same coin, but it doesn't really matter in this case since Hollywood has been proven an ineffective investment in the advancement of civil rights - at least as far as the federal government is concerned.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
Does it always have to be that way? There are way more organizations that are left-leaning than there are right-leaning ones. This something that I mentioned earlier and that still annoys me. We refuse to fall in line. Like I am certain there is overlap between LGBT, Feminist, and Worker Rights orgs. Like discrimination based on sex/orientation/etc would ding all these groups without fail. So then why don't we ever see them combine forces like the pro-life/gun rights organizations do? Why do we build walls against each other?
Well, first, there are intersectional organizations like Act Blue & the ACLU.
There is quite a bit of fallout from leftist groups that used to just outright hate each other; for example, feminists used to be regularly boo'd off of the stage at socialist events because the left is full of people who think they are too smart to be sexist & too smart to have to bother with things like introspection. Those schisms are being mended, but it necessarily is slow work.
I'm also not sure if its accurate to frame the right-wing groups as being exceptionally cooperative; mostly, the 'cooperation' is a result of fanatical religious ideologues infiltrating and taking over a given lobbying arm. The NRA's corruption over the past 3~ decades is perhaps the best example: almost overnight, going from a bi-partisan hunting & fishing enthusiast club to a raging partisan organization full of white supremacists adorned with various crucifix ornaments.
This is probably not the model to look at for tips on how to build cooperation.
sure, but *Score Board*
Well, I would point out that the score board only looks they way it does because one specific demographic is over-represented thanks to the Electoral College numbers, but whatever. It's easy to win when you can simply cheat, regardless of your strategy.
And it actually makes for a lot of room for victories for one group being defeats for another. I thought the Ghost in the Shell / Whitewashing thread had/was a great example of this.
A women cast in a lead roll of a $300m dollar action movie; that's progress right?
Ha Ha Ha NOPE, cause she's straght, cis, and white. And I get the resistance to the 'wait your turn' type of argument, but its hard to build a working coalition, when large segments of it will see a partial victory as a call-to-arms defeat.
I'm really not so sure that disagreements over GitS casting are really the straw the broke the camel's back in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan.
No, he's using it as an example of why the left can't unite together as easily as the right. We are so segmented that we can't unify even for a partial victory.
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
Does it always have to be that way? There are way more organizations that are left-leaning than there are right-leaning ones. This something that I mentioned earlier and that still annoys me. We refuse to fall in line. Like I am certain there is overlap between LGBT, Feminist, and Worker Rights orgs. Like discrimination based on sex/orientation/etc would ding all these groups without fail. So then why don't we ever see them combine forces like the pro-life/gun rights organizations do? Why do we build walls against each other?
Well, first, there are intersectional organizations like Act Blue & the ACLU.
There is quite a bit of fallout from leftist groups that used to just outright hate each other; for example, feminists used to be regularly boo'd off of the stage at socialist events because the left is full of people who think they are too smart to be sexist & too smart to have to bother with things like introspection. Those schisms are being mended, but it necessarily is slow work.
I'm also not sure if its accurate to frame the right-wing groups as being exceptionally cooperative; mostly, the 'cooperation' is a result of fanatical religious ideologues infiltrating and taking over a given lobbying arm. The NRA's corruption over the past 3~ decades is perhaps the best example: almost overnight, going from a bi-partisan hunting & fishing enthusiast club to a raging partisan organization full of white supremacists adorned with various crucifix ornaments.
This is probably not the model to look at for tips on how to build cooperation.
sure, but *Score Board*
Well, I would point out that the score board only looks they way it does because one specific demographic is over-represented thanks to the Electoral College numbers, but whatever. It's easy to win when you can simply cheat, regardless of your strategy.
And it actually makes for a lot of room for victories for one group being defeats for another. I thought the Ghost in the Shell / Whitewashing thread had/was a great example of this.
A women cast in a lead roll of a $300m dollar action movie; that's progress right?
Ha Ha Ha NOPE, cause she's straght, cis, and white. And I get the resistance to the 'wait your turn' type of argument, but its hard to build a working coalition, when large segments of it will see a partial victory as a call-to-arms defeat.
I'm really not so sure that disagreements over GitS casting are really the straw the broke the camel's back in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan.
No, he's using it as an example of why the left can't unite together as easily as the right. We are so segmented that we can't unify even for a partial victory.
That isn't true, though. One specific cohort of labor voters left behind in the rust belt broke down and either didn't vote or voted for Donald Trump, either out of spite or out of the hope that he would enact protectionist policies that would regenerate their way of life. That isn't leftists (Hell, look at Stein's figures; they were terrible) all choosing not to cooperate, it is what happens when one part of the coalition decides it won't play ball anymore.
Modern leftist groups cooperate on issues all of the time. The whole genesis of a modern left has been due to this cooperate effort.
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
Does it always have to be that way? There are way more organizations that are left-leaning than there are right-leaning ones. This something that I mentioned earlier and that still annoys me. We refuse to fall in line. Like I am certain there is overlap between LGBT, Feminist, and Worker Rights orgs. Like discrimination based on sex/orientation/etc would ding all these groups without fail. So then why don't we ever see them combine forces like the pro-life/gun rights organizations do? Why do we build walls against each other?
Well, first, there are intersectional organizations like Act Blue & the ACLU.
There is quite a bit of fallout from leftist groups that used to just outright hate each other; for example, feminists used to be regularly boo'd off of the stage at socialist events because the left is full of people who think they are too smart to be sexist & too smart to have to bother with things like introspection. Those schisms are being mended, but it necessarily is slow work.
I'm also not sure if its accurate to frame the right-wing groups as being exceptionally cooperative; mostly, the 'cooperation' is a result of fanatical religious ideologues infiltrating and taking over a given lobbying arm. The NRA's corruption over the past 3~ decades is perhaps the best example: almost overnight, going from a bi-partisan hunting & fishing enthusiast club to a raging partisan organization full of white supremacists adorned with various crucifix ornaments.
