The media sucks. Wikileaks sucks. Comey sucks. Third party candidates suck. Racism and sexism were huge factors. You will get no disagreement from me, and they all contributed quite a lot to what happen. Any one of them might have tipped the election.
But they are not all of it. And they are not fixable. Finding a better candidate, making better targeting decisions, improving messaging, and yes, countering voter suppression are things that are workable and they are the things we need to be worrying about. Right now.
You had a better candidate though. Your candidate was amazing.
president-elect donald j. trump
Tell me with a straight face that he was the better candidate.
And it's easy to blame the Jewsthe global elites the media for Clinton's catastrophic failure in the midwest blue states in Pennsylvania
Very trumpy, actually
OK, Then if it wasn't a combination of unfair media coverage, comey's october suprise, wikileaks, racism, and voter suppression what was it?
The combination of that and the Clinton's campaign cavalier disregard for Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin? If you can't make people vote for you in Wisconsin after six years of Scott Walker then you have to admit Clinton is also to blame for not reaching out to more people.
Late, but: Wisconsin's voter ID laws have hit minorities hard, just as intended.
Just to give you an idea of what we're dealing with:
You need a photo ID to vote, and you need a birth certificate to get a photo ID. No birth certificate? Go get a copy from the state you were born in (requires additional paperwork, natch). Don't have the money for that? Fuck you.
It costs a fee to get a voter ID. Since technically this would constitute a poll tax, which is illegal, the fee can be waived. However, you have to know that and specifically ask for the fee to be waived. At one point, government clerks were forbidden to tell people about the free ID unless they specifically asked.
The Justice Department actually took issue with the above, so Wisconsin allocated $250,000 for a "public information campaign" to inform people. The results of that were roughly fuck all.
Most of the state's Dem voters are in Madison and Milwaukee. As many of you know, Milwaukee is one of the most segregated cities in the union. Guess which areas had voting locations and hours cut?
edit: Oh, yeah, and people being denied IDs even when they had all the appropriate paperwork. Though I'm willing to chalk that one up to incompetence.
So, yeah. We hate Walker too. Our hands are functionally tied.
This alone probably cost the election. Even if only an extra percent of minorities were able to vote in Wisconsin, that would have swung the state to Clinton.
I guess you deal with this by raising money for both better public information and you focus your effort into 'hey, you need an ID to vote, here's the cost (which we got from donations) and we'll get you there and back'.
It's not just about getting people to vote, or even just getting people to register, but also about doing all the work to get people the IDs they need in order to do the preceding.
The truth, though, is that we are ignoring rural America.
And when I say this, I don't mean we need to pander to the policies they think they want. We need to educate them. We need to show that we even care what they think at all! Treating them like the enemy will never work.
You cannot educate them. They do not want to educated.
We cannot afford to throw our allies - who suffer from discrimination and violence - under the bus just to appease racists and sexists. We can make outreach to people who voted for Obama, yet we somehow lost this time. We can focus on finding out who stayed home and why. We can try to energize our party and harness the populist anger.
But under no circumstances should we sacrifice the people who we desperately need to protect, to pick up votes in rural areas.
Bullshit. This is defeatist.
+4
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
They did not get Obama elected. Obama got Obama elected.
He would strongly disagree.
I don't mean to underplay the efforts of Obama's team, which by all accounts was amazing.
Rather, I mean to say that charisma is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for winning. If you have the best staff in the world but not enough charisma where it counts you won't win.
How charismatic was George "Dubaya" Bush? Or his father, for that matter?
I don't know about HW, but Bush was plenty charismatic! He's got the whole simple Texan charm thing going.
If that's your bar for charismatic enough then Clinton was plenty charismatic enough.
No seriously, from all accounts, W was a super likable guy.
guys the whole "I can't believe they'd vote for someone because they'd like to have a beer with him" came from George W Bush's first campaign
he was charismatic
unquestionably
Oh I know he was likeable, but can you think of a single speech he gave that got anybody excited about him? Most of the time he couldn't stop stumbling over his own words.
