As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Last 2016 Election Thread You'll Ever Wear

14748505253100

Posts

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Booker is not Hillary. Not even close.

    It's really hard to overestimate the level of connections and pull Clinton had within the party. Booker is nowhere near that. If he runs, and can somehow get over the fact that he happily took money from a Trump, he's still just another dude in the race. Not the assumed candidate for a decade running.

    Booker needn't be as connected as Hillary to be persona non grata with the left. He's an establishment dem with access to big donors and connections to Wall steer plus Republicans. It's not him who need to get over this when he's in a primary, all his bad deeds are going to come back to haunt him in the primary and the general if he makes it.

    I'm really, honestly unable to parse this as a response to what you've quoted.

    The thing is this - the Far Left don't have a Hillary problem, they gave an establishment/centrist problem. If Booker ran for president he'd have similar issues they had with Hillary and additional baggage. Upthread you even agreed it was a bad idea to get the Left on board if Booker was the nominee. This applies to any centrist running.

    Obama was able to get around this by being antiestablishment.

    The Far left are not easily going to coalesce with any centrist who wins the nomination, not at first anyway and the media and other parties are going to exploit this again in theg general.why wouldn't they?

    edit: Thankfully we have a caveat where it is possible for centrists to win over a significant portion of the Far Left, as Hillary had shown. It's the radicalized assholes who are the problem, and who are going to cause trouble for any Dem candidates in the future even if they have the presidential election in the bag. If they did to Hillary, they're going to do this with Booker or whoever establishment candidate wins the nomination.

    Harry Dresden on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    skyknyt wrote: »
    You want to bales anyone for that, blame the GOP - Obama and the Dems tried to fix that with Obamacare and other acts. Their competition unfortunately was a 800lb gorilla.

    Hillary was going to raise wages to $12 and was going to work on programs for colleges to make it cheaper IIRC. Presidents aren't kings, if you don't think Obama would have loved to do that I don't know what tell you.

    Obama walked in with a majority of the vote and congress. Any amount of "but but but" doesn't cut it. Dems had a mandate, dems controlled the rules, dems decided the policy. Somehow all those houses were still foreclosed on, somehow the rich kept consolidating wealth, somehow wages stayed stagnant, somehow medical costs kept getting higher, and somehow, the Obama coalition didn't show up in 2010 to keep the blue dogs in congress to maintain the majority.

    Trump is going to walk into office with a minority of the vote and already they have legislation lined up to keep their most hardcore base happy. Worth thinking about.

    Obama had a fillibuster proof majority for a few months. On top of that a handful of Dem senators are basically Republicans anyway.

    Reid was a fool and thought the GOP would work with them

    Its also far easier to do stupid morality stuff that does nothing but hurt people for no real immediate cost to the federal government. Ban gay people from complaining and end government assistance to help children learn foreign languages? Take that LIBERALS! And now the base is happy with their stupid rubbish, and the GOP can get to focusing on dismantling government.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Booker is not Hillary. Not even close.

    It's really hard to overestimate the level of connections and pull Clinton had within the party. Booker is nowhere near that. If he runs, and can somehow get over the fact that he happily took money from a Trump, he's still just another dude in the race. Not the assumed candidate for a decade running.

    Booker needn't be as connected as Hillary to be persona non grata with the left. He's an establishment dem with access to big donors and connections to Wall steer plus Republicans. It's not him who need to get over this when he's in a primary, all his bad deeds are going to come back to haunt him in the primary and the general if he makes it.

    I'm really, honestly unable to parse this as a response to what you've quoted.

    The thing is this - the Far Left don't have a Hillary problem, they gave an establishment/centrist problem. If Booker ran for president he'd have similar issues they had with Hillary and additional baggage. Upthread you even agreed it was a bad idea to get the Left on board if Booker was the nominee. This applies to any centrist running.

    Obama was able to get around this by being antiestablishment.

    The Far left are not easily going to coalesce with any centrist who wins the nomination, not at first anyway and the media and other parties are going to exploit this again in theg general.why wouldn't they?

    We need candidates willing to walk the walk. Here in Wisconsin, the Dems had a chance with Doyle and the legislature to codify fair districting before the GOP and Walker took over in 2010. They also had a chance to enact statewide campaign finance rules. They didn't because they were in the majority and figured they would be the ones to rewrite the donor laws and redraw the district lines. At some point the party has to stand on principle. The worst part of going the other way is that the strategy of being principled is also good politics--the voters will respect you for it.

    Spaten Optimator on
  • skyknytskyknyt Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Obama had a fillibuster proof majority for a few months. On top of that a handful of Dem senators are basically Republicans anyway.

    Reid was a fool and thought the GOP would work with them
    In other words, even when elected with overwhelming majorities, Dems are unable to implement the policies their constituents want.

    Well, good luck making that sale every 2 years.