This is probably not the model to look at for tips on how to build cooperation.
sure, but *Score Board*
Well, I would point out that the score board only looks they way it does because one specific demographic is over-represented thanks to the Electoral College numbers, but whatever. It's easy to win when you can simply cheat, regardless of your strategy.
And it actually makes for a lot of room for victories for one group being defeats for another. I thought the Ghost in the Shell / Whitewashing thread had/was a great example of this.
A women cast in a lead roll of a $300m dollar action movie; that's progress right?
Ha Ha Ha NOPE, cause she's straght, cis, and white. And I get the resistance to the 'wait your turn' type of argument, but its hard to build a working coalition, when large segments of it will see a partial victory as a call-to-arms defeat.
I'm really not so sure that disagreements over GitS casting are really the straw the broke the camel's back in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan.
No, he's using it as an example of why the left can't unite together as easily as the right. We are so segmented that we can't unify even for a partial victory.
That isn't true, though. One specific cohort of labor voters left behind in the rust belt broke down and either didn't vote or voted for Donald Trump, either out of spite or out of the hope that he would enact protectionist policies that would regenerate their way of life. That isn't leftists (Hell, look at Stein's figures; they were terrible) all choosing not to cooperate, it is what happens when one part of the coalition decides it won't play ball anymore.
Modern leftist groups cooperate on issues all of the time. The whole genesis of a modern left has been due to this cooperate effort.
It's not just labor voters. Many people who should have voted didn't vote because Hillary wasn't their unicorn. Losing PA and Mi wouldn't have mattered if we had retained FL and OH. White women didn't show up. College-educated white people didn't show up. The question now is why?
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
Does it always have to be that way? There are way more organizations that are left-leaning than there are right-leaning ones. This something that I mentioned earlier and that still annoys me. We refuse to fall in line. Like I am certain there is overlap between LGBT, Feminist, and Worker Rights orgs. Like discrimination based on sex/orientation/etc would ding all these groups without fail. So then why don't we ever see them combine forces like the pro-life/gun rights organizations do? Why do we build walls against each other?
Well, first, there are intersectional organizations like Act Blue & the ACLU.
There is quite a bit of fallout from leftist groups that used to just outright hate each other; for example, feminists used to be regularly boo'd off of the stage at socialist events because the left is full of people who think they are too smart to be sexist & too smart to have to bother with things like introspection. Those schisms are being mended, but it necessarily is slow work.
I'm also not sure if its accurate to frame the right-wing groups as being exceptionally cooperative; mostly, the 'cooperation' is a result of fanatical religious ideologues infiltrating and taking over a given lobbying arm. The NRA's corruption over the past 3~ decades is perhaps the best example: almost overnight, going from a bi-partisan hunting & fishing enthusiast club to a raging partisan organization full of white supremacists adorned with various crucifix ornaments.
This is probably not the model to look at for tips on how to build cooperation.
sure, but *Score Board*
Well, I would point out that the score board only looks they way it does because one specific demographic is over-represented thanks to the Electoral College numbers, but whatever. It's easy to win when you can simply cheat, regardless of your strategy.
And it actually makes for a lot of room for victories for one group being defeats for another. I thought the Ghost in the Shell / Whitewashing thread had/was a great example of this.
A women cast in a lead roll of a $300m dollar action movie; that's progress right?
Ha Ha Ha NOPE, cause she's straght, cis, and white. And I get the resistance to the 'wait your turn' type of argument, but its hard to build a working coalition, when large segments of it will see a partial victory as a call-to-arms defeat.
I'm really not so sure that disagreements over GitS casting are really the straw the broke the camel's back in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan.
No, he's using it as an example of why the left can't unite together as easily as the right. We are so segmented that we can't unify even for a partial victory.
That isn't true, though. One specific cohort of labor voters left behind in the rust belt broke down and either didn't vote or voted for Donald Trump, either out of spite or out of the hope that he would enact protectionist policies that would regenerate their way of life. That isn't leftists (Hell, look at Stein's figures; they were terrible) all choosing not to cooperate, it is what happens when one part of the coalition decides it won't play ball anymore.
Modern leftist groups cooperate on issues all of the time. The whole genesis of a modern left has been due to this cooperate effort.
It's not just labor voters. Many people who should have voted didn't vote because Hillary wasn't their unicorn. Losing PA and Mi wouldn't have mattered if we had retained FL and OH. White women didn't show up. College-educated white people didn't show up. The question now is why?
Because America has a problem with systemic racism that transcends either education or gender identity, if you want a blunt & honest answer.
That's not something that organization on the left can really deal with. It's the terrain & weather that we have to work around.
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
Does it always have to be that way? There are way more organizations that are left-leaning than there are right-leaning ones. This something that I mentioned earlier and that still annoys me. We refuse to fall in line. Like I am certain there is overlap between LGBT, Feminist, and Worker Rights orgs. Like discrimination based on sex/orientation/etc would ding all these groups without fail. So then why don't we ever see them combine forces like the pro-life/gun rights organizations do? Why do we build walls against each other?
Well, first, there are intersectional organizations like Act Blue & the ACLU.
There is quite a bit of fallout from leftist groups that used to just outright hate each other; for example, feminists used to be regularly boo'd off of the stage at socialist events because the left is full of people who think they are too smart to be sexist & too smart to have to bother with things like introspection. Those schisms are being mended, but it necessarily is slow work.
I'm also not sure if its accurate to frame the right-wing groups as being exceptionally cooperative; mostly, the 'cooperation' is a result of fanatical religious ideologues infiltrating and taking over a given lobbying arm. The NRA's corruption over the past 3~ decades is perhaps the best example: almost overnight, going from a bi-partisan hunting & fishing enthusiast club to a raging partisan organization full of white supremacists adorned with various crucifix ornaments.
This is probably not the model to look at for tips on how to build cooperation.
sure, but *Score Board*
Well, I would point out that the score board only looks they way it does because one specific demographic is over-represented thanks to the Electoral College numbers, but whatever. It's easy to win when you can simply cheat, regardless of your strategy.
And it actually makes for a lot of room for victories for one group being defeats for another. I thought the Ghost in the Shell / Whitewashing thread had/was a great example of this.