I mean for pity's sake when you mention him the very first phrase that comes to mind is "a hopefuller country."
his 9/11 speech was pretty universally recognized as a good one
hindsight colors a lot of memories about bush i think
The media sucks. Wikileaks sucks. Comey sucks. Third party candidates suck. Racism and sexism were huge factors. You will get no disagreement from me, and they all contributed quite a lot to what happen. Any one of them might have tipped the election.
But they are not all of it. And they are not fixable. Finding a better candidate, making better targeting decisions, improving messaging, and yes, countering voter suppression are things that are workable and they are the things we need to be worrying about. Right now.
You had a better candidate though. Your candidate was amazing.
president-elect donald j. trump
Tell me with a straight face that he was the better candidate.
Anti-media sentiment is at an all-time high right now among everyone. Surely we could come up with a piece of legislation that would get pushed through even a GOP-dominated legislature if it was backed by all the pressure of anti-establishment sentiment.
i am 100% not interested in anti-media legislation
it would go against the very foundation of our society's ideals
you fight ideas, you don't silence them
Legislation that is against profit-motive-driven twisting of information is pro-media, in the sense of actually making sure truth is delivered to the people.
I seriously wonder what a world would be like if all media was non-profit.
so then everyone just goes to blogs
you can't silence the opinions you disagree with, even if they're wrong or fabricated
you have to overcome them
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+1
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
i would rather we not continue to make the mistake of driving alt-right and other type elements underground
It's definitely not clear that Bernie would have won.
What is clear is that we needed a real field to choose from in the primary, and all we got was Clinton and one cranky senator with the audacity to run an unexpectedly successful yet still hopeless symbolic challenge. We had one choice this election, and that choice was a bad one.
It still bewilders me that anybody could possibly see Clinton as a bad choice. It only works if people paid only the slightest attention to her.
She literally has thirty years of scandals attached to her. Are they bullshit? Yes. Does that make a difference to low information voters? No.
Did that mean she can win an election? No.
I think that's stretching just a bit. Were the election held 3 weeks earlier, she almost certainly wins. He surged at the end, and I think it's very important for us to understand why polling was so fundamentally wrong, and what generated that surge.
The answer to that is fairly simple: you weight your results, as a pollster, to match what you think the electorate is going to look like. If your demographic predictions are wrong, your output can easily be shit. People expected that the electorate was going to be less white than 2012, because that's what happened in 2012 and 2008. The assumption was that the trend would continue, and it was a reasonable assumption to make. You have to make an assumption somewhere, even if it's that the electorate will look just like your sample. I'm not sure the surge in the white vote could reasonably have been predicted.
Especially when it seems to have been less a surge in white voting and more a depression in non-white voting, though I've still to wade through the final final numbers.
Well there is the Fox News conspiracy option. You designate political operatives to work for and infiltrate news organizations. You get your big donors to buy controlling shares of media organizations and mould them to your ideal information structure.
I am not sure I am comfortable with this option. The press should be independent. But at the same time they're clearly not doing their job and that is a big problem.
The truth, though, is that we are ignoring rural America.
And when I say this, I don't mean we need to pander to the policies they think they want. We need to educate them. We need to show that we even care what they think at all! Treating them like the enemy will never work.
What they claim they want is:
- Banning abortions
- Keeping minorities out of their communities
- No restrictions on guns, ever
If we bend on these, are we still liberals/progressives?
If we bend on these, why would they vote for is over the party that's always promised these?
Oh, and they hate when "liberal elites" try to educate them. They already know everything they want to know.
How, exactly, do you expect this situation to change?
The economy tanks and they remember their pocketbooks. Or enough of their kids get killed in the sand or jungle. And eventually they die off.
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
They did not get Obama elected. Obama got Obama elected.
He would strongly disagree.
I don't mean to underplay the efforts of Obama's team, which by all accounts was amazing.
Rather, I mean to say that charisma is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for winning. If you have the best staff in the world but not enough charisma where it counts you won't win.
How charismatic was George "Dubaya" Bush? Or his father, for that matter?
I don't know about HW, but Bush was plenty charismatic! He's got the whole simple Texan charm thing going.
