There is no reasonable reason that Hilary 'lost' this election that isn't true. Bad campaign management? Sure. Sexism? Sure. Racism? Sure. Spoke to the wrong people? Sure. Release of FBI documents? Sure. Voter suppression? Absolutely. The margin is like 10k-40k votes in 3 states. These are tiny effects.
Don't forget "did a significant portion of the people who usually vote for Democrats do not trust Hilary Clinton and went 'both sides are the same, let's stay home'".
With the caveat that it's not just Clinton who has a credibility deficit, it's the entire party. Hence Sanders' success despite all the problems with his campaign: he was new and therefore might actually do what he said he would do.
No, it's Clinton. She ran with a disadvantage from her history. It wasn't huge, but it was more than enough. Shelly Clanton (her identical twin in every way, policy and statement, but whose husband Ted Clanton never ran for national office in 1992) just won this election.
We don't need to tear up our party root and branch. We don't even need a great candidate. Trump was not a great candidate by any personal metric. He just allowed other people to assign whatever traits they wanted to him.
Boy I can't tell you how much I enjoy reading that the American President-elect being a confessed sex pest is nothing to do with America's inherent misogyny and everything to do with the competent, experienced, badass former secretary of state who supports and defends a serial sexual harrasser that used the power of the Office of the Presidency to stick a cigar up an intern's ass.
I fixed that for you but I'm not sure if it still says anything about misogyny or a political party's ability to ignore problematic consent issues.
Using a husband's infidelity against his wife is kind of an unintended proof of the point you're trying to undercut.
Nope; it's the wife's support of the husband that's problematic, not the fact that he was philandering.
The attack you're looking for would be something more like, "He was sleeping around, so she obviously isn't a very good woman" or whatever, which is definitely not what is being said.
There is no reasonable reason that Hilary 'lost' this election that isn't true. Bad campaign management? Sure. Sexism? Sure. Racism? Sure. Spoke to the wrong people? Sure. Release of FBI documents? Sure. Voter suppression? Absolutely. The margin is like 10k-40k votes in 3 states. These are tiny effects.
Don't forget "did a significant portion of the people who usually vote for Democrats do not trust Hilary Clinton and went 'both sides are the same, let's stay home'".
With the caveat that it's not just Clinton who has a credibility deficit, it's the entire party. Hence Sanders' success despite all the problems with his campaign: he was new and therefore might actually do what he said he would do.
No, it's Clinton. She ran with a disadvantage from her history. It wasn't huge, but it was more than enough. Shelly Clanton (her identical twin in every way, policy and statement, but whose husband Ted Clanton never ran for national office in 1992) just won this election.
We don't need to tear up our party root and branch. We don't even need a great candidate. Trump was not a great candidate by any personal metric. He just allowed other people to assign whatever traits they wanted to him.
Boy I can't tell you how much I enjoy reading that the American President-elect being a confessed sex pest is nothing to do with America's inherent misogyny and everything to do with the competent, experienced, badass former secretary of state who supports and defends a serial sexual harrasser that used the power of the Office of the Presidency to stick a cigar up an intern's ass.
I fixed that for you but I'm not sure if it still says anything about misogyny or a political party's ability to ignore problematic consent issues.
You and I both know that if Hillary had divorced Bill, she would have been raked over the coals for that, too.
There is no reasonable reason that Hilary 'lost' this election that isn't true. Bad campaign management? Sure. Sexism? Sure. Racism? Sure. Spoke to the wrong people? Sure. Release of FBI documents? Sure. Voter suppression? Absolutely. The margin is like 10k-40k votes in 3 states. These are tiny effects.
Don't forget "did a significant portion of the people who usually vote for Democrats do not trust Hilary Clinton and went 'both sides are the same, let's stay home'".
With the caveat that it's not just Clinton who has a credibility deficit, it's the entire party. Hence Sanders' success despite all the problems with his campaign: he was new and therefore might actually do what he said he would do.
No, it's Clinton. She ran with a disadvantage from her history. It wasn't huge, but it was more than enough. Shelly Clanton (her identical twin in every way, policy and statement, but whose husband Ted Clanton never ran for national office in 1992) just won this election.
We don't need to tear up our party root and branch. We don't even need a great candidate. Trump was not a great candidate by any personal metric. He just allowed other people to assign whatever traits they wanted to him.
Boy I can't tell you how much I enjoy reading that the American President-elect being a confessed sex pest is nothing to do with America's inherent misogyny and everything to do with the competent, experienced, badass former secretary of state who had her private and public life torn apart by a senate that loathed her for over a decade who were left with nothing to pin on her but the exact same e-mail protocols two previous Republican secretaries of state used and a bunch of innuendo that doesn't stand up to a 30 second Google being a "bad candidate."
Seriously. I don't think that will ever get old.
I'm confused by your statement, of course sexism and misogyny was involved. Male Hillary Clinton just won this election. Hell, Hillary Clinton but 30 years younger, willing to be a bit flirty, and conventionally attractive just won this election. These opinions are not me saying these are good things, or that she shouldn't have run. They are me saying in a razor thin election like this, almost everything mattered enough to be critical.
It's because this election was the ultimate example of a man being rewarded for being barely adequate while a woman was punished for not being perfect. It's because everyone assumes 30 year younger, conventionally attractive, willing to be a bit flirty Clinton would have won if she'd actually BEEN the candidate when the guy mocking disabled reporters, engaging in the lowest of racist rhetoric and popularizing the phrase "grab 'em by the pussy!" was STILL able to clinch enough votes.