A women cast in a lead roll of a $300m dollar action movie; that's progress right?
Ha Ha Ha NOPE, cause she's straght, cis, and white. And I get the resistance to the 'wait your turn' type of argument, but its hard to build a working coalition, when large segments of it will see a partial victory as a call-to-arms defeat.
I'm really not so sure that disagreements over GitS casting are really the straw the broke the camel's back in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan.
No, but I'll bet you can probably use a similar diagram involving Labor Unions, Globalization, and Amnesty for Illegal/Undocumented Immigrants.
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
Does it always have to be that way? There are way more organizations that are left-leaning than there are right-leaning ones. This something that I mentioned earlier and that still annoys me. We refuse to fall in line. Like I am certain there is overlap between LGBT, Feminist, and Worker Rights orgs. Like discrimination based on sex/orientation/etc would ding all these groups without fail. So then why don't we ever see them combine forces like the pro-life/gun rights organizations do? Why do we build walls against each other?
Well, first, there are intersectional organizations like Act Blue & the ACLU.
There is quite a bit of fallout from leftist groups that used to just outright hate each other; for example, feminists used to be regularly boo'd off of the stage at socialist events because the left is full of people who think they are too smart to be sexist & too smart to have to bother with things like introspection. Those schisms are being mended, but it necessarily is slow work.
I'm also not sure if its accurate to frame the right-wing groups as being exceptionally cooperative; mostly, the 'cooperation' is a result of fanatical religious ideologues infiltrating and taking over a given lobbying arm. The NRA's corruption over the past 3~ decades is perhaps the best example: almost overnight, going from a bi-partisan hunting & fishing enthusiast club to a raging partisan organization full of white supremacists adorned with various crucifix ornaments.
This is probably not the model to look at for tips on how to build cooperation.
sure, but *Score Board*
Well, I would point out that the score board only looks they way it does because one specific demographic is over-represented thanks to the Electoral College numbers, but whatever. It's easy to win when you can simply cheat, regardless of your strategy.
And it actually makes for a lot of room for victories for one group being defeats for another. I thought the Ghost in the Shell / Whitewashing thread had/was a great example of this.
A women cast in a lead roll of a $300m dollar action movie; that's progress right?
Ha Ha Ha NOPE, cause she's straght, cis, and white. And I get the resistance to the 'wait your turn' type of argument, but its hard to build a working coalition, when large segments of it will see a partial victory as a call-to-arms defeat.
I'm really not so sure that disagreements over GitS casting are really the straw the broke the camel's back in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan.
No, he's using it as an example of why the left can't unite together as easily as the right. We are so segmented that we can't unify even for a partial victory.
That isn't true, though. One specific cohort of labor voters left behind in the rust belt broke down and either didn't vote or voted for Donald Trump, either out of spite or out of the hope that he would enact protectionist policies that would regenerate their way of life. That isn't leftists (Hell, look at Stein's figures; they were terrible) all choosing not to cooperate, it is what happens when one part of the coalition decides it won't play ball anymore.
Modern leftist groups cooperate on issues all of the time. The whole genesis of a modern left has been due to this cooperate effort.
It's not just labor voters. Many people who should have voted didn't vote because Hillary wasn't their unicorn. Losing PA and Mi wouldn't have mattered if we had retained FL and OH. White women didn't show up. College-educated white people didn't show up. The question now is why?
Because they did not like Trump, but they did not like Clinton either, and both sides are the same.
It's not just labor voters. Many people who should have voted didn't vote because Hillary wasn't their unicorn. Losing PA and Mi wouldn't have mattered if we had retained FL and OH. White women didn't show up. College-educated white people didn't show up. The question now is why?
She was an insider candidate when people wanted an outsider. The only place I saw people get really excited for a Hillary presidency was on this board, and Bernie supporters outnumbered the Hillary supporters about two to one before he lost.
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
Does it always have to be that way? There are way more organizations that are left-leaning than there are right-leaning ones. This something that I mentioned earlier and that still annoys me. We refuse to fall in line. Like I am certain there is overlap between LGBT, Feminist, and Worker Rights orgs. Like discrimination based on sex/orientation/etc would ding all these groups without fail. So then why don't we ever see them combine forces like the pro-life/gun rights organizations do? Why do we build walls against each other?
Well, first, there are intersectional organizations like Act Blue & the ACLU.
There is quite a bit of fallout from leftist groups that used to just outright hate each other; for example, feminists used to be regularly boo'd off of the stage at socialist events because the left is full of people who think they are too smart to be sexist & too smart to have to bother with things like introspection. Those schisms are being mended, but it necessarily is slow work.
I'm also not sure if its accurate to frame the right-wing groups as being exceptionally cooperative; mostly, the 'cooperation' is a result of fanatical religious ideologues infiltrating and taking over a given lobbying arm. The NRA's corruption over the past 3~ decades is perhaps the best example: almost overnight, going from a bi-partisan hunting & fishing enthusiast club to a raging partisan organization full of white supremacists adorned with various crucifix ornaments.
This is probably not the model to look at for tips on how to build cooperation.
sure, but *Score Board*
Well, I would point out that the score board only looks they way it does because one specific demographic is over-represented thanks to the Electoral College numbers, but whatever. It's easy to win when you can simply cheat, regardless of your strategy.
And it actually makes for a lot of room for victories for one group being defeats for another. I thought the Ghost in the Shell / Whitewashing thread had/was a great example of this.
A women cast in a lead roll of a $300m dollar action movie; that's progress right?
Ha Ha Ha NOPE, cause she's straght, cis, and white. And I get the resistance to the 'wait your turn' type of argument, but its hard to build a working coalition, when large segments of it will see a partial victory as a call-to-arms defeat.
I'm really not so sure that disagreements over GitS casting are really the straw the broke the camel's back in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan.
No, he's using it as an example of why the left can't unite together as easily as the right. We are so segmented that we can't unify even for a partial victory.