If that's your bar for charismatic enough then Clinton was plenty charismatic enough.
No seriously, from all accounts, W was a super likable guy.
guys the whole "I can't believe they'd vote for someone because they'd like to have a beer with him" came from George W Bush's first campaign
he was charismatic
unquestionably
Oh I know he was likeable, but can you think of a single speech he gave that got anybody excited about him? Most of the time he couldn't stop stumbling over his own words.
I mean for pity's sake when you mention him the very first phrase that comes to mind is "a hopefuller country."
his 9/11 speech was pretty universally recognized as a good one
hindsight colors a lot of memories about bush i think
he was well liked when he took office
It was? "We will find those folks who committed this act" - that one?
It's entirely possible that sounds clunky to my Irish ears, mind you.
The truth, though, is that we are ignoring rural America.
And when I say this, I don't mean we need to pander to the policies they think they want. We need to educate them. We need to show that we even care what they think at all! Treating them like the enemy will never work.
What they claim they want is:
- Banning abortions
- Keeping minorities out of their communities
- No restrictions on guns, ever
If we bend on these, are we still liberals/progressives?
If we bend on these, why would they vote for is over the party that's always promised these?
Oh, and they hate when "liberal elites" try to educate them. They already know everything they want to know.
How, exactly, do you expect this situation to change?
I don't. I thought my recent bouts of nihilism were pretty clear.
I don't believe there is any solution to this problem in the near future. I expect a generation of Republican single-party rule, thanks to national voter suppression and court stacking. Maybe if they impoverish a generation of whites, some new superpower will take pity and arm an insurrection, but not likely, not with death cultists so near the nukes.
I don't believe anything can be done. Certainly not before the next world war or climate change kills us all.
The truth, though, is that we are ignoring rural America.
And when I say this, I don't mean we need to pander to the policies they think they want. We need to educate them. We need to show that we even care what they think at all! Treating them like the enemy will never work.
What they claim they want is:
- Banning abortions
- Keeping minorities out of their communities
- No restrictions on guns, ever
If we bend on these, are we still liberals/progressives?
If we bend on these, why would they vote for is over the party that's always promised these?
Oh, and they hate when "liberal elites" try to educate them. They already know everything they want to know.
How, exactly, do you expect this situation to change?
You encourage turnout of people who agree with you, you continue to educate children, and you wait for racists and sexists to die.
i would rather we not continue to make the mistake of driving alt-right and other type elements underground
No. You have to. You have two options
Either you normalize and accept it or you drive it underground. You cannot let racism operate in the open and also combat it.
A major factor in this election and in the last 4 years culturally (think gamergate, for example) was those people realizing they are not nearly as alone and isolated as they thought they were.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+1
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited November 2016
people are confusing two propositions
there are lots of people who voted for trump
in order to win a presidential election, a very small percentage of them need to vote dem. that is it. the question is not "how do you change the mind of every republican voter", but "how do you change the mind of the people who previously voted obama but then voted trump / the latinos and african americans who switched to trump". presumably they are not irredeemable people immune to all reason
it would be impossible to persuade all rural types everywhere to change their minds, but there are plenty of reasonable ones who could be reached
surrealitycheck on
+16
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
They did not get Obama elected. Obama got Obama elected.
He would strongly disagree.
I don't mean to underplay the efforts of Obama's team, which by all accounts was amazing.
Rather, I mean to say that charisma is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for winning. If you have the best staff in the world but not enough charisma where it counts you won't win.
How charismatic was George "Dubaya" Bush? Or his father, for that matter?
I don't know about HW, but Bush was plenty charismatic! He's got the whole simple Texan charm thing going.
If that's your bar for charismatic enough then Clinton was plenty charismatic enough.
No seriously, from all accounts, W was a super likable guy.
guys the whole "I can't believe they'd vote for someone because they'd like to have a beer with him" came from George W Bush's first campaign
he was charismatic
unquestionably
Oh I know he was likeable, but can you think of a single speech he gave that got anybody excited about him? Most of the time he couldn't stop stumbling over his own words.