It's because in any reasonable world this wouldn't even have been a contest, and I am so fucking sick and tired of the response being to find someone younger, prettier, flirtier, less ethnic, more perfect, or just any man instead of owning up to the fact that America - and most other modern Western Nations - have a huge fucking problem and need to stop pretending they're as far above third world nations as they like to pretend they are.
Are you angry with me? Or just angry in general? This election was very sexist. I agree 100%. It has showed that our society is far less ready than we'd like to believe to accept women in positions of authority, or women desiring self agency on any level.
Hell, I'll go one step further for you on the sexism ladder. If all women had been able to vote freely in this election, rather than being bullied into supporting Trump by their husbands, Hillary would have won.
Isn't that the whole point of a secret ballot. Lie to your husband, its not that hard.
Unfortunately, when you are the victim of abuse in your home, and are in a destructive relationship, Yes it is that hard to lie to your abuser about something like that.
5k women in the entire state of Michigan whose husbands told them, "If you don't come out of that booth with a picture of a ballot marked for Trump on that pretty little phone of yours, I'll beat you black and blue"? Considering the amount of women who are involved in domestic violence occurring right at this moment its easy to believe that's what happened.
Is that 5k a random example or did I miss a verifiable story about this?
Random example, picked to be enough people that if it were true would flip Michigan. I guess I'm guilty of creating a false narrative.
But, we do have all kinds of examples of abusers doing shit exactly like this. For example, the reason that your doctor now asks you verbally, rather than on a form if you are a victim of abuse is because on the old 'secret form' the abusers would threaten the womans life if she failed to come out with a picture (or a copy) of the secret form saying she hadn't been abused.
edit - Hell, the reason why men get asked too now is not just because they get abused too, but because the abusers would go to their doctor and then not get asked about whether they were being abused and then go home and beat their wives for lying when they said the doctor asked them verbally instead of on a form.
There is no reasonable reason that Hilary 'lost' this election that isn't true. Bad campaign management? Sure. Sexism? Sure. Racism? Sure. Spoke to the wrong people? Sure. Release of FBI documents? Sure. Voter suppression? Absolutely. The margin is like 10k-40k votes in 3 states. These are tiny effects.
Don't forget "did a significant portion of the people who usually vote for Democrats do not trust Hilary Clinton and went 'both sides are the same, let's stay home'".
With the caveat that it's not just Clinton who has a credibility deficit, it's the entire party. Hence Sanders' success despite all the problems with his campaign: he was new and therefore might actually do what he said he would do.
No, it's Clinton. She ran with a disadvantage from her history. It wasn't huge, but it was more than enough. Shelly Clanton (her identical twin in every way, policy and statement, but whose husband Ted Clanton never ran for national office in 1992) just won this election.
We don't need to tear up our party root and branch. We don't even need a great candidate. Trump was not a great candidate by any personal metric. He just allowed other people to assign whatever traits they wanted to him.
Boy I can't tell you how much I enjoy reading that the American President-elect being a confessed sex pest is nothing to do with America's inherent misogyny and everything to do with the competent, experienced, badass former secretary of state who supports and defends a serial sexual harrasser that used the power of the Office of the Presidency to stick a cigar up an intern's ass.
I fixed that for you but I'm not sure if it still says anything about misogyny or a political party's ability to ignore problematic consent issues.
Using a husband's infidelity against his wife is kind of an unintended proof of the point you're trying to undercut.
I know that's the dodge agreed upon when this topic is brought up but this is not about infidelity, it's about glossing over power and consent issues in the workplace.
Anyway, I don't think it had much of an impact. Democrats forgave Clinton for not abandoning her predator husband who harrassed and coerced interns for years, Republicans forgave Trump for talking shit about how much pussy he can grab (and possibly did grab).
Democrats will continue to struggle until they can convince eachother to follow "All for one and one for all" instead of "Screw you, this isn't about getting mine."
Democrats will continue to struggle until they can convince eachother to follow "All for one and one for all" instead of "Screw you, this isn't about getting mine."
I find it confounding that "put together some plans to help the working class" is being represented as "burning everything to the ground"
It is astounding to me
The unspoken class interests of the people who actually run the national party will always be an obstacle to the party committing wholesale to redistributive programs. Austerity is still a popular idea with this set. They make sure that any bold ideas get means-tested and negotiated down to the point where they stop being exciting and instead become better than the status quo but a bureaucratic nightmare with a donut hole just big enough for lower middle class people to fall through.
Well, part of the issue is that because of the way the US government is structured, the Democrats need to compete in more conservative areas to win. As is continually pointed out about, say, Manchin, that's what it probably takes to win in WV. That's what a 50 state strategy looks like. That's why the majority the Dems had in 2008 made it hard to actually pass the ACA or something better.
There is at the end of the day a certain amount of concession that must be made to the fact that the US is not near as liberal or progressive as many in the Democratic party would like.
Now, it probably should be less then it is right now, but there is also a few issues there. Some of which may be linked together. In general Reps, Senate or House, seem to trend more conservative then their districts. At the same time, the part of the electorate that votes most consistently tends to skew older and more conservative. And while the Democratic party base has gotten more liberal over time, how it works out is that the more educated members have gotten ALOT more liberal whereas the less educated have gotten only slightly more liberal.