That isn't true, though. One specific cohort of labor voters left behind in the rust belt broke down and either didn't vote or voted for Donald Trump, either out of spite or out of the hope that he would enact protectionist policies that would regenerate their way of life. That isn't leftists (Hell, look at Stein's figures; they were terrible) all choosing not to cooperate, it is what happens when one part of the coalition decides it won't play ball anymore.
Modern leftist groups cooperate on issues all of the time. The whole genesis of a modern left has been due to this cooperate effort.
It's not just labor voters. Many people who should have voted didn't vote because Hillary wasn't their unicorn. Losing PA and Mi wouldn't have mattered if we had retained FL and OH. White women didn't show up. College-educated white people didn't show up. The question now is why?
Because they did not like Trump, but they did not like Clinton either, and both sides are the same.
Plenty of people who supposedly didn't like Trump voted for him anyway because they liked his answers (despite it being obvious bullshit which any person with the slightest common sense should see coming) more than Hillary or they hated him less until he got elected. Then they get suddenly angry why we're in this mess when reality hits them. And they'll never admit that they might be a reason why Trump got there.
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
Does it always have to be that way? There are way more organizations that are left-leaning than there are right-leaning ones. This something that I mentioned earlier and that still annoys me. We refuse to fall in line. Like I am certain there is overlap between LGBT, Feminist, and Worker Rights orgs. Like discrimination based on sex/orientation/etc would ding all these groups without fail. So then why don't we ever see them combine forces like the pro-life/gun rights organizations do? Why do we build walls against each other?
Well, first, there are intersectional organizations like Act Blue & the ACLU.
There is quite a bit of fallout from leftist groups that used to just outright hate each other; for example, feminists used to be regularly boo'd off of the stage at socialist events because the left is full of people who think they are too smart to be sexist & too smart to have to bother with things like introspection. Those schisms are being mended, but it necessarily is slow work.
I'm also not sure if its accurate to frame the right-wing groups as being exceptionally cooperative; mostly, the 'cooperation' is a result of fanatical religious ideologues infiltrating and taking over a given lobbying arm. The NRA's corruption over the past 3~ decades is perhaps the best example: almost overnight, going from a bi-partisan hunting & fishing enthusiast club to a raging partisan organization full of white supremacists adorned with various crucifix ornaments.
This is probably not the model to look at for tips on how to build cooperation.
sure, but *Score Board*
Well, I would point out that the score board only looks they way it does because one specific demographic is over-represented thanks to the Electoral College numbers, but whatever. It's easy to win when you can simply cheat, regardless of your strategy.
And it actually makes for a lot of room for victories for one group being defeats for another. I thought the Ghost in the Shell / Whitewashing thread had/was a great example of this.
A women cast in a lead roll of a $300m dollar action movie; that's progress right?
Ha Ha Ha NOPE, cause she's straght, cis, and white. And I get the resistance to the 'wait your turn' type of argument, but its hard to build a working coalition, when large segments of it will see a partial victory as a call-to-arms defeat.
I'm really not so sure that disagreements over GitS casting are really the straw the broke the camel's back in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan.
No, he's using it as an example of why the left can't unite together as easily as the right. We are so segmented that we can't unify even for a partial victory.
That isn't true, though. One specific cohort of labor voters left behind in the rust belt broke down and either didn't vote or voted for Donald Trump, either out of spite or out of the hope that he would enact protectionist policies that would regenerate their way of life. That isn't leftists (Hell, look at Stein's figures; they were terrible) all choosing not to cooperate, it is what happens when one part of the coalition decides it won't play ball anymore.
Modern leftist groups cooperate on issues all of the time. The whole genesis of a modern left has been due to this cooperate effort.
It's not just labor voters. Many people who should have voted didn't vote because Hillary wasn't their unicorn. Losing PA and Mi wouldn't have mattered if we had retained FL and OH. White women didn't show up. College-educated white people didn't show up. The question now is why?
Because they did not like Trump, but they did not like Clinton either, and both sides are the same.
Plenty of people who supposedly didn't like Trump voted for him anyway because they liked his answers (despite it being obvious bullshit which any person with the slightest common sense should see coming) more than Hillary or they hated him less until he got elected. Then they get suddenly angry why we're in this mess when reality hits them. And they'll never admit that they might be a reason why Trump got there.
Sure, but that's not the question. For various reasons, Clinton was hated about has much as Trump, for various reasons Clinton's message did not reach low information voters, and for various reasons there's a lot of low informations voters.
The racists and such showed up for Trump. A lot did not show up. That's why.
So, you can be all sad about those who voted for Trump, you can be all angry at those who voted for Trump without even realizing what they were voting for*, our you could try to figure out why our candidate was so disliked and why her message did not make it.
*Then again, most of those have been voting Republican with the same consequences for years, so...
Sure, but that's not the question. For various reasons, Clinton was hated about has much as Trump, for various reasons Clinton's message did not reach low information voters, and for various reasons there's a lot of low informations voters.
The racists and such showed up for Trump. A lot did not show up. That's why.
No, Clinton was hated more than Trump, and that's not all her fault. Sure she made big mistakes, and her campaign was not perfect. Some of it was on her and her staff. No denying that. But that's not the whole story. And those elements outside Hillary herself are important to not forget because they will be in play for the following non-Hillary candidates, and we do know the GOP playbook before Trump got his hands on it. Hillary losing isn't a new develop entirely, plenty of Dems have lost the presidency in the modern era - ironically that's how we got the Reagan Democrats.
So, you can be all sad about those who voted for Trump, you can be all angry at those who voted for Trump without even realizing what they were voting for*, our you could try to figure out why our candidate was so disliked and why her message did not make it.
I can be angry and sad and understand them at the same time.
*Then again, most of those have been voting Republican with the same consequences for years, so...
That's a big part of the answer, actually.
Another big factor the Dems need to get ahead in is the media. Strategies are meaningless if they're pulled apart by the forth estate before the public are allowed to see them. Dems need to seriously consider capturing the media and making it less GOP friendly when they have the opportunity to pass legislation, or the fight is lost before it began.
Where are the owners and managers on our side inside the media? How can we get them to have bigger influence? How we can take Murduck's grip off the media's throat? And now we may to worry about Breitbart doing the same.