I mean for pity's sake when you mention him the very first phrase that comes to mind is "a hopefuller country."
his 9/11 speech was pretty universally recognized as a good one
hindsight colors a lot of memories about bush i think
he was well liked when he took office
It was? "We will find those folks who committed this act" - that one?
It's entirely possible that sounds clunky to my Irish ears, mind you.
that's a normal, folksy sounding construction here
And it's easy to blame the Jewsthe global elites the media for Clinton's catastrophic failure in the midwest blue states in Pennsylvania
Very trumpy, actually
OK, Then if it wasn't a combination of unfair media coverage, comey's october suprise, wikileaks, racism, and voter suppression what was it?
The combination of that and the Clinton's campaign cavalier disregard for Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin? If you can't make people vote for you in Wisconsin after six years of Scott Walker then you have to admit Clinton is also to blame for not reaching out to more people.
Late, but: Wisconsin's voter ID laws have hit minorities hard, just as intended.
Just to give you an idea of what we're dealing with:
You need a photo ID to vote, and you need a birth certificate to get a photo ID. No birth certificate? Go get a copy from the state you were born in (requires additional paperwork, natch). Don't have the money for that? Fuck you.
It costs a fee to get a voter ID. Since technically this would constitute a poll tax, which is illegal, the fee can be waived. However, you have to know that and specifically ask for the fee to be waived. At one point, government clerks were forbidden to tell people about the free ID unless they specifically asked.
The Justice Department actually took issue with the above, so Wisconsin allocated $250,000 for a "public information campaign" to inform people. The results of that were roughly fuck all.
Most of the state's Dem voters are in Madison and Milwaukee. As many of you know, Milwaukee is one of the most segregated cities in the union. Guess which areas had voting locations and hours cut?
edit: Oh, yeah, and people being denied IDs even when they had all the appropriate paperwork. Though I'm willing to chalk that one up to incompetence.
So, yeah. We hate Walker too. Our hands are functionally tied.
This alone probably cost the election. Even if only an extra percent of minorities were able to vote in Wisconsin, that would have swung the state to Clinton.
I guess you deal with this by raising money for both better public information and you focus your effort into 'hey, you need an ID to vote, here's the cost (which we got from donations) and we'll get you there and back'.
It's not just about getting people to vote, or even just getting people to register, but also about doing all the work to get people the IDs they need in order to do the preceding.
and for those that can't afford to take time of work to get the ID? who don't have the time to travel to and spend all day at the nearest DMV? those who don't have the proper documentation needed to get the ID? Dems get people registered so the GOP makes it so you need and ID. Dems get people that IDs and the GOP will make it harder and harder to get that ID. for every step the Dems take to level the playing field, the GOP will move the goal posts and change the rules.
making sure everyone at the table has the same number of cards will only do so much when your opponent is stacking the deck.
Never, ever again nominate a career Wall Street politician in one of the greatest surges of anti-elite, anti-estblishment sentiment the country has ever experienced.
I think that's one way to look at it.
I think the other way to look at it is this: we ran a female candidate with high negatives and a lot of baggage. We thought we could overcome that but unfortunately we were wrong. The truth is that we need to run a male candidate that inspires Dems to show up. For whatever reason our side needs to feel like they are part of something, like they are spearheading a movement.
The Republican side will show up pretty much no matter how awful or terrible their candidate is. High negatives are meaningless to them.
There was a big long post from a new anonymous poster in the OTHER post-election thread that touched on this. I'll add that, it's become increasingly obvious that the Republican base is not the same as the Democratic base in how it's structured and ordered, and that Democrats should not be looking at Republican strategies and trying to replicate them. The Republican base is primarily composed of single-issue voters, which makes them rather easy to shepherd with a platform. The Democratic base wants all sorts of unholy shit, and trying to cobble together a platform out of that isn't very effective, and it's made all the more difficult when the Democrats try to shift rightwards to claim the centre.
It may be that the short-term strategy for Democrats is to run HOPE AND CHANGE every 4 years, but that's also not a viable long-term strategy. People were already becoming disillusioned with Obama's lack of delivery on the HOPE AND CHANGE front, partially due to Republican congressional intransigence. I don't know how to overcome all of that.