You're ignoring everything about the situation Hillary was in to blame her for her husband's vile actions. Context matters. It's not like she broke a long tradition of women being able to stand apart from their philandering and abusive husbands without being torn apart by society and the media.
And maybe, just fucking maybe, she loved the guy, loved her family, and did something we now call shitty because she's a human being who either trusted the liar or sought to protect her daughter.
There is no reasonable reason that Hilary 'lost' this election that isn't true. Bad campaign management? Sure. Sexism? Sure. Racism? Sure. Spoke to the wrong people? Sure. Release of FBI documents? Sure. Voter suppression? Absolutely. The margin is like 10k-40k votes in 3 states. These are tiny effects.
Don't forget "did a significant portion of the people who usually vote for Democrats do not trust Hilary Clinton and went 'both sides are the same, let's stay home'".
With the caveat that it's not just Clinton who has a credibility deficit, it's the entire party. Hence Sanders' success despite all the problems with his campaign: he was new and therefore might actually do what he said he would do.
No, it's Clinton. She ran with a disadvantage from her history. It wasn't huge, but it was more than enough. Shelly Clanton (her identical twin in every way, policy and statement, but whose husband Ted Clanton never ran for national office in 1992) just won this election.
We don't need to tear up our party root and branch. We don't even need a great candidate. Trump was not a great candidate by any personal metric. He just allowed other people to assign whatever traits they wanted to him.
Boy I can't tell you how much I enjoy reading that the American President-elect being a confessed sex pest is nothing to do with America's inherent misogyny and everything to do with the competent, experienced, badass former secretary of state who supports and defends a serial sexual harrasser that used the power of the Office of the Presidency to stick a cigar up an intern's ass.
I fixed that for you but I'm not sure if it still says anything about misogyny or a political party's ability to ignore problematic consent issues.
Using a husband's infidelity against his wife is kind of an unintended proof of the point you're trying to undercut.
I know that's the dodge agreed upon when this topic is brought up but this is not about infidelity, it's about glossing over power and consent issues in the workplace.
Anyway, I don't think it had much of an impact. Democrats forgave Clinton for not abandoning her predator husband who harrassed and coerced interns for years, Republicans forgave Trump for talking shit about how much pussy he can grab (and possibly did grab).
Maybe that says a lot about misogyny...
Lets not be absurd spool, even in the least favorable possible lens of Clinton which has any support from evidence it would lead you to believe that he exploited his power to have consensual sex with women who would not otherwise have had sex with him. Donald Trump literally confesses to doing that himself, and the tapes suggest he did far far more.
In terms of 'Does this person have a positive relationship with women and not seek to cause them pain or exploit them' the very WORST Bill could be is as bad as Trump. And Bill Clinton wasn't running for President. Hillary was.
For example, if Ivanka ever runs for President, I will not hold it against her that her father very likely sexually harassed women, because she is a different person.
You're ignoring everything about the situation Hillary was in to blame her for her husband's vile actions. Context matters. It's not like she broke a long tradition of women being able to stand apart from their philandering and abusive husbands without being torn apart by society and the media.
And maybe, just fucking maybe, she loved the guy, loved her family, and did something we now call shitty because she's a human being who either trusted the liar or sought to protect her daughter.
All that happened in July of 2016?
Because she still has his back as of today, and few seem to mind that today.....
There is no reasonable reason that Hilary 'lost' this election that isn't true. Bad campaign management? Sure. Sexism? Sure. Racism? Sure. Spoke to the wrong people? Sure. Release of FBI documents? Sure. Voter suppression? Absolutely. The margin is like 10k-40k votes in 3 states. These are tiny effects.
Don't forget "did a significant portion of the people who usually vote for Democrats do not trust Hilary Clinton and went 'both sides are the same, let's stay home'".
With the caveat that it's not just Clinton who has a credibility deficit, it's the entire party. Hence Sanders' success despite all the problems with his campaign: he was new and therefore might actually do what he said he would do.
No, it's Clinton. She ran with a disadvantage from her history. It wasn't huge, but it was more than enough. Shelly Clanton (her identical twin in every way, policy and statement, but whose husband Ted Clanton never ran for national office in 1992) just won this election.
We don't need to tear up our party root and branch. We don't even need a great candidate. Trump was not a great candidate by any personal metric. He just allowed other people to assign whatever traits they wanted to him.
Boy I can't tell you how much I enjoy reading that the American President-elect being a confessed sex pest is nothing to do with America's inherent misogyny and everything to do with the competent, experienced, badass former secretary of state who supports and defends a serial sexual harrasser that used the power of the Office of the Presidency to stick a cigar up an intern's ass.
I fixed that for you but I'm not sure if it still says anything about misogyny or a political party's ability to ignore problematic consent issues.
Using a husband's infidelity against his wife is kind of an unintended proof of the point you're trying to undercut.
Nope; it's the wife's support of the husband that's problematic, not the fact that he was philandering.
The attack you're looking for would be something more like, "He was sleeping around, so she obviously isn't a very good woman" or whatever, which is definitely not what is being said.
OK can you quote Hillary defending Bill over his Lewinsky affair?
You're being disengenous or coming from a framework I have no interest in validating. I think it's absurd to compare a woman walking a tight-rope over a bunch of razor wire because of her husband's actions to the guy sexually assaulting women and bragging about it to the applause of shitty men nationwide.
We agree enough on more important things, and this year has felt enough like the dead hand of the early 90s coming back to strangle us. I'd rather not contribute to that, and I don't see it helping much.