She was an insider candidate when people wanted an outsider. The only place I saw people get really excited for a Hillary presidency was on this board, and Bernie supporters outnumbered the Hillary supporters about two to one before he lost.
Technically she won the election, popular vote so people did want an insider. It's not the kiss of death in presidential politics.
Popularism and being anti-establishment may be "in" on both parties, but it's at a higher tempo on the conservative side, that's why they have Trump and we didn't have Bernie. Bernie supporters didn't outnumber Hillary supporters at the voting booths, that's what matters. You can't win elections based on hypothetical voters.
Bernie supporters mostly supported her after the election, as well.
She didn't technically win. The national popular vote is useful for trivia and thats all, it has no actual function in electing the president.
Yes, technically. She did get the popular vote, and that is not a meaningless accomplishment. Unfortunately America's political system makes this meaningless. And this is getting irritating how this only effects Dems, and not Republicans at elections. If she truly was a horrible candidate she wouldn't have been able to reach this bar, something Trump failed to do and only got around by other measures.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
You can say the EC results are the only thing that matters, but you can't say that and also talk about what "people" did or didn't want in this election, unless you're talking about the handful of voters who swung the Rust Belt states. The majority of voters in this country wanted Hillary Clinton.
I'm not disagreeing on it being a referendum on how people wanted to be governed, I'm just disagreeing on the phrasing. She won the popular vote, she didn't technically win the election because of that. You can argue she should have, but I'm just saying that there are no technicalities involved, the popular vote has no bearing on the mechanics of how we elect a president.
0
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
Okay; before people either get overly defensive or overly cynical:
Liberals & socialists do participate. Low to middle income families also have a lot of obligations related to finding careers and/or just keeping the lights on at home, while high income families have much more free time. It sucks that this is the kind of terrain we have to work with, but getting angry at the people who have to work and/or can't spare much disposable income doesn't help.
Extremely wealthy cities in America (NYC, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., etc) lean more towards Democrats, but the wealthiest percentile groups in those cities certainly don't (...well, perhaps they do in L.A., but that's one outlier city). The financial district in NYC is pretty unlikely to have supported Clinton's bid with cashflow, for example. Meanwhile, extremely wealthy industrialists from impoverished places like Oklahoma pour almost the entire state's resources into supporting the GOP, and national radical Christian organizations are able to gather wealth from across the entire country from ideologues & fleeced elderly victims. This is why they can afford to put everyone on payroll and make them feel like a big 'ol party superstar.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
At the same time, there is a time honored resistance to paying people on the left side of activism. Some of it is due to limited resources, but not all. We saw this during the mess with the reporting on the Clinton Foundation - one criticism that got brought up was how much they paid their staff (while ignoring the work that staff did.)
This is a serious and long running problem on the left, and it needs to be addressed.
That's just a general problem in the non-profit sphere altogether. Even a lot of foundations, people whose job it is to give away money to non-profits, look with disdain on "overhead," and it's like, how the fuck do you think anything actually gets done?
Sure there are plenty of 501c3's that are basically scams and are ruining it for the rest of us, but there's this dim view of paying people for charity work that infuriates me, partially because it's people thinking i shouldn't get paid for the work i do, more of that toxic "real work" mentality coupled with the idea that i'm somehow scamming the people i'm soliciting by daring to make a living wage.
You can say the EC results are the only thing that matters, but you can't say that and also talk about what "people" did or didn't want in this election, unless you're talking about the handful of voters who swung the Rust Belt states. The majority of voters in this country wanted Hillary Clinton.
It's an important rhetorical point, too. Unless he wins re-election (and by an actual majority), the Republicans can never say "The American people chose Donald Trump," because they didn't.
Not that they won't say it anyway, but anyone who isn't in the bubble can point and laugh.
Sure, but that's not the question. For various reasons, Clinton was hated about has much as Trump, for various reasons Clinton's message did not reach low information voters, and for various reasons there's a lot of low informations voters.
The racists and such showed up for Trump. A lot did not show up. That's why.
No, Clinton was hated more than Trump, and that's not all her fault. Sure she made big mistakes, and her campaign was not perfect. Some of it was on her and her staff. No denying that. But that's not the whole story. And those elements outside Hillary herself are important to not forget because they will be in play for the following non-Hillary candidates, and we do know the GOP playbook before Trump got his hands on it. Hillary losing isn't a new develop entirely, plenty of Dems have lost the presidency in the modern era - ironically that's how we got the Reagan Democrats.
[/quote]
I don't think Clinton was hated more than Trump, though maybe that'd be true if you broke it down into units of hate. Clinton wasn't popular, and her message was very much of "lets keep trying to do what we're trying to" - she was the continuation of Obama's legacy. But if that's not working, and the other side has supposedly been completely shaken up, maybe it's time to give them a shot?
There's the element of truth and lies echoed elsewhere in other threads, but basically Clinton campaigned on making things better than they are now, and Trump said he'd stop making things bad. To people on Obama's side Clinton was the obvious choice (and to most other people), but to other people she's basically running on the republican congress's record. If you've been hit by that, you don't want to hear people talking about continuing legacies and staying the course - thing are going radically wrong and someone has to fix it. Clinton was hopeful that her party could take control if they got lucky, already we're seeing that Trump may have been (unintentionally) serious when he talked about taking over the republicans.
When the problem is the republicans - do you risk it to vote them out or do you try to change them? I reckon a lot of critical Trump voters saw his ability to change the party (from fiscal/social conservatism to social conservatism/fiscal populism) as being the choice to make. Four more years of Obama doing nothing to help you, or something else?
Still think they're wrong - but it's understandable. And importantly here, the fight in two years is going to be very different if the party gets behind Trump. Tories over in the UK are now pretty much using Labour's budget from the last election despite many of the same people saying how reckless it' dbe 18 months previously.
Last election showed that just appealing to social reasons wasn't enough for the democrats to win, next election - depending on the right bribes and congress, that might be all you have alongside tighter voter ID.
Even with trump, winning the moral argument will be hard in a midterm against free spending republicans.