I do. Tear down Trump and his Congress that took away your rights. Take your country back. We need to become vindictive.
+1
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
in order to win a presidential election, a very small percentage of them need to vote dem. that is it. the question is not "how do you change the mind of every republican voter", but "how do you change the mind of the people who previously voted obama but then voted trump / the latinos and african americans who switched to trump". presumably they are not irredeemable people immune to all reason
it would be impossible to persuade all rural types everywhere to change their minds, but there are plenty of reasonable ones who could be reached
For the umpteenth time, Trump got roughly the same total votes as Romney.
Seriously, why are you people so focused on changing the minds of the people who did vote??
Half your fucking country didn't vote! Focus on that, not on fighting tooth and nail to win over seventeen votes from Republicans!
The media sucks. Wikileaks sucks. Comey sucks. Third party candidates suck. Racism and sexism were huge factors. You will get no disagreement from me, and they all contributed quite a lot to what happen. Any one of them might have tipped the election.
But they are not all of it. And they are not fixable. Finding a better candidate, making better targeting decisions, improving messaging, and yes, countering voter suppression are things that are workable and they are the things we need to be worrying about. Right now.
You had a better candidate though. Your candidate was amazing.
president-elect donald j. trump
Tell me with a straight face that he was the better candidate.
Hillary was the better candidate for America.
Trump was the better candidate for those parts of America that the Electoral College decided he needed to win.
Anti-media sentiment is at an all-time high right now among everyone. Surely we could come up with a piece of legislation that would get pushed through even a GOP-dominated legislature if it was backed by all the pressure of anti-establishment sentiment.
i am 100% not interested in anti-media legislation
it would go against the very foundation of our society's ideals
you fight ideas, you don't silence them
Legislation that is against profit-motive-driven twisting of information is pro-media, in the sense of actually making sure truth is delivered to the people.
I seriously wonder what a world would be like if all media was non-profit.
so then everyone just goes to blogs
you can't silence the opinions you disagree with, even if they're wrong or fabricated
you have to overcome them
What do you think the blogs will be like once they become non-profit as well?
The fundamental concept behind for-profit news media is flawed: how can you tell people what's important when what makes them buy it is telling them what they want to hear?
I have a take that might be wildly optimistic but I think isn't too improbable. Also disclaimer: I'm a white heterosexual man so I have the luxury to look at the situation from a relatively safe and detached place. I know lots of groups in society are super scared right now, and I don't mean to undermine entirely justified anxiety with a cynical political analysis. I just think it might be an interesting perspective. Here I go:
Isn't there a chance that this outcome, in the long-run, might be a net positive for both the country and the Democratic Party? Because it is in my opinion almost a certainty that his administration will collapse onto itself in a way I honestly don't think we've ever seen before. The result will be his already soft support (more on that later!) will collapse and Democrats sweeping into power again becomes highly likely. Not just sweeping into power but doing so in a country that has seen the terrifying alternative to the center-left party. My logic for his administration collapsing is this: when you assess our next President's obvious personality disorders you have someone who is literally incapable of even the simplest of interactions. This person: got mad at his VP for doing better at him in a debate, insulted his own audience members at rallies when he thought he was going to lose, stayed up for seemingly a week straight tweeting about something Mrs. Clinton said during a debate, and those are just off the top of my head. I mean it was only I believe a month ago that his own party was looking, however briefly, at ways to legally remove him from the ticket. He isn't going to pivot, and there isn't some master plan, because this all hasn't been some next-level gambit. It's the ramblings of an unhinged man. His campaign succeeded almost by accident (his form of thin-ski outrage was confused for sincere contempt for the establishment) but now he has to actually do something. I don't even think he's a fascist, I think he just says whatever gets the largest cheer from the audience. So when he inevitably gets push-back from his party and lashes out at/punishes them (and that will be his response; it's always the narcissist's response) it will pretty much spark the beginning of the end, because his team will spend most of their time fighting each other. And I don't think he will be forced into a ceremonial role because his personality disorders won't allow him to not get the maximum amount of attention, which requires doing things.