I like Hillary Clinton, I respect her, and this was some salt on a raw spot. Can we leave it there?
+6
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
It's because in any reasonable world this wouldn't even have been a contest, and I am so fucking sick and tired of the response being to find someone younger, prettier, flirtier, less ethnic, more perfect, or just any man instead of owning up to the fact that America - and most other modern Western Nations - have a huge fucking problem and need to stop pretending they're as far above third world nations as they like to pretend they are.
This completely encapsulates the problem: We don't live in a reasonable world. We want to build one, on that we are agreed. We are agreed that western nations have huge fucking problems with racism and sexism, and a great many other -isms and flaws. But here is where we shoot ourselves in the foot, we expect the other side to be reasonable and do nothing other than throw tantrums when they aren't. Given that a giant part of our party platform is that things are broken, that the status quo is unreasonable, why in the everliving fuck do we think that behaving as if we are in a reasonable world is the winning play?
We control precious few states, and less of the federal government. If it means getting our hands dirty and pandering to what voting demographics want in order to enshrine minority/women's rights into law I am ok with doing a bit of that. We cannot expect America to behave like adults, our entire platform is built on the idea that America needs changing, and we cannot change anything if we are exiled from the halls of power. I see the current liberal schisms as being between realpolitick and idealism, and idealism is the hard sell. When we have an Obama running, we can and have won on idealism. When we don't? Realpolitick should win, because the stakes are too high to risk on long shots. We can and should decry that sexism is wrong, but we shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist. I give no fucks about the demographics of who we win with, but I won't bury my head in the sand and pretend that the rest of the country agrees, if they did, they'd already be Dems!
This is gonna be unpopular to say, but the Dems going high is what is costing them. We need to play hardball, in the same way that the Pubs do when we have power. Where was the sound and fury, screamed from every mountain, every day, about the Pubs blocking a supreme court nomination. Where is my party officials rage and action? I see the press releases since the election, and its more mealy mouthed focus group tested BS designed to sound reasonable. I'm tired of it. I want a party that is willing to actually fight, to stop speaking out the side of their mouths about the state of the nation, and treat politics like the bloodsport that it is. Shit is already getting bad out there for people on the streets of America, and its because we lost. We lost by inches on the presidency, but we got DESTROYED across this country. The down ticket was not good to us.
Stop pretending that if we're just nice enough, we'll win. We sure went high this election. The rhetoric soared, and we felt great about ourselves. That is poor comfort to those who are going to die as a result of this election, and make no mistake, this election, like all of them, will have a bodycount.
The way forward weirdly enough, is compromise. With ourselves. Our factionalism is what destroyed us. We must be more forgiving, more compassionate, more caring and understanding of our allies, whatever their skin tone, gender or race. We purity test ourselves constantly, on every front, in this forum, on all of social media. And I believe it destroyed us in the EC. Sections of our party are staying home because they don't feel welcome. And yes, some of those people are white, and male. We thought we could win without them. WE WERE WRONG.
When we've got all 3 branches of the government on lockdown, when we have 40+ states rolling with us in local governance, then I'll worry about the micro-aggressions of my allies when they gender me. Until then, I need their fucking votes. We attacked our fellow Dems over the smallest slights, when the wolves are literally at our gates. We worried about whether that white guy who is gonna vote for my fucking rights really believes in his vote more than we worried about fucking Neo-Nazis.
We have to start accepting less than perfection from our allies, and focus on those who want to strip away everything, rather those who agree with us on most issues, but might want their concerns to be given at least some lip service from the party that is asking for their loyalty. Because we sure as shit aren't in a position to be picky.
There is no reasonable reason that Hilary 'lost' this election that isn't true. Bad campaign management? Sure. Sexism? Sure. Racism? Sure. Spoke to the wrong people? Sure. Release of FBI documents? Sure. Voter suppression? Absolutely. The margin is like 10k-40k votes in 3 states. These are tiny effects.
Don't forget "did a significant portion of the people who usually vote for Democrats do not trust Hilary Clinton and went 'both sides are the same, let's stay home'".
With the caveat that it's not just Clinton who has a credibility deficit, it's the entire party. Hence Sanders' success despite all the problems with his campaign: he was new and therefore might actually do what he said he would do.
No, it's Clinton. She ran with a disadvantage from her history. It wasn't huge, but it was more than enough. Shelly Clanton (her identical twin in every way, policy and statement, but whose husband Ted Clanton never ran for national office in 1992) just won this election.
We don't need to tear up our party root and branch. We don't even need a great candidate. Trump was not a great candidate by any personal metric. He just allowed other people to assign whatever traits they wanted to him.
Boy I can't tell you how much I enjoy reading that the American President-elect being a confessed sex pest is nothing to do with America's inherent misogyny and everything to do with the competent, experienced, badass former secretary of state who supports and defends a serial sexual harrasser that used the power of the Office of the Presidency to stick a cigar up an intern's ass.
I fixed that for you but I'm not sure if it still says anything about misogyny or a political party's ability to ignore problematic consent issues.
Oh, we're going there? Okay then, absolutely. Let's go there.
Firstly, this was not Bill Clinton's third term, and assuming it was is part of the fucking problem. I ESPECIALLY love that the #NotAllTrumpVoters it's about ethics in games journalism economic anxiety bullshit relies on stories that Bill pushed for a bigger presence in the dust belt and was ignored by Clinton's campaign (even though he wasn't really and he and Sanders practically lived in the dust belt for October drumming up Clinton votes.)