    Tycho wrote:
    [skyknyt's writing] is like come kind of code that, when comprehended, unfolds into madness in the mind of the reader.
    PSN: skyknyt, Steam: skyknyt, Blizz: skyknyt#1160
  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Obama had a fillibuster proof majority for a few months. On top of that a handful of Dem senators are basically Republicans anyway.

    Reid was a fool and thought the GOP would work with them
    In other words, even when elected with overwhelming majorities, Dems are unable to implement the policies their constituents want.

    Well, good luck making that sale every 2 years.

    Can I interest you in a slightly used Joe Lieberman?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Obama had a fillibuster proof majority for a few months. On top of that a handful of Dem senators are basically Republicans anyway.

    Reid was a fool and thought the GOP would work with them
    In other words, even when elected with overwhelming majorities, Dems are unable to implement the policies their constituents want.

    Well, good luck making that sale every 2 years.

    They made things better in like 95% of policy areas! They fucked up education and foreclosure relief. And then the voters told them to fuck off. And then they were like fine we promise to do even better stuff. And the voters were like, eh, Trump's good in enough to states to win, and just generally for the popular vote. What lesson are Democrats supposed to learn from that?

    It's definitely not the lesson liberals want them to learn.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    We need candidates willing to walk the walk. Here in Wisconsin, the Dems had a chance with Doyle and the legislature to codify fair districting before the GOP and Walker took over in 2010. They also had a chance to enact statewide campaign finance rules. They didn't because they were in the majority and figured they would be the ones to rewrite the donor laws and redraw the district lines. At some point the party has to stand on principle.

    That's not really an example of systemic corruption, and yes Dems have their issues with that too. No party is exempt from assholes or corrupt bastards who need the book thrown at them.

    I agree the Dems should have tried to do something about this from the upper branches, that needs to change.

    There really should be an investigation by the party itself to fix these issues in Wisconsin.
    The worst part of going the other way is that the strategy of being principled is also good politics--the voters will respect you for it.

    That unfortunately isn't a given, as Hillary found out. And the Obama suffered when they were obstructed by the GOP.
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Obama had a fillibuster proof majority for a few months. On top of that a handful of Dem senators are basically Republicans anyway.

    Reid was a fool and thought the GOP would work with them
    In other words, even when elected with overwhelming majorities, Dems are unable to implement the policies their constituents want.

    Well, good luck making that sale every 2 years.

    Different rules apply to Dems since it's harder to build from scratch and to win against an opponent who will obstruct you on pure principal and have the ability to shut the government down to get what they want. Dems need to do a better job framing this as the GOP's fault.

  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Obama had a fillibuster proof majority for a few months. On top of that a handful of Dem senators are basically Republicans anyway.

    Reid was a fool and thought the GOP would work with them
    In other words, even when elected with overwhelming majorities, Dems are unable to implement the policies their constituents want.

    Well, good luck making that sale every 2 years.

    They made things better in like 95% of policy areas! They fucked up education and foreclosure relief. And then the voters told them to fuck off. And then they were like fine we promise to do even better stuff. And the voters were like, eh, Trump's good in enough to states to win, and just generally for the popular vote. What lesson are Democrats supposed to learn from that?

    It's definitely not the lesson liberals want them to learn.

    I'm hoping its "populism (or anything that sounds like it) sells".

    The crazy, old, Jewish guy who wasn't even a Democrat in 2013 got close enough to Clinton to rock the apple cart even though he had no major donor base at the onset and basically no major name recognition prior to the primary. A rancid tub of Sazon seasoned pork drippings won the general by basically yelling "We're mad and white as hell and we're not going to take it any more!".

    Trump has done an awesome job of surrounding himself with insiders and billionaire shitheads five minutes after being elected. Don't let anyone forget that and find someone that can bury him with it.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    I'd be pretty happy if Howard Dean wanted to run things again tbh. I feel like he dragged the party into the position that eventually let Obama take a real shot at things. His fundraising and internet presence during his eventual failed presidential bid did a great deal for the party.


    I'd just like to say, how did we go from someone's career basically being blown up in a single news cycle for enthusiastically yelling, "Yeaaaah!" into a mic with the volume being mixed at the wrong levels to someone who openly talks about "grabbin em by the pussy" and trying to bang married women by taking them furniture shopping winning not just the clown car primary, but the general election.

    What the fuck humanity? What the fuck!.

    Edit:

    Right now, we're all pulling a ripcord at terminal velocity and all we're getting out of it is a dildo.

    dispatch.o on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    I'd be pretty happy if Howard Dean wanted to run things again tbh. I feel like he dragged the party into the position that eventually let Obama take a real shot at things. His fundraising and internet presence during his eventual failed presidential bid did a great deal for the party.


    I'd just like to say, how did we go from someone's career basically being blown up in a single news cycle for enthusiastically yelling, "Yeaaaah!" into a mic with the volume being mixed at the wrong levels to someone who openly talks about "grabbin em by the pussy" and trying to bang married women by taking them furniture shopping winning not just the clown car primary, but the general election.

    What the fuck humanity? What the fuck!.