Obviously this is where the human element comes in, because having President Trump's support collapse will be a small consolation if it comes at the price of civil liberties for countless Americans.
As for his soft support: I know this is anecdotal, but I think his support is a lot more casual than is believed. Yes there is the core base that doesn't care about anything he says or does, but there are many that voted out of anti-establishment spite/morbid curiosity/etc. At my own workplace, which is blue collar and pretty much a stereotypical Trump stronghold, most of my coworkers who I believe voted for him openly acknowledge that he is a buffoon and probably can't (or won't) do anything he says he will. It won't take much for them to dismiss him as they have done other politicians.
I don't think this analysis is me looking for some impossibly good outcome. I realize that even if things break like I think they might it will still be several years of some dark policies that will hurt a lot of people. And I'm not expecting his administration to collapse in the first week and then Democrats and Republicans nobly join together and impeach him before the summer or anything. Just wanted to share!
in order to win a presidential election, a very small percentage of them need to vote dem. that is it. the question is not "how do you change the mind of every republican voter", but "how do you change the mind of the people who previously voted obama but then voted trump / the latinos and african americans who switched to trump". presumably they are not irredeemable people immune to all reason
it would be impossible to persuade all rural types everywhere to change their minds, but there are plenty of reasonable ones who could be reached
Specifically, I think it's 106,000 people in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I can't even with the insistence that clinton isn't a flawed candidate
how many trump terms do we want to go through as we figure out that we should change course? 2? 3?
Of course it's going to change, that's not even up for discussion.
What you have to acknowledge is that it is going to change for the worse.
You had someone who would have unquestionably been an incredible president. Someone who would have made a real difference to your life and the lives of every American. Someone with a long and proud history of getting things done.
But that wasn't important. The flashy blowhard who lied every time he opened his mouth got in instead.
Competence and dedication to the role and a history of accomplishments that have helped millions of Americans will never, ever matter in your election process again.
Now go check out the celebrity president 2020 list and pick your slick new candidate for the cameras.
Anti-media sentiment is at an all-time high right now among everyone. Surely we could come up with a piece of legislation that would get pushed through even a GOP-dominated legislature if it was backed by all the pressure of anti-establishment sentiment.
i am 100% not interested in anti-media legislation
it would go against the very foundation of our society's ideals
you fight ideas, you don't silence them
Legislation that is against profit-motive-driven twisting of information is pro-media, in the sense of actually making sure truth is delivered to the people.
I seriously wonder what a world would be like if all media was non-profit.
I can't imagine any legislation that wouldn't violate the first amendment. Probably also enrage most Americans. Free press is both enshrined in constitution and American psyche.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
The truth, though, is that we are ignoring rural America.
And when I say this, I don't mean we need to pander to the policies they think they want. We need to educate them. We need to show that we even care what they think at all! Treating them like the enemy will never work.
What they claim they want is:
- Banning abortions
- Keeping minorities out of their communities
- No restrictions on guns, ever
If we bend on these, are we still liberals/progressives?
If we bend on these, why would they vote for is over the party that's always promised these?
Oh, and they hate when "liberal elites" try to educate them. They already know everything they want to know.
How, exactly, do you expect this situation to change?
You encourage turnout of people who agree with you, you continue to educate children, and you wait for racists and sexists to die.
We already outnumber them, we just need turnout.
The media killed turnout, and you know it. The media blew up the Comey shit.
The media fucked up everything. The media needs to change. I don't know how anyone cannot see this. We have to do something.
+3
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Anti-media sentiment is at an all-time high right now among everyone. Surely we could come up with a piece of legislation that would get pushed through even a GOP-dominated legislature if it was backed by all the pressure of anti-establishment sentiment.
i am 100% not interested in anti-media legislation
it would go against the very foundation of our society's ideals
you fight ideas, you don't silence them
Legislation that is against profit-motive-driven twisting of information is pro-media, in the sense of actually making sure truth is delivered to the people.