Secondly, yes Bill Clinton abused his position to have his way with an intern. This is utterly unacceptable. WHICH IS WHY HE WAS FUCKING WELL IMPEACHED!
Thirdly, Clinton stood by her husband. She did NOT excuse what he did. She did NOT blame Lewinsky - and good grief were there plenty of people just lining up to blame Lewinsky. She did NOT say that he had been lead astray, or tempted, or that what he did was excusable on ANY level. The ONLY quote that Republicans had to beat her over the head with was that she was "not some Tammy Wynette little woman standing by her man." which they seized on and forced her to apologize to Wynette while ignoring the rest of the fucking quote.
Finally, EVERY allegation about Bill Clinton dates to BEFORE or DURING the Lewinsky affair. ALL of them. Every damn one. There hasn't been a WHISPER of a scandal attached to him since. Even the rape allegations that have, thus far, failed to stand up to the most minor of legal scrutiny, predate Lewinsky by several years. Since then? Nothing. Nada. Bumpkins. Sweet fuck all. Which means the WORST you can say is that Bill Clinton was a conscionsless bastard who abused his power for sex and that Hillary Clinton, rather than turning her back on him, stayed with him and help make him a better man.
Do you want me to contrast that with Trump, or shall we leave it there?
Exactly, the margin is tiny, change even one of the vast panoply of factors why we lost, and it could (and probably would) go the other way. Burning everything to the ground is counter-productive
The incumbent effect worries me though. Bush was terrible and he won by a greater margin in 2004. A lot of that may have been because there were wars going on, but Trump may start a couple as well
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
It's because in any reasonable world this wouldn't even have been a contest, and I am so fucking sick and tired of the response being to find someone younger, prettier, flirtier, less ethnic, more perfect, or just any man instead of owning up to the fact that America - and most other modern Western Nations - have a huge fucking problem and need to stop pretending they're as far above third world nations as they like to pretend they are.
This completely encapsulates the problem: We don't live in a reasonable world. We want to build one, on that we are agreed. We are agreed that western nations have huge fucking problems with racism and sexism, and a great many other -isms and flaws. But here is where we shoot ourselves in the foot, we expect the other side to be reasonable and do nothing other than throw tantrums when they aren't. Given that a giant part of our party platform is that things are broken, that the status quo is unreasonable, why in the everliving fuck do we think that behaving as if we are in a reasonable world is the winning play?
We control precious few states, and less of the federal government. If it means getting our hands dirty and pandering to what voting demographics want in order to enshrine minority/women's rights into law I am ok with doing a bit of that. We cannot expect America to behave like adults, our entire platform is built on the idea that America needs changing, and we cannot change anything if we are exiled from the halls of power. I see the current liberal schisms as being between realpolitick and idealism, and idealism is the hard sell. When we have an Obama running, we can and have won on idealism. When we don't? Realpolitick should win, because the stakes are too high to risk on long shots. We can and should decry that sexism is wrong, but we shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist. I give no fucks about the demographics of who we win with, but I won't bury my head in the sand and pretend that the rest of the country agrees, if they did, they'd already be Dems!
This is gonna be unpopular to say, but the Dems going high is what is costing them. We need to play hardball, in the same way that the Pubs do when we have power. Where was the sound and fury, screamed from every mountain, every day, about the Pubs blocking a supreme court nomination. Where is my party officials rage and action? I see the press releases since the election, and its more mealy mouthed focus group tested BS designed to sound reasonable. I'm tired of it. I want a party that is willing to actually fight, to stop speaking out the side of their mouths about the state of the nation, and treat politics like the bloodsport that it is. Shit is already getting bad out there for people on the streets of America, and its because we lost. We lost by inches on the presidency, but we got DESTROYED across this country. The down ticket was not good to us.
Stop pretending that if we're just nice enough, we'll win. We sure went high this election. The rhetoric soared, and we felt great about ourselves. That is poor comfort to those who are going to die as a result of this election, and make no mistake, this election, like all of them, will have a bodycount.
The way forward weirdly enough, is compromise. With ourselves. Our factionalism is what destroyed us. We must be more forgiving, more compassionate, more caring and understanding of our allies, whatever their skin tone, gender or race. We purity test ourselves constantly, on every front, in this forum, on all of social media. And I believe it destroyed us in the EC. Sections of our party are staying home because they don't feel welcome. And yes, some of those people are white, and male. We thought we could win without them. WE WERE WRONG.
When we've got all 3 branches of the government on lockdown, when we have 40+ states rolling with us in local governance, then I'll worry about the micro-aggressions of my allies when they gender me. Until then, I need their fucking votes. We attacked our fellow Dems over the smallest slights, when the wolves are literally at our gates. We worried about whether that white guy who is gonna vote for my fucking rights really believes in his vote more than we worried about fucking Neo-Nazis.
We have to start accepting less than perfection from our allies, and focus on those who want to strip away everything, rather those who agree with us on most issues, but might want their concerns to be given at least some lip service from the party that is asking for their loyalty. Because we sure as shit aren't in a position to be picky.
I don't care.
I'm sorry, I don't.
If the choices are fight for a reasonable world or screw over the rights of women and minorities to chip away at little pieces of the problem when not being voted down I will fight for a reasonable world every fucking time.
I do not care in the least if this is Civil Rights Movement Two: Republican Hullaballoo.