College Campuses? I don't fucking know. The richest cities in America are liberal-leaning but we have less funding than the poor rural areas.
We don't vote, don't turn up for elections, and don't run for office. Liberals enjoy burying their heads in the sand.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
Does it always have to be that way? There are way more organizations that are left-leaning than there are right-leaning ones. This something that I mentioned earlier and that still annoys me. We refuse to fall in line. Like I am certain there is overlap between LGBT, Feminist, and Worker Rights orgs. Like discrimination based on sex/orientation/etc would ding all these groups without fail. So then why don't we ever see them combine forces like the pro-life/gun rights organizations do? Why do we build walls against each other?
Well, first, there are intersectional organizations like Act Blue & the ACLU.
There is quite a bit of fallout from leftist groups that used to just outright hate each other; for example, feminists used to be regularly boo'd off of the stage at socialist events because the left is full of people who think they are too smart to be sexist & too smart to have to bother with things like introspection. Those schisms are being mended, but it necessarily is slow work.
I'm also not sure if its accurate to frame the right-wing groups as being exceptionally cooperative; mostly, the 'cooperation' is a result of fanatical religious ideologues infiltrating and taking over a given lobbying arm. The NRA's corruption over the past 3~ decades is perhaps the best example: almost overnight, going from a bi-partisan hunting & fishing enthusiast club to a raging partisan organization full of white supremacists adorned with various crucifix ornaments.
This is probably not the model to look at for tips on how to build cooperation.
sure, but *Score Board*
Well, I would point out that the score board only looks they way it does because one specific demographic is over-represented thanks to the Electoral College numbers, but whatever. It's easy to win when you can simply cheat, regardless of your strategy.
And it actually makes for a lot of room for victories for one group being defeats for another. I thought the Ghost in the Shell / Whitewashing thread had/was a great example of this.
A women cast in a lead roll of a $300m dollar action movie; that's progress right?
Ha Ha Ha NOPE, cause she's straght, cis, and white. And I get the resistance to the 'wait your turn' type of argument, but its hard to build a working coalition, when large segments of it will see a partial victory as a call-to-arms defeat.
I'm really not so sure that disagreements over GitS casting are really the straw the broke the camel's back in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan.
No, he's using it as an example of why the left can't unite together as easily as the right. We are so segmented that we can't unify even for a partial victory.
That isn't true, though. One specific cohort of labor voters left behind in the rust belt broke down and either didn't vote or voted for Donald Trump, either out of spite or out of the hope that he would enact protectionist policies that would regenerate their way of life. That isn't leftists (Hell, look at Stein's figures; they were terrible) all choosing not to cooperate, it is what happens when one part of the coalition decides it won't play ball anymore.
Modern leftist groups cooperate on issues all of the time. The whole genesis of a modern left has been due to this cooperate effort.
It's not just labor voters. Many people who should have voted didn't vote because Hillary wasn't their unicorn. Losing PA and Mi wouldn't have mattered if we had retained FL and OH. White women didn't show up. College-educated white people didn't show up. The question now is why?
Because they did not like Trump, but they did not like Clinton either, and both sides are the same.
Plenty of people who supposedly didn't like Trump voted for him anyway because they liked his answers (despite it being obvious bullshit which any person with the slightest common sense should see coming) more than Hillary or they hated him less until he got elected. Then they get suddenly angry why we're in this mess when reality hits them. And they'll never admit that they might be a reason why Trump got there.
Trump talked at length about how he was going to Make America Great Again, a slogan that was targeted specifically at Middle America. His plans were shit, but he devoted all of his attention to them.
Hillary had plans - better ones than Trump, practically speaking - but Middle America was treated as an afterthought. She spoke principally to women and minorities, and her message consisted of "Trump is a singularly awful human being."
And so Middle America decided that Trump was a singularly awful human being who would actually try to fix their problems.
Electorally speaking, we have a messaging problem. Ideally, we come up with ways to transition the working class - not their children, not their descendents - into whatever the fuck our Brave New Post-Manufacturing World is going to look like. But either way, we need to convince them that we're their best bet.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
I work for the federal government and other public service institutions and have special restrictions on my involvement in politics. This isn't as big a deal as it would be for other federal employees since this job isn't going to last.
I am a US emigrant since I have the privilege of being able to be mobile, which makes my political resume hard to pin down to any one state.
My future job prospects are continuations of a lifetime of education and require chunks of 4 year commitments and significant time allocation. They also can occur in any state.
I have a mountain of student debt and may be considered a national security risk.
I have a certain degree of professionalism that makes me want to run a decent and organized campaign rather than one that is just a coversheet against a formerly unopposed incumbent.
I listed those because I suspect I share these hurdles with many people in my demographic who also happen to be young, liberal or liberal-leaning, and skilled enough to know how to do something like this. Public servants, federal employees, gig-economy contractors, people with high professional degrees - they all have more restrictions on government involvement than small business or farm owners (primarily republican) that have relatively stable locations and a free future. I think a lot of us are wondering the same thing - how we can best exercise our civic duty, as over-leveraged as we are.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
*cracks knuckles*
*goes back to browsing facebook*
What the heck, I could use an extra $41k every two years.
Ken Bone! Hell, the reaction he got from the left should have given us a clue to the problem we have.
We've got to get more 'inclusive' of people with different priorities. We shouldn't be asking, "How do you disagree", we should be asking, "Where do we agree and how can we get you on board to help with that"
I literally just called my local NDP field office (...in fairness, this wouldn't have been nearly so easy if it wasn't during a federal election).
Okay; before people either get overly defensive or overly cynical:
Liberals & socialists do participate. Low to middle income families also have a lot of obligations related to finding careers and/or just keeping the lights on at home, while high income families have much more free time. It sucks that this is the kind of terrain we have to work with, but getting angry at the people who have to work and/or can't spare much disposable income doesn't help.