    Dean was a liberal who opposed the great Iraqi adventure our media loved so much. Therefore he was clearly nuts and the Dean Scream confirmed it.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    RedTide wrote: »
    I'm hoping its "populism (or anything that sounds like it) sells".

    Popularism won by a thin margin via EC and failed to unseat the establishment in the Dem primaries.
    The crazy, old, Jewish guy who wasn't even a Democrat in 2013 got close enough to Clinton to rock the apple cart even though he had no major donor base at the onset and basically no major name recognition prior to the primary.

    Thanks to Hillary clearing the field for him, and he stayed on long past the time he knew his campaign was dead (May?). It's not really a competition when the other guy is imitating the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail through half the election. And she held back while he tried everything to destroy her.
    A rancid tub of Sazon seasoned pork drippings won the general by basically yelling "We're mad and white as hell and we're not going to take it any more!".

    Via breaking political common sense like he was a damn wizard (we got a preview in the GOP primaries), constantly being underestimated, the GOP at his back (their political machine is one of the best in the world and better usually than the Dems on average), the media giving Trump free coverage, Comey, getting the right votes to win despite losing the popular vote, activating the overt white supremacist vote etc.
    Trump has done an awesome job of surrounding himself with insiders and billionaire shitheads five minutes after being elected. Don't let anyone forget that and find someone that can bury him with it.

    Agreed.

    Harry Dresden on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Obama had a fillibuster proof majority for a few months. On top of that a handful of Dem senators are basically Republicans anyway.

    Reid was a fool and thought the GOP would work with them
    In other words, even when elected with overwhelming majorities, Dems are unable to implement the policies their constituents want.

    Well, good luck making that sale every 2 years.

    It turns out government is hard and takes time to work and you have to keep voting to make it happen. The right gets that. God knows why the left doesn't.

    And no, the Democrats didn't get an overwhelming majority in the Senate. That's kinda the whole issue. And if you don't like that, blame a bunch of old dead white guys you call the Founding Fathers. It's their shitty document that's responsible.

    shryke on
  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Obama had a fillibuster proof majority for a few months. On top of that a handful of Dem senators are basically Republicans anyway.

    Reid was a fool and thought the GOP would work with them
    In other words, even when elected with overwhelming majorities, Dems are unable to implement the policies their constituents want.

    Well, good luck making that sale every 2 years.

    It turns out government is hard and takes time to work and you have to keep voting to make it happen. The right gets that. God knows why the left doesn't.

    And no, the Democrats didn't get an overwhelming majority in the Senate. That's kinda the whole issue. And if you don't like that, blame a bunch of old dead white guys you call the Founding Fathers. It's their shitty document that's responsible.

    It's weird how the GOP can do things the Democrats can't when using the same shitty system. Almost as if one party is more adept at leveraging power.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Obama had a fillibuster proof majority for a few months. On top of that a handful of Dem senators are basically Republicans anyway.

    Reid was a fool and thought the GOP would work with them
    In other words, even when elected with overwhelming majorities, Dems are unable to implement the policies their constituents want.

    Well, good luck making that sale every 2 years.

    It turns out government is hard and takes time to work and you have to keep voting to make it happen. The right gets that. God knows why the left doesn't.

    And no, the Democrats didn't get an overwhelming majority in the Senate. That's kinda the whole issue. And if you don't like that, blame a bunch of old dead white guys you call the Founding Fathers. It's their shitty document that's responsible.

    It's weird how the GOP can do things the Democrats can't when using the same shitty system. Almost as if one party is more adept at leveraging power.

    It's amazing what you can do when you don't have any morals holding you back.

  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Obama had a fillibuster proof majority for a few months. On top of that a handful of Dem senators are basically Republicans anyway.

    Reid was a fool and thought the GOP would work with them
    In other words, even when elected with overwhelming majorities, Dems are unable to implement the policies their constituents want.

    Well, good luck making that sale every 2 years.

    It turns out government is hard and takes time to work and you have to keep voting to make it happen. The right gets that. God knows why the left doesn't.

    And no, the Democrats didn't get an overwhelming majority in the Senate. That's kinda the whole issue. And if you don't like that, blame a bunch of old dead white guys you call the Founding Fathers. It's their shitty document that's responsible.

    It's weird how the GOP can do things the Democrats can't when using the same shitty system. Almost as if one party is more adept at leveraging power.

    It's amazing what you can do when you don't have any morals holding you back.

    If that includes universal health care, sign me up.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Obama had a fillibuster proof majority for a few months. On top of that a handful of Dem senators are basically Republicans anyway.

    Reid was a fool and thought the GOP would work with them
    In other words, even when elected with overwhelming majorities, Dems are unable to implement the policies their constituents want.

    Well, good luck making that sale every 2 years.

    It turns out government is hard and takes time to work and you have to keep voting to make it happen. The right gets that. God knows why the left doesn't.

    And no, the Democrats didn't get an overwhelming majority in the Senate. That's kinda the whole issue. And if you don't like that, blame a bunch of old dead white guys you call the Founding Fathers. It's their shitty document that's responsible.