Exactly, the margin is tiny, change even one of the vast panoply of factors why we lost, and it could (and probably would) go the other way. Burning everything to the ground is counter-productive
The incumbent effect worries me though. Bush was terrible and he won by a greater margin in 2004. A lot of that may have been because there were wars going on, but Trump may start a couple as well
2004 wasn't incumbency effect. 2004 was 'Holy geese, we thought we were an invulnerable city on the hill to whom nothing severe could ever happen, and our dreams are as dust' effect.
For a repeat of 2004, we need an event to occur which unifies the country, and international allies behind America and the president, creating a sense of real shared vision and 'American-ness'. I do not think such an event exists any more. Just 'being in a war' won't do it. The country already has immense war weariness, even on the Republican side.
Finally, EVERY allegation about Bill Clinton dates to BEFORE or DURING the Lewinsky affair. ALL of them. Every damn one. There hasn't been a WHISPER of a scandal attached to him since.
There have been plenty of rumors of more affairs, which I believe counts as a whisper.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+2
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
you really can't fight anything til Trump is in office and doing stuff
I am all about the energy but there's no need to get mad at anyone in the thread for having other ideas for solutions, or not being worked up enough or whatever.
It's because in any reasonable world this wouldn't even have been a contest, and I am so fucking sick and tired of the response being to find someone younger, prettier, flirtier, less ethnic, more perfect, or just any man instead of owning up to the fact that America - and most other modern Western Nations - have a huge fucking problem and need to stop pretending they're as far above third world nations as they like to pretend they are.
This completely encapsulates the problem: We don't live in a reasonable world. We want to build one, on that we are agreed. We are agreed that western nations have huge fucking problems with racism and sexism, and a great many other -isms and flaws. But here is where we shoot ourselves in the foot, we expect the other side to be reasonable and do nothing other than throw tantrums when they aren't. Given that a giant part of our party platform is that things are broken, that the status quo is unreasonable, why in the everliving fuck do we think that behaving as if we are in a reasonable world is the winning play?
We control precious few states, and less of the federal government. If it means getting our hands dirty and pandering to what voting demographics want in order to enshrine minority/women's rights into law I am ok with doing a bit of that. We cannot expect America to behave like adults, our entire platform is built on the idea that America needs changing, and we cannot change anything if we are exiled from the halls of power. I see the current liberal schisms as being between realpolitick and idealism, and idealism is the hard sell. When we have an Obama running, we can and have won on idealism. When we don't? Realpolitick should win, because the stakes are too high to risk on long shots. We can and should decry that sexism is wrong, but we shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist. I give no fucks about the demographics of who we win with, but I won't bury my head in the sand and pretend that the rest of the country agrees, if they did, they'd already be Dems!
This is gonna be unpopular to say, but the Dems going high is what is costing them. We need to play hardball, in the same way that the Pubs do when we have power. Where was the sound and fury, screamed from every mountain, every day, about the Pubs blocking a supreme court nomination. Where is my party officials rage and action? I see the press releases since the election, and its more mealy mouthed focus group tested BS designed to sound reasonable. I'm tired of it. I want a party that is willing to actually fight, to stop speaking out the side of their mouths about the state of the nation, and treat politics like the bloodsport that it is. Shit is already getting bad out there for people on the streets of America, and its because we lost. We lost by inches on the presidency, but we got DESTROYED across this country. The down ticket was not good to us.
Stop pretending that if we're just nice enough, we'll win. We sure went high this election. The rhetoric soared, and we felt great about ourselves. That is poor comfort to those who are going to die as a result of this election, and make no mistake, this election, like all of them, will have a bodycount.
The way forward weirdly enough, is compromise. With ourselves. Our factionalism is what destroyed us. We must be more forgiving, more compassionate, more caring and understanding of our allies, whatever their skin tone, gender or race. We purity test ourselves constantly, on every front, in this forum, on all of social media. And I believe it destroyed us in the EC. Sections of our party are staying home because they don't feel welcome. And yes, some of those people are white, and male. We thought we could win without them. WE WERE WRONG.
When we've got all 3 branches of the government on lockdown, when we have 40+ states rolling with us in local governance, then I'll worry about the micro-aggressions of my allies when they gender me. Until then, I need their fucking votes. We attacked our fellow Dems over the smallest slights, when the wolves are literally at our gates. We worried about whether that white guy who is gonna vote for my fucking rights really believes in his vote more than we worried about fucking Neo-Nazis.
We have to start accepting less than perfection from our allies, and focus on those who want to strip away everything, rather those who agree with us on most issues, but might want their concerns to be given at least some lip service from the party that is asking for their loyalty. Because we sure as shit aren't in a position to be picky.
I don't care.
I'm sorry, I don't.
If the choices are fight for a reasonable world or screw over the rights of women and minorities to chip away at little pieces of the problem when not being voted down I will fight for a reasonable world every fucking time.
I do not care in the least if this is Civil Rights Movement Two: Republican Hullaballoo.
I am fired the fuck up.
I am ready to fucking go.
Ready to go with who? And for what? You have no power over your enemies. Your hatred feeds them. Do you plan to destroy those who are your allies because they aren't good enough? Will you turn your fury on the disinterested and un-involved? Will that make them help you?
There is NOTHING in the world that will let us pull this wall down in one fell swoop today. It cannot be done. It cannot be achieved. Even if the Republicans laid down their arms today and said "We give up, the liberals win" then we cannot create a 'reasonable world' within 4 years. All we can do is chip away.