Extremely wealthy cities in America (NYC, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., etc) lean more towards Democrats, but the wealthiest percentile groups in those cities certainly don't (...well, perhaps they do in L.A., but that's one outlier city). The financial district in NYC is pretty unlikely to have supported Clinton's bid with cashflow, for example. Meanwhile, extremely wealthy industrialists from impoverished places like Oklahoma pour almost the entire state's resources into supporting the GOP, and national radical Christian organizations are able to gather wealth from across the entire country from ideologues & fleeced elderly victims. This is why they can afford to put everyone on payroll and make them feel like a big 'ol party superstar.
The problem is not that people have their heads in the sand: resources on the left are always going to be more limited than resources on the right. Offering activists jobs & career paths is a great idea, but that great idea doesn't mean anything if there is no plan in place for getting the funds necessary to do it. That isn't intended to discourage; if this is a thing you want to do, you ought to sit down and draft up at least a rough idea for how you think an adequate bankroll could realistically be created. If you have a Dem representative in your area, contact them and see if they'll engage with you on the concept (most representatives are pretty receptive to go-getters who reach out to them).
At the same time, there is a time honored resistance to paying people on the left side of activism. Some of it is due to limited resources, but not all. We saw this during the mess with the reporting on the Clinton Foundation - one criticism that got brought up was how much they paid their staff (while ignoring the work that staff did.)
This is a serious and long running problem on the left, and it needs to be addressed.
Does it always have to be that way? There are way more organizations that are left-leaning than there are right-leaning ones. This something that I mentioned earlier and that still annoys me. We refuse to fall in line. Like I am certain there is overlap between LGBT, Feminist, and Worker Rights orgs. Like discrimination based on sex/orientation/etc would ding all these groups without fail. So then why don't we ever see them combine forces like the pro-life/gun rights organizations do? Why do we build walls against each other?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
But how do we stop that bickering? Duck tape?
As I recall the first 13 colonies had a similar predicament
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Well, first, there are intersectional organizations like Act Blue & the ACLU.
There is quite a bit of fallout from leftist groups that used to just outright hate each other; for example, feminists used to be regularly boo'd off of the stage at socialist events because the left is full of people who think they are too smart to be sexist & too smart to have to bother with things like introspection. Those schisms are being mended, but it necessarily is slow work.
I'm also not sure if its accurate to frame the right-wing groups as being exceptionally cooperative; mostly, the 'cooperation' is a result of fanatical religious ideologues infiltrating and taking over a given lobbying arm. The NRA's corruption over the past 3~ decades is perhaps the best example: almost overnight, going from a bi-partisan hunting & fishing enthusiast club to a raging partisan organization full of white supremacists adorned with various crucifix ornaments.
This is probably not the model to look at for tips on how to build cooperation.
Setting aside all of the above, though: it is always going to be more difficult to build a coalition among people who actually take issues seriously and get 'into the weeds' instead of just collectively masturbating to This Week's Talking Point. Debate between groups is supposed to be a feature, not a bug - it's how we reach conclusions that are based on good evidence & argument. It does suck that today's cultural climate gives more power to groups that bind together over hyperbolic vagaries; I'm not sure how to address that problem or if it even can be addressed without becoming just another bunch of drones that regurgitate whatever gospel (at which point I fail to see the purpose of even being a political opposition).
They really don't. My dad's an NRA member, has been for years, I read the magazines all the time when I was younger, and every now and again when I'm hanging around their house. I don't remember ever seeing a peep about abortion.
What they don't do is spend time fighting each other. Which is partly a function of them having a very strong overlaping demographics. Are there anti-gun pro-lifers and pro-choice, pro-guns people sure some. But not many
There is just more coherence on the GoP side of the fence. For example
Conservatives complain about 'Liberal Hollywood'
Liberals complain about:
'White Hollywood'
'Hetero-normative Hollywood'
'Cis-Hollywood'
'Patriarchal Hollywood'
'Ablest Hollywood'
etc
And it actually makes for a lot of room for victories for one group being defeats for another. I thought the Ghost in the Shell / Whitewashing thread had/was a great example of this.
A women cast in a lead roll of a $300m dollar action movie; that's progress right?
Ha Ha Ha NOPE, cause she's straght, cis, and white. And I get the resistance to the 'wait your turn' type of argument, but its hard to build a working coalition, when large segments of it will see a partial victory as a call-to-arms defeat.
For another example, look at the torpedoing of A Birth of A Nation. Good job liberals, you managed to sink a movie about a fucking slave rebellion released a month before a racial charged election. VICTORY!
sure, but *Score Board*
I've been racking my brain since Brexit with that question.
I don't know if the Birth of a Nation thing can really be criticized for that. You could just as easily have had the exact opposite reaction: "Good job liberals, you managed to laud a movie about rape by a rapist released a month before an election where sexual assault allegations played a major role."
Wow, okay. Your the first person to actually give me a good decent explanation for it. I guess I should have realized the core issue by my experiences learning about the differences between White/Black feminism.
Equality for all is nice but who gets equality first? Our limited resources compound the problem and a stubborn refusal to accept partial victories. I'll come back to edit this post later when I have some type of solution.
Well, I would point out that the score board only looks they way it does because one specific demographic is over-represented thanks to the Electoral College numbers, but whatever. It's easy to win when you can simply cheat, regardless of your strategy.
I'm really not so sure that disagreements over GitS casting are really the straw the broke the camel's back in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan.
It's two sides of the same coin, but it doesn't really matter in this case since Hollywood has been proven an ineffective investment in the advancement of civil rights - at least as far as the federal government is concerned.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
No, he's using it as an example of why the left can't unite together as easily as the right. We are so segmented that we can't unify even for a partial victory.
That isn't true, though. One specific cohort of labor voters left behind in the rust belt broke down and either didn't vote or voted for Donald Trump, either out of spite or out of the hope that he would enact protectionist policies that would regenerate their way of life. That isn't leftists (Hell, look at Stein's figures; they were terrible) all choosing not to cooperate, it is what happens when one part of the coalition decides it won't play ball anymore.
Modern leftist groups cooperate on issues all of the time. The whole genesis of a modern left has been due to this cooperate effort.
It's not just labor voters. Many people who should have voted didn't vote because Hillary wasn't their unicorn. Losing PA and Mi wouldn't have mattered if we had retained FL and OH. White women didn't show up. College-educated white people didn't show up. The question now is why?