    It's weird how the GOP can do things the Democrats can't when using the same shitty system. Almost as if one party is more adept at leveraging power.

    It's amazing what you can do when you don't have any morals holding you back.

    If that includes universal health care, sign me up.

    No, it does not. But you'll be able to destroy the thing that leads to UHC!

  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    shryke wrote: »
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Obama had a fillibuster proof majority for a few months. On top of that a handful of Dem senators are basically Republicans anyway.

    Reid was a fool and thought the GOP would work with them
    In other words, even when elected with overwhelming majorities, Dems are unable to implement the policies their constituents want.

    Well, good luck making that sale every 2 years.

    It turns out government is hard and takes time to work and you have to keep voting to make it happen. The right gets that. God knows why the left doesn't.

    And no, the Democrats didn't get an overwhelming majority in the Senate. That's kinda the whole issue. And if you don't like that, blame a bunch of old dead white guys you call the Founding Fathers. It's their shitty document that's responsible.

    It's weird how the GOP can do things the Democrats can't when using the same shitty system. Almost as if one party is more adept at leveraging power.

    It's amazing what you can do when you don't have any morals holding you back.

    If that includes universal health care, sign me up.

    No, it does not. But you'll be able to destroy the thing that leads to UHC!

    Probably not signing up in that case.

    Spaten Optimator on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    shryke wrote: »
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Obama had a fillibuster proof majority for a few months. On top of that a handful of Dem senators are basically Republicans anyway.

    Reid was a fool and thought the GOP would work with them
    In other words, even when elected with overwhelming majorities, Dems are unable to implement the policies their constituents want.

    Well, good luck making that sale every 2 years.

    It turns out government is hard and takes time to work and you have to keep voting to make it happen. The right gets that. God knows why the left doesn't.

    And no, the Democrats didn't get an overwhelming majority in the Senate. That's kinda the whole issue. And if you don't like that, blame a bunch of old dead white guys you call the Founding Fathers. It's their shitty document that's responsible.

    It's weird how the GOP can do things the Democrats can't when using the same shitty system. Almost as if one party is more adept at leveraging power.

    It's not the same shitty system. If you think that, you weren't paying attention to this election at all.

    The system, the Senate and the Electoral College being two of the most egregious examples, biases in favour of the GOP base and thus the GOP. There is a significant structural advantage just there alone. The things that make it more difficult for the Democrats to control and get shit passed in Congress is the same effect you see in Clinton losing despite winning the popular vote. And Ebum explains some of the other nuances of it too last page because it goes beyond just "the system gives disproportionate power to rural voters". It's important to understand that a Democratic majority in the Senate for the Democrats essentially has to be built on blue dogs or something like them.

    Beyond this the Democrats are simply alot less willing to, you know, violate all the norms of democratic governance in the US and create constitutional crises. And the shitty US system hamstrings them for this in a way it doesn't for a party willing to simply throw the entire US government out the window. It's not unlike the way you can win elections alot easier if you just flat out engage in massive voter disenfranchisement. So long as you are willing to burn it all down, you can accomplish more. This has been McConnell's strategy since Obama won. Before he even took office. Obstruct everything because the system allows it and ignore every rule of government because none of them matter if your base still shows up and puts you back into office. And beyond even that, the Republicans, unlike the Democrats, are completely 100% ok with the government simply doing nothing, defaulting or collapsing. They have clearly shown they are AOK with having the government default if they can get their way. Breaking all the norms doesn't get you UHC, it gets you gutting every regulatory agency. Because the first is hard and requires getting past a ton of veto points and the second doesn't.

    And you can go on like this but the shape of it all is right there. The Democrats begin at a disadvantage because the US system biases in favour of states and land area more then it does population. And they are further hamstrung by the fact that they have an interest in the US actually, like, functioning. Whereas the Republican party is essentially a suicidal cult. And the US system of government biases in favour of obstruction over action.


    But this is all very abstract and somewhat besides the point. A specific point in time was brought up and it's trivially easy to show that the idea that "The Democrats could have done anything they wanted but didn't" is ludicrously false. They needed all 60 Senators, every single last one, to get shit done and only had that number very briefly and that number required them to depend on the most right-ward members of the Democratic party to get on board even then. Once that window was closed, it was fillibuster everything time and the Democrats ability to accomplish anything was extremely limited. Because that's how the US government works.

    shryke on
  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    But this is all very abstract and somewhat besides the point. A specific point in time was brought up and it's trivially easy to show that the idea that "The Democrats could have done anything they wanted but didn't" is ludicrously false.

    Indeed it is. Who said that?

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Booker is not Hillary. Not even close.

    It's really hard to overestimate the level of connections and pull Clinton had within the party. Booker is nowhere near that. If he runs, and can somehow get over the fact that he happily took money from a Trump, he's still just another dude in the race. Not the assumed candidate for a decade running.