It's because in any reasonable world this wouldn't even have been a contest, and I am so fucking sick and tired of the response being to find someone younger, prettier, flirtier, less ethnic, more perfect, or just any man instead of owning up to the fact that America - and most other modern Western Nations - have a huge fucking problem and need to stop pretending they're as far above third world nations as they like to pretend they are.
This completely encapsulates the problem: We don't live in a reasonable world. We want to build one, on that we are agreed. We are agreed that western nations have huge fucking problems with racism and sexism, and a great many other -isms and flaws. But here is where we shoot ourselves in the foot, we expect the other side to be reasonable and do nothing other than throw tantrums when they aren't. Given that a giant part of our party platform is that things are broken, that the status quo is unreasonable, why in the everliving fuck do we think that behaving as if we are in a reasonable world is the winning play?
We control precious few states, and less of the federal government. If it means getting our hands dirty and pandering to what voting demographics want in order to enshrine minority/women's rights into law I am ok with doing a bit of that. We cannot expect America to behave like adults, our entire platform is built on the idea that America needs changing, and we cannot change anything if we are exiled from the halls of power. I see the current liberal schisms as being between realpolitick and idealism, and idealism is the hard sell. When we have an Obama running, we can and have won on idealism. When we don't? Realpolitick should win, because the stakes are too high to risk on long shots. We can and should decry that sexism is wrong, but we shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist. I give no fucks about the demographics of who we win with, but I won't bury my head in the sand and pretend that the rest of the country agrees, if they did, they'd already be Dems!
This is gonna be unpopular to say, but the Dems going high is what is costing them. We need to play hardball, in the same way that the Pubs do when we have power. Where was the sound and fury, screamed from every mountain, every day, about the Pubs blocking a supreme court nomination. Where is my party officials rage and action? I see the press releases since the election, and its more mealy mouthed focus group tested BS designed to sound reasonable. I'm tired of it. I want a party that is willing to actually fight, to stop speaking out the side of their mouths about the state of the nation, and treat politics like the bloodsport that it is. Shit is already getting bad out there for people on the streets of America, and its because we lost. We lost by inches on the presidency, but we got DESTROYED across this country. The down ticket was not good to us.
Stop pretending that if we're just nice enough, we'll win. We sure went high this election. The rhetoric soared, and we felt great about ourselves. That is poor comfort to those who are going to die as a result of this election, and make no mistake, this election, like all of them, will have a bodycount.
The way forward weirdly enough, is compromise. With ourselves. Our factionalism is what destroyed us. We must be more forgiving, more compassionate, more caring and understanding of our allies, whatever their skin tone, gender or race. We purity test ourselves constantly, on every front, in this forum, on all of social media. And I believe it destroyed us in the EC. Sections of our party are staying home because they don't feel welcome. And yes, some of those people are white, and male. We thought we could win without them. WE WERE WRONG.
When we've got all 3 branches of the government on lockdown, when we have 40+ states rolling with us in local governance, then I'll worry about the micro-aggressions of my allies when they gender me. Until then, I need their fucking votes. We attacked our fellow Dems over the smallest slights, when the wolves are literally at our gates. We worried about whether that white guy who is gonna vote for my fucking rights really believes in his vote more than we worried about fucking Neo-Nazis.
We have to start accepting less than perfection from our allies, and focus on those who want to strip away everything, rather those who agree with us on most issues, but might want their concerns to be given at least some lip service from the party that is asking for their loyalty. Because we sure as shit aren't in a position to be picky.
I don't care.
I'm sorry, I don't.
If the choices are fight for a reasonable world or screw over the rights of women and minorities to chip away at little pieces of the problem when not being voted down I will fight for a reasonable world every fucking time.
I do not care in the least if this is Civil Rights Movement Two: Republican Hullaballoo.
I am fired the fuck up.
I am ready to fucking go.
The problem is that chances are you are as riddled with flaws as anyone else, and you can be picked apart like anyone else.
+3
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The problem is less the infighting and more that we don't pull together come election day. Republicans fight worse than we do, but when it comes time they vote in lockstep.
+13
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
If the choices are fight for a reasonable world or screw over the rights of women and minorities to chip away at little pieces of the problem when not being voted down I will fight for a reasonable world every fucking time.
I do not care in the least if this is Civil Rights Movement Two: Republican Hullaballoo.
I am fired the fuck up.
I am ready to fucking go.
I'm right with you on the energy, and I fucking love seeing it. But, and this is going to be a weird question, have you ever been in a fight? A real, actual knockdown drag out fight. Because you take every ally you can get. Don't care if their an asshole, don't care that I don't want to drink a beer with them because their kinda a selfish dick. Because when on the floor, taking your licks while getting "Fag" yelled at you, you'll take any help you can get. We didn't know we were there before the election. We thought we had won the war, and were cleaning up the details. We were wrong. We need the votes of some white, hetero cis dudes if we want to win this fight. How do you plan on getting them? Because they aren't all racists. They voted Obama, but not Hillary. Why?
The job, for anyone that seeks it, involves selling yourself in all the right places and in the right ways to get a majority of the electoral votes. That's a mandatory prerequisite to doing any of the governing. To manage their their media image, to get people to like them, to unite and motivate their base to come out and vote for them. Unless they're Goldwater and in losing manage to kick off some realignment that still kicking me in the balls from the beyond the grave, their theoretical merits are rendered meaningless and the whole exercise is a fruitless effort.