I seriously wonder what a world would be like if all media was non-profit.
so then everyone just goes to blogs
you can't silence the opinions you disagree with, even if they're wrong or fabricated
you have to overcome them
What do you think the blogs will be like once they become non-profit as well?
The fundamental concept behind for-profit news media is flawed: how can you tell people what's important when what makes them buy it is telling them what they want to hear?
winky you're not going to make it so every possible form of communication available is non-profit
We're already looking at a considerable chilling effect and even stronger restrictions on our political speech, right to assemble, right to vote, etc etc.
I would really like to find a solution that does not come down to "but if we find the right group and do it to them, then everything will be okay! 'cause it's balanced, see?"
The media fucked up everything. The media needs to change. I don't know how anyone cannot see this. We have to do something.
you're being naive and you know it
what "something" do we do?
you're railing like an idealistic teenager here. you can't give the government the tools to control what the media says. for obvious reasons. so who gets the tools to control the media?
Anti-media sentiment is at an all-time high right now among everyone. Surely we could come up with a piece of legislation that would get pushed through even a GOP-dominated legislature if it was backed by all the pressure of anti-establishment sentiment.
i am 100% not interested in anti-media legislation
it would go against the very foundation of our society's ideals
you fight ideas, you don't silence them
Legislation that is against profit-motive-driven twisting of information is pro-media, in the sense of actually making sure truth is delivered to the people.
I seriously wonder what a world would be like if all media was non-profit.
so then everyone just goes to blogs
you can't silence the opinions you disagree with, even if they're wrong or fabricated
you have to overcome them
What do you think the blogs will be like once they become non-profit as well?
The fundamental concept behind for-profit news media is flawed: how can you tell people what's important when what makes them buy it is telling them what they want to hear?
winky you're not going to make it so every possible form of communication available is non-profit
You can prosecute any for-profit outlet that gets big enough to warrant it, which is all you really need anyway.
Posts
Tell me with a straight face that he was the better candidate.
I guess you deal with this by raising money for both better public information and you focus your effort into 'hey, you need an ID to vote, here's the cost (which we got from donations) and we'll get you there and back'.
It's not just about getting people to vote, or even just getting people to register, but also about doing all the work to get people the IDs they need in order to do the preceding.
Bullshit. This is defeatist.
his 9/11 speech was pretty universally recognized as a good one
hindsight colors a lot of memories about bush i think
he was well liked when he took office
Scoreboard
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
so then everyone just goes to blogs
you can't silence the opinions you disagree with, even if they're wrong or fabricated
you have to overcome them
Especially when it seems to have been less a surge in white voting and more a depression in non-white voting, though I've still to wade through the final final numbers.
I am not sure I am comfortable with this option. The press should be independent. But at the same time they're clearly not doing their job and that is a big problem.
how many trump terms do we want to go through as we figure out that we should change course? 2? 3?
Can we fire them into the sun instead?
introspection means shooting down every suggestion that comes your way, elendil
it's the only way to remain strong
The economy tanks and they remember their pocketbooks. Or enough of their kids get killed in the sand or jungle. And eventually they die off.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
No candidate is without flaws. It was a close election; Hillary Clinton's negatives aren't the only story here.
It was? "We will find those folks who committed this act" - that one?
It's entirely possible that sounds clunky to my Irish ears, mind you.
No. You have to. You have two options
Either you normalize and accept it or you drive it underground. You cannot let racism operate in the open and also combat it.
I don't. I thought my recent bouts of nihilism were pretty clear.
I don't believe there is any solution to this problem in the near future. I expect a generation of Republican single-party rule, thanks to national voter suppression and court stacking. Maybe if they impoverish a generation of whites, some new superpower will take pity and arm an insurrection, but not likely, not with death cultists so near the nukes.
I don't believe anything can be done. Certainly not before the next world war or climate change kills us all.
I'm open to ideas, though.
Fox News existed for two Obama victories
You encourage turnout of people who agree with you, you continue to educate children, and you wait for racists and sexists to die.
We already outnumber them, we just need turnout.