    Booker needn't be as connected as Hillary to be persona non grata with the left. He's an establishment dem with access to big donors and connections to Wall steer plus Republicans. It's not him who need to get over this when he's in a primary, all his bad deeds are going to come back to haunt him in the primary and the general if he makes it.

    I'm really, honestly unable to parse this as a response to what you've quoted.

    The thing is this - the Far Left don't have a Hillary problem, they gave an establishment/centrist problem. If Booker ran for president he'd have similar issues they had with Hillary and additional baggage. Upthread you even agreed it was a bad idea to get the Left on board if Booker was the nominee. This applies to any centrist running.

    Obama was able to get around this by being antiestablishment.

    The Far left are not easily going to coalesce with any centrist who wins the nomination, not at first anyway and the media and other parties are going to exploit this again in theg general.why wouldn't they?

    edit: Thankfully we have a caveat where it is possible for centrists to win over a significant portion of the Far Left, as Hillary had shown. It's the radicalized assholes who are the problem, and who are going to cause trouble for any Dem candidates in the future even if they have the presidential election in the bag. If they did to Hillary, they're going to do this with Booker or whoever establishment candidate wins the nomination.

    I disagree that this is a problem the far left has.

    This is a problem the party has if we collectively insist on running someone like Cory Booker.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    @Harry Dresden

    Your argument has some merit, but it begs the question: Why the Dems should run any establishment candidate then, specially with a chance to take the anti-establishment flag from Trump?

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Obama had a fillibuster proof majority for a few months. On top of that a handful of Dem senators are basically Republicans anyway.

    Reid was a fool and thought the GOP would work with them
    In other words, even when elected with overwhelming majorities, Dems are unable to implement the policies their constituents want.

    Well, good luck making that sale every 2 years.

    Happens when your whole system of government was built around sucking off slave owning states so they'd play ball

  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Obama had a fillibuster proof majority for a few months. On top of that a handful of Dem senators are basically Republicans anyway.

    Reid was a fool and thought the GOP would work with them
    In other words, even when elected with overwhelming majorities, Dems are unable to implement the policies their constituents want.

    Well, good luck making that sale every 2 years.

    Happens when your whole system of government was built around sucking off slave owning states so they'd play ball

    Running on eliminating the electoral college would be awesome.

    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    skyknyt wrote: »
    You want to bales anyone for that, blame the GOP - Obama and the Dems tried to fix that with Obamacare and other acts. Their competition unfortunately was a 800lb gorilla.

    Hillary was going to raise wages to $12 and was going to work on programs for colleges to make it cheaper IIRC. Presidents aren't kings, if you don't think Obama would have loved to do that I don't know what tell you.

    Obama walked in with a majority of the vote and congress. Any amount of "but but but" doesn't cut it. Dems had a mandate, dems controlled the rules, dems decided the policy. Somehow all those houses were still foreclosed on, somehow the rich kept consolidating wealth, somehow wages stayed stagnant, somehow medical costs kept getting higher, and somehow, the Obama coalition didn't show up in 2010 to keep the blue dogs in congress to maintain the majority.

    Trump is going to walk into office with a minority of the vote and already they have legislation lined up to keep their most hardcore base happy. Worth thinking about.

    The bailouts (bank, auto) that really did have to happen, took a lot of the wind out of his progressive sails. They were widely unpopular, but things would have gotten a lot worse had they not happened. I think the blue dogs would have been far more willing to play ball on things like healthcare if they didn't have to defend their districts against massive government handouts to the people who just royally fucked the economy.

  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Basically, I predict that US politics will just go from one anti-establishment candidate to the next until someone puts a lot of Bankers on electrical chairs and puts the whole thing on TV or something crazy like that. Of course, that sucks if you want actual stability, but those are the cards on the future.

  • Squidget0Squidget0 Registered User regular
    Cantido wrote: »
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Obama had a fillibuster proof majority for a few months. On top of that a handful of Dem senators are basically Republicans anyway.

    Reid was a fool and thought the GOP would work with them
    In other words, even when elected with overwhelming majorities, Dems are unable to implement the policies their constituents want.

    Well, good luck making that sale every 2 years.

    Happens when your whole system of government was built around sucking off slave owning states so they'd play ball

    Running on eliminating the electoral college would be awesome.

    A politician needs to run primarily on solving the problems their constituents have, not their own disagreements with the political process. The point is improving the lives of the voters. That's their job.

  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    Run on making sure everybody can vote without risking their job.

    Yes the Republicans will oppose it, but they oppose letting anyone vote at all.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Cantido wrote: »
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Obama had a fillibuster proof majority for a few months. On top of that a handful of Dem senators are basically Republicans anyway.

    Reid was a fool and thought the GOP would work with them
    In other words, even when elected with overwhelming majorities, Dems are unable to implement the policies their constituents want.

    Well, good luck making that sale every 2 years.

    Happens when your whole system of government was built around sucking off slave owning states so they'd play ball

    Running on eliminating the electoral college would be awesome.