If the choices are fight for a reasonable world or screw over the rights of women and minorities to chip away at little pieces of the problem when not being voted down I will fight for a reasonable world every fucking time.
I do not care in the least if this is Civil Rights Movement Two: Republican Hullaballoo.
I am fired the fuck up.
I am ready to fucking go.
I'm right with you on the energy, and I fucking love seeing it. But, and this is going to be a weird question, have you ever been in a fight? A real, actual knockdown drag out fight. Because you take every ally you can get. Don't care if their an asshole, don't care that I don't want to drink a beer with them because their kinda a selfish dick. Because when on the floor, taking your licks while getting "Fag" yelled at you, you'll take any help you can get. We didn't know we were there before the election. We thought we had won the war, and were cleaning up the details. We were wrong. We need the votes of some white, hetero cis dudes if we want to win this fight. How do you plan on getting them? Because they aren't all racists. They voted Obama, but not Hillary. Why?
We take every ally we can, when they can actually prove they can follow through. If they didn't show up to stop Trump, someone who is going to hurt them as well, I can't trust them to show up when it's just us.
You're ignoring everything about the situation Hillary was in to blame her for her husband's vile actions. Context matters. It's not like she broke a long tradition of women being able to stand apart from their philandering and abusive husbands without being torn apart by society and the media.
And maybe, just fucking maybe, she loved the guy, loved her family, and did something we now call shitty because she's a human being who either trusted the liar or sought to protect her daughter.
All that happened in July of 2016?
Because she still has his back as of today, and few seem to mind that today.....
All this is bought up every time Hillary runs for office, or does something as simple as eating a sandwich.
If the choices are fight for a reasonable world or screw over the rights of women and minorities to chip away at little pieces of the problem when not being voted down I will fight for a reasonable world every fucking time.
I do not care in the least if this is Civil Rights Movement Two: Republican Hullaballoo.
I am fired the fuck up.
I am ready to fucking go.
I'm right with you on the energy, and I fucking love seeing it. But, and this is going to be a weird question, have you ever been in a fight? A real, actual knockdown drag out fight. Because you take every ally you can get. Don't care if their an asshole, don't care that I don't want to drink a beer with them because their kinda a selfish dick. Because when on the floor, taking your licks while getting "Fag" yelled at you, you'll take any help you can get. We didn't know we were there before the election. We thought we had won the war, and were cleaning up the details. We were wrong. We need the votes of some white, hetero cis dudes if we want to win this fight. How do you plan on getting them? Because they aren't all racists. They voted Obama, but not Hillary. Why?
Voting for Obama isn't proof they're not racist, and voting for Trump certainly isn't an action that won't look bad on them concerning racism or sexism, even if it is done by holding their nose.
You make a good argument about trying to get every ally we can get, and this includes racists who voted for Obama and Democrats - and it's not like Democrats can't be racist or sexist themselves.
Why? Because Obama avoided running overtly on his minority status, and they hated it when he commented on it office. Not every candidate can do this, and certainly not a white woman.
The bigger problem isn't the presidential election, since it was close and Trump won via technicality - it's losing congress.
If the choices are fight for a reasonable world or screw over the rights of women and minorities to chip away at little pieces of the problem when not being voted down I will fight for a reasonable world every fucking time.
I do not care in the least if this is Civil Rights Movement Two: Republican Hullaballoo.
I am fired the fuck up.
I am ready to fucking go.
I'm right with you on the energy, and I fucking love seeing it. But, and this is going to be a weird question, have you ever been in a fight? A real, actual knockdown drag out fight. Because you take every ally you can get. Don't care if their an asshole, don't care that I don't want to drink a beer with them because their kinda a selfish dick. Because when on the floor, taking your licks while getting "Fag" yelled at you, you'll take any help you can get. We didn't know we were there before the election. We thought we had won the war, and were cleaning up the details. We were wrong. We need the votes of some white, hetero cis dudes if we want to win this fight. How do you plan on getting them? Because they aren't all racists. They voted Obama, but not Hillary. Why?
We take every ally we can, when they can actually prove they can follow through. If they didn't show up to stop Trump, someone who is going to hurt them as well, I can't trust them to show up when it's just us.
Yes, it's foolish to rely on their voting as guaranteed as Hillary discovered. Their voting bloc is an unreliable stop gap (that's getting further away each day) until they can replaced by someone else who isn't Obama. Getting them back would take a massive amount of work, money and countering GOP propaganda. 4 years, if the Dems get their house in order, maybe. 2 years? Impossible.
We don't know how loyal they are to Trump, either. Or how well the GOP can hold them short or long term. When we know these answers we'll have a better idea how to react.
The problem is less the infighting and more that we don't pull together come election day. Republicans fight worse than we do, but when it comes time they vote in lockstep.
Yup. Conservatives vote consistently and always have. And so they continually define the ground on which battles are fought.
Left wing voters tend to include alot of flighty concession-demanding special-snowflake motherfuckers who will take their ball and go home at the drop of a hat.
If the choices are fight for a reasonable world or screw over the rights of women and minorities to chip away at little pieces of the problem when not being voted down I will fight for a reasonable world every fucking time.
I do not care in the least if this is Civil Rights Movement Two: Republican Hullaballoo.
I am fired the fuck up.
I am ready to fucking go.
I'm right with you on the energy, and I fucking love seeing it. But, and this is going to be a weird question, have you ever been in a fight? A real, actual knockdown drag out fight. Because you take every ally you can get. Don't care if their an asshole, don