A major factor in this election and in the last 4 years culturally (think gamergate, for example) was those people realizing they are not nearly as alone and isolated as they thought they were.
there are lots of people who voted for trump
in order to win a presidential election, a very small percentage of them need to vote dem. that is it. the question is not "how do you change the mind of every republican voter", but "how do you change the mind of the people who previously voted obama but then voted trump / the latinos and african americans who switched to trump". presumably they are not irredeemable people immune to all reason
it would be impossible to persuade all rural types everywhere to change their minds, but there are plenty of reasonable ones who could be reached
that's a normal, folksy sounding construction here
some of us talk a little funny
and for those that can't afford to take time of work to get the ID? who don't have the time to travel to and spend all day at the nearest DMV? those who don't have the proper documentation needed to get the ID? Dems get people registered so the GOP makes it so you need and ID. Dems get people that IDs and the GOP will make it harder and harder to get that ID. for every step the Dems take to level the playing field, the GOP will move the goal posts and change the rules.
making sure everyone at the table has the same number of cards will only do so much when your opponent is stacking the deck.
I do. Tear down Trump and his Congress that took away your rights. Take your country back. We need to become vindictive.
For the umpteenth time, Trump got roughly the same total votes as Romney.
Seriously, why are you people so focused on changing the minds of the people who did vote??
Half your fucking country didn't vote! Focus on that, not on fighting tooth and nail to win over seventeen votes from Republicans!
Hillary was the better candidate for America.
Trump was the better candidate for those parts of America that the Electoral College decided he needed to win.
What do you think the blogs will be like once they become non-profit as well?
The fundamental concept behind for-profit news media is flawed: how can you tell people what's important when what makes them buy it is telling them what they want to hear?
Obviously this is where the human element comes in, because having President Trump's support collapse will be a small consolation if it comes at the price of civil liberties for countless Americans.
As for his soft support: I know this is anecdotal, but I think his support is a lot more casual than is believed. Yes there is the core base that doesn't care about anything he says or does, but there are many that voted out of anti-establishment spite/morbid curiosity/etc. At my own workplace, which is blue collar and pretty much a stereotypical Trump stronghold, most of my coworkers who I believe voted for him openly acknowledge that he is a buffoon and probably can't (or won't) do anything he says he will. It won't take much for them to dismiss him as they have done other politicians.
I don't think this analysis is me looking for some impossibly good outcome. I realize that even if things break like I think they might it will still be several years of some dark policies that will hurt a lot of people. And I'm not expecting his administration to collapse in the first week and then Democrats and Republicans nobly join together and impeach him before the summer or anything. Just wanted to share!
Specifically, I think it's 106,000 people in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Of course it's going to change, that's not even up for discussion.
What you have to acknowledge is that it is going to change for the worse.
You had someone who would have unquestionably been an incredible president. Someone who would have made a real difference to your life and the lives of every American. Someone with a long and proud history of getting things done.
But that wasn't important. The flashy blowhard who lied every time he opened his mouth got in instead.
Competence and dedication to the role and a history of accomplishments that have helped millions of Americans will never, ever matter in your election process again.
Now go check out the celebrity president 2020 list and pick your slick new candidate for the cameras.
I can't imagine any legislation that wouldn't violate the first amendment. Probably also enrage most Americans. Free press is both enshrined in constitution and American psyche.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
The media killed turnout, and you know it. The media blew up the Comey shit.
The media fucked up everything. The media needs to change. I don't know how anyone cannot see this. We have to do something.
winky you're not going to make it so every possible form of communication available is non-profit
I would really like to find a solution that does not come down to "but if we find the right group and do it to them, then everything will be okay! 'cause it's balanced, see?"
This sure sounds like a winning strategy for 2018.
you're being naive and you know it
what "something" do we do?
you're railing like an idealistic teenager here. you can't give the government the tools to control what the media says. for obvious reasons. so who gets the tools to control the media?
IMHO, 2018 is about holding our ground, hopefully picking up a few seats, and getting airtime for the 2020 candidates.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
You can prosecute any for-profit outlet that gets big enough to warrant it, which is all you really need anyway.