    A politician needs to run primarily on solving the problems their constituents have, not their own disagreements with the political process. The point is improving the lives of the voters. That's their job.
    I have problems with the electoral college.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Javen wrote: »
    skyknyt wrote: »
    You want to bales anyone for that, blame the GOP - Obama and the Dems tried to fix that with Obamacare and other acts. Their competition unfortunately was a 800lb gorilla.

    Hillary was going to raise wages to $12 and was going to work on programs for colleges to make it cheaper IIRC. Presidents aren't kings, if you don't think Obama would have loved to do that I don't know what tell you.

    Obama walked in with a majority of the vote and congress. Any amount of "but but but" doesn't cut it. Dems had a mandate, dems controlled the rules, dems decided the policy. Somehow all those houses were still foreclosed on, somehow the rich kept consolidating wealth, somehow wages stayed stagnant, somehow medical costs kept getting higher, and somehow, the Obama coalition didn't show up in 2010 to keep the blue dogs in congress to maintain the majority.

    Trump is going to walk into office with a minority of the vote and already they have legislation lined up to keep their most hardcore base happy. Worth thinking about.

    The bailouts (bank, auto) that really did have to happen, took a lot of the wind out of his progressive sails. They were widely unpopular, but things would have gotten a lot worse had they not happened. I think the blue dogs would have been far more willing to play ball on things like healthcare if they didn't have to defend their districts against massive government handouts to the people who just royally fucked the economy.

    the auto bailout wasn't that unpopular, the bank one was

    and it didn't have to be, arresting a single fucking banker (except the one muslim banker they arrested) would help, tying stronger regulations TO THE BAILOUT would have helped

    And there was ZERO reason to make half the stimulus tax cuts

    override367 on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Javen wrote: »
    skyknyt wrote: »
    You want to bales anyone for that, blame the GOP - Obama and the Dems tried to fix that with Obamacare and other acts. Their competition unfortunately was a 800lb gorilla.

    Hillary was going to raise wages to $12 and was going to work on programs for colleges to make it cheaper IIRC. Presidents aren't kings, if you don't think Obama would have loved to do that I don't know what tell you.

    Obama walked in with a majority of the vote and congress. Any amount of "but but but" doesn't cut it. Dems had a mandate, dems controlled the rules, dems decided the policy. Somehow all those houses were still foreclosed on, somehow the rich kept consolidating wealth, somehow wages stayed stagnant, somehow medical costs kept getting higher, and somehow, the Obama coalition didn't show up in 2010 to keep the blue dogs in congress to maintain the majority.

    Trump is going to walk into office with a minority of the vote and already they have legislation lined up to keep their most hardcore base happy. Worth thinking about.

    The bailouts (bank, auto) that really did have to happen, took a lot of the wind out of his progressive sails. They were widely unpopular, but things would have gotten a lot worse had they not happened. I think the blue dogs would have been far more willing to play ball on things like healthcare if they didn't have to defend their districts against massive government handouts to the people who just royally fucked the economy.

    the auto bailout wasn't that unpopular, the bank one was

    and it didn't have to be, arresting a single fucking banker (except the one muslim banker they arrested) would help, tying stronger regulations TO THE BAILOUT would have helped

    And there was ZERO reason to make half the stimulus tax cuts

    Actually there was. It needed to pass. They were really unsure how much they could push through Congress.

  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    Everybody arguing the "Far Left" (which is inexplicably capitalized now) side of things has been vocal and consistent about how things need to be worked on right fucking now, and not in 2/4 years.

    We really do not need to be told to get to work. It just sounds condescending and like you haven't been listening to a word we've said; you only respond to make big long line-by-line analysis posts so you can preach at us.

    But you see, it was the filthy Bernie Bros who betrayed the Coalition of the Ascendant!

  • DunderDunder Registered User regular
    Everybody arguing the "Far Left" (which is inexplicably capitalized now) side of things has been vocal and consistent about how things need to be worked on right fucking now, and not in 2/4 years.

    We really do not need to be told to get to work. It just sounds condescending and like you haven't been listening to a word we've said; you only respond to make big long line-by-line analysis posts so you can preach at us.

    But you see, it was the filthy Bernie Bros who betrayed the Coalition of the Ascendant!

    The ones that didn't vote for clinton in the general absolutely did though.

    You vote and fight for your heart in the primary, and you vote and fight for your side in the general.

    Of course you can prove me wrong by explaining how trump is a better choice for the far left than Clinton.

  • FakefauxFakefaux Cóiste Bodhar Driving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Dunder wrote: »
    Everybody arguing the "Far Left" (which is inexplicably capitalized now) side of things has been vocal and consistent about how things need to be worked on right fucking now, and not in 2/4 years.

    We really do not need to be told to get to work. It just sounds condescending and like you haven't been listening to a word we've said; you only respond to make big long line-by-line analysis posts so you can preach at us.

    But you see, it was the filthy Bernie Bros who betrayed the Coalition of the Ascendant!

    The ones that didn't vote for clinton in the general absolutely did though.

    You vote and fight for your heart in the primary, and you vote and fight for your side in the general.