Because America has a problem with systemic racism that transcends either education or gender identity, if you want a blunt & honest answer.
That's not something that organization on the left can really deal with. It's the terrain & weather that we have to work around.
No, but I'll bet you can probably use a similar diagram involving Labor Unions, Globalization, and Amnesty for Illegal/Undocumented Immigrants.
Because they did not like Trump, but they did not like Clinton either, and both sides are the same.
IMO it looks like the occasional map of alliances in Syria that pop up in the ME thread every now and then
Plenty of people who supposedly didn't like Trump voted for him anyway because they liked his answers (despite it being obvious bullshit which any person with the slightest common sense should see coming) more than Hillary or they hated him less until he got elected. Then they get suddenly angry why we're in this mess when reality hits them. And they'll never admit that they might be a reason why Trump got there.
Sure, but that's not the question. For various reasons, Clinton was hated about has much as Trump, for various reasons Clinton's message did not reach low information voters, and for various reasons there's a lot of low informations voters.
The racists and such showed up for Trump. A lot did not show up. That's why.
So, you can be all sad about those who voted for Trump, you can be all angry at those who voted for Trump without even realizing what they were voting for*, our you could try to figure out why our candidate was so disliked and why her message did not make it.
*Then again, most of those have been voting Republican with the same consequences for years, so...
No, Clinton was hated more than Trump, and that's not all her fault. Sure she made big mistakes, and her campaign was not perfect. Some of it was on her and her staff. No denying that. But that's not the whole story. And those elements outside Hillary herself are important to not forget because they will be in play for the following non-Hillary candidates, and we do know the GOP playbook before Trump got his hands on it. Hillary losing isn't a new develop entirely, plenty of Dems have lost the presidency in the modern era - ironically that's how we got the Reagan Democrats.
I can be angry and sad and understand them at the same time.
That's a big part of the answer, actually.
Another big factor the Dems need to get ahead in is the media. Strategies are meaningless if they're pulled apart by the forth estate before the public are allowed to see them. Dems need to seriously consider capturing the media and making it less GOP friendly when they have the opportunity to pass legislation, or the fight is lost before it began.
Where are the owners and managers on our side inside the media? How can we get them to have bigger influence? How we can take Murduck's grip off the media's throat? And now we may to worry about Breitbart doing the same.
Technically she won the election, popular vote so people did want an insider. It's not the kiss of death in presidential politics.
Popularism and being anti-establishment may be "in" on both parties, but it's at a higher tempo on the conservative side, that's why they have Trump and we didn't have Bernie. Bernie supporters didn't outnumber Hillary supporters at the voting booths, that's what matters. You can't win elections based on hypothetical voters.
Bernie supporters mostly supported her after the election, as well.
Yes, technically. She did get the popular vote, and that is not a meaningless accomplishment. Unfortunately America's political system makes this meaningless. And this is getting irritating how this only effects Dems, and not Republicans at elections. If she truly was a horrible candidate she wouldn't have been able to reach this bar, something Trump failed to do and only got around by other measures.
That's just a general problem in the non-profit sphere altogether. Even a lot of foundations, people whose job it is to give away money to non-profits, look with disdain on "overhead," and it's like, how the fuck do you think anything actually gets done?
Sure there are plenty of 501c3's that are basically scams and are ruining it for the rest of us, but there's this dim view of paying people for charity work that infuriates me, partially because it's people thinking i shouldn't get paid for the work i do, more of that toxic "real work" mentality coupled with the idea that i'm somehow scamming the people i'm soliciting by daring to make a living wage.
It's an important rhetorical point, too. Unless he wins re-election (and by an actual majority), the Republicans can never say "The American people chose Donald Trump," because they didn't.
Not that they won't say it anyway, but anyone who isn't in the bubble can point and laugh.
I don't think Clinton was hated more than Trump, though maybe that'd be true if you broke it down into units of hate. Clinton wasn't popular, and her message was very much of "lets keep trying to do what we're trying to" - she was the continuation of Obama's legacy. But if that's not working, and the other side has supposedly been completely shaken up, maybe it's time to give them a shot?
There's the element of truth and lies echoed elsewhere in other threads, but basically Clinton campaigned on making things better than they are now, and Trump said he'd stop making things bad. To people on Obama's side Clinton was the obvious choice (and to most other people), but to other people she's basically running on the republican congress's record. If you've been hit by that, you don't want to hear people talking about continuing legacies and staying the course - thing are going radically wrong and someone has to fix it. Clinton was hopeful that her party could take control if they got lucky, already we're seeing that Trump may have been (unintentionally) serious when he talked about taking over the republicans.
When the problem is the republicans - do you risk it to vote them out or do you try to change them? I reckon a lot of critical Trump voters saw his ability to change the party (from fiscal/social conservatism to social conservatism/fiscal populism) as being the choice to make. Four more years of Obama doing nothing to help you, or something else?
Still think they're wrong - but it's understandable. And importantly here, the fight in two years is going to be very different if the party gets behind Trump. Tories over in the UK are now pretty much using Labour's budget from the last election despite many of the same people saying how reckless it' dbe 18 months previously.
Last election showed that just appealing to social reasons wasn't enough for the democrats to win, next election - depending on the right bribes and congress, that might be all you have alongside tighter voter ID.
Even with trump, winning the moral argument will be hard in a midterm against free spending republicans.
Trump talked at length about how he was going to Make America Great Again, a slogan that was targeted specifically at Middle America. His plans were shit, but he devoted all of his attention to them.
Hillary had plans - better ones than Trump, practically speaking - but Middle America was treated as an afterthought. She spoke principally to women and minorities, and her message consisted of "Trump is a singularly awful human being."
And so Middle America decided that Trump was a singularly awful human being who would actually try to fix their problems.
Electorally speaking, we have a messaging problem. Ideally, we come up with ways to transition the working class - not their children, not their descendents - into whatever the fuck our Brave New Post-Manufacturing World is going to look like. But either way, we need to convince them that we're their best bet.