    Of course you can prove me wrong by explaining how trump is a better choice for the far left than Clinton.

    The vast majority of Bernie voters did vote for Clinton

    Fakefaux on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Dunder wrote: »
    Everybody arguing the "Far Left" (which is inexplicably capitalized now) side of things has been vocal and consistent about how things need to be worked on right fucking now, and not in 2/4 years.

    We really do not need to be told to get to work. It just sounds condescending and like you haven't been listening to a word we've said; you only respond to make big long line-by-line analysis posts so you can preach at us.

    But you see, it was the filthy Bernie Bros who betrayed the Coalition of the Ascendant!

    The ones that didn't vote for clinton in the general absolutely did though.

    You vote and fight for your heart in the primary, and you vote and fight for your side in the general.

    Of course you can prove me wrong by explaining how trump is a better choice for the far left than Clinton.

    Over the last 8 years I've seen tons of Obama does X discussions here where the response to
    "I was hoping he would do more liberal act x" was "well you should have paid attention he campaigned as a centrist."

    So to see the new version of it be "well people should have ignored Clintons centrist positions and voted for her" strikes me as a bit of a heads you lose tails I win proposition.

    Then again I'm not surprised, because "it cannot be the fault of Clinton or the DNC that they lost those voters, even running against someone as loathsome as Trump" is one of the anchor points this thread circles around.

    Racist, sexists, Bernie Sanders, the media, the fringe left, anyone and everyone is responsible for wrecking the Obama Coalition except the people helming it.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Or we have had a consistent argument which is "better is good."

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    .
    Dunder wrote: »
    Everybody arguing the "Far Left" (which is inexplicably capitalized now) side of things has been vocal and consistent about how things need to be worked on right fucking now, and not in 2/4 years.

    We really do not need to be told to get to work. It just sounds condescending and like you haven't been listening to a word we've said; you only respond to make big long line-by-line analysis posts so you can preach at us.

    But you see, it was the filthy Bernie Bros who betrayed the Coalition of the Ascendant!

    The ones that didn't vote for clinton in the general absolutely did though.

    You vote and fight for your heart in the primary, and you vote and fight for your side in the general.

    Of course you can prove me wrong by explaining how trump is a better choice for the far left than Clinton.

    Over the last 8 years I've seen tons of Obama does X discussions here where the response to
    "I was hoping he would do more liberal act x" was "well you should have paid attention he campaigned as a centrist."

    So to see the new version of it be "well people should have ignored Clintons centrist positions and voted for her" strikes me as a bit of a heads you lose tails I win proposition.

    Then again I'm not surprised, because "it cannot be the fault of Clinton or the DNC that they lost those voters, even running against someone as loathsome as Trump" is one of the anchor points this thread circles around.

    Racist, sexists, Bernie Sanders, the media, the fringe left, anyone and everyone is responsible for wrecking the Obama Coalition except the people helming it.

    Describing Clinton or her positions as centrist is entirely inaccurate. The bubble that makes people think she or they were is basically the problem you're trying to dismiss

    I also think the discussions you're describing weren't vague "He campaigned as a centrist" but discussing "He campaigned on policy y, not x".

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    Dunder wrote: »
    Everybody arguing the "Far Left" (which is inexplicably capitalized now) side of things has been vocal and consistent about how things need to be worked on right fucking now, and not in 2/4 years.

    We really do not need to be told to get to work. It just sounds condescending and like you haven't been listening to a word we've said; you only respond to make big long line-by-line analysis posts so you can preach at us.

    But you see, it was the filthy Bernie Bros who betrayed the Coalition of the Ascendant!

    The ones that didn't vote for clinton in the general absolutely did though.

    You vote and fight for your heart in the primary, and you vote and fight for your side in the general.

    Of course you can prove me wrong by explaining how trump is a better choice for the far left than Clinton.

    Over the last 8 years I've seen tons of Obama does X discussions here where the response to
    "I was hoping he would do more liberal act x" was "well you should have paid attention he campaigned as a centrist."

    So to see the new version of it be "well people should have ignored Clintons centrist positions and voted for her" strikes me as a bit of a heads you lose tails I win proposition.

    Then again I'm not surprised, because "it cannot be the fault of Clinton or the DNC that they lost those voters, even running against someone as loathsome as Trump" is one of the anchor points this thread circles around.

    Racist, sexists, Bernie Sanders, the media, the fringe left, anyone and everyone is responsible for wrecking the Obama Coalition except the people helming it.

    Put me down for blaming all of those *and* Clinton. Plenty to go around

  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    I still say death by a thousand cuts.

    If any one thing had gone slightly differently we'd have Hillary in the big chair and while I'd still be bummed that we'd be stuck at an 8-seat SCOTUS for the next 4-8 years I would be far less fearful of annihilation.

    Hillary should've gone to the midwest and not California, she got cocky. Bernie should've accepted it when he was mathematically eliminated and not painted the system as rigged. Jill Stein should've shut the hell up instead of actively working against people who agree with her from time to time rather than supporting people who openly oppose everything she says she stands for. The media should've actually talked about policy. Or instead of talking about the fact that Hillary said "deplorables" or Trump said "pussy" talked about what that MEANT. It wasn't "Do those people deserve to be called deplorable?" it was "Just because they're racists, sexists, and bigots doesn't mean you should call them that!". It wasn't "Donald Trump admits to multiple sexual assaults" it was "Trump is vulgar, isn't that hilarious?".

    And Fuck Comey forever. He may have doomed the country. Neither the first press conference nor the email were acceptable behavior.

    In the end, the only people truly responsible for a Trump presidency are the 60 million people who voted for him.

    I still hold out hope that the GOP will be utterly destroyed by finally having to govern. They can't be reactionary onstructionist jackholes any more, they're in charge of everything, and everything they want to do should be universally recognized as awful. Here's hoping there are actual consequences for them this time. Here's hoping all the people with buyer's remorse over Trump, or who are losing their shit because they didn't vote, or voted for Stein, actually remember to vote in the upcoming elections.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I disagree that this is a problem the far left has.

    This is a problem the party has if we collectively insist on running someone like Cory Booker.

    Your second sentence agrees with my hypothesis.

    This isn't a "party" thing necessarily, the party has many factions in it - you're confusing the overall structure with the leadership. They are who you have problems with.

    Nor do the party have to convince candidates like Booker to run, they'll run regardless. You can't disqualify candidates from running because you don't like them, this has been a complaint from the Far left against Bernie - which wasn't true anyway.

    This isn't about running candidates, either. It's about if Booker can convince enough voted to get nominated. That's why having competition which can obstruct him from this goal is important or we'll stuck with a Booker candidate for the foreseeable future. As long as the liberal and/or Far Left factions can accomplish this you're good for the general - the question is will they be the prepared for the next presidential primary?

    The only thing stopping an establishment candidate from winning, due to their resources and connections, is to have strong competition which the Far left has been found wanting. This is the Far Left's only shot at winning a nomination. You can't shame the centrists into not running anybody, or any political faction in the party.

    edit: Simply put, this is on the liberal and Far Left wing's responsibility to stop - not the centrists.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    @Harry Dresden

    Your argument has some merit, but it begs the question: Why the Dems should run any establishment candidate then, specially with a chance to take the anti-establishment flag from Trump?

    This isn't about the Dems as a party, this is exclusively with the centrists. Is there a particular reason why establishment candidate should be disqualified from participating in elections? And who exactly is going to stop them?

    I disagree that establishment candidates are a dead end politically, Hillary show they are remarkably potent as a force (plus they run over any antiestablishment candidates not named Obama), where Hillary failed was sealing the deal with the EC. It remains to be seen whether an antiestablishment or establishment candidate can't fix this against Trump. Assuming they do this at all, the GOP never did find a candidate to overcome Obama.
    Over the last 8 years I've seen tons of Obama does X discussions here where the response to
    "I was hoping he would do more liberal act x" was "well you should have paid attention he campaigned as a centrist."

    So to see the new version of it be "well people should have ignored Clintons centrist positions and voted for her" strikes me as a bit of a heads you lose tails I win proposition.

    She may be a centrist but she wasn't running a campaign anywhere near like she usually did in '16. The big difference between her and Bernie was about degrees and details. That's it. And yeah, if you liked how Obama ran the president she was your best shot at repeating that, which is why she was often painted as Obama 2.0.

    This ignores the bigger picture for how politics operates, the president isn't a king and they need to compromise more while governing. This is why voters started losing confidence in Obama since he couldn't govern like he campaigned, no one can. Bernie would have had to face the same difficulties had he become president. Another big factor is that the GOP is more organized and have conditions where they're easier to win than Dems as other posters have described upthread. Sausage making is messy business.
    Then again I'm not surprised, because "it cannot be the fault of Clinton or the DNC that they lost those voters, even running against someone as loathsome as Trump" is one of the anchor points this thread circles around.

    Racist, sexists, Bernie Sanders, the media, the fringe left, anyone and everyone is responsible for wrecking the Obama Coalition except the people helming it.

    There's plenty of blame to go around, including from Clinton herself and her campaign.

    You're also making a mistake by ignoring Trump and the GOP in this situation, those voters weren't loyal Democrats as everyone thought - and Trump managed to convince them to vote for him despite being a dumpster fire the likes have never seen before. Can't explain all that by blaming Hillary, they had to see something they liked or they wouldn't have voted for either one. Those votes are pretty damning no mater what the reason as too - it's not like they voting for Romney here.

    Harry Dresden on
  • OptyOpty Registered User regular
    Another mistake that was part of the death by a thousand cuts was that people didn't realize just how many Obama voters only voted for him due to him being portrayed as an anti-establishment candidate. That meant a ton of people who were assumed safe bets to vote Democrat or in the worst case stay home actually ended up being prime candidates to vote Trump.

This discussion has been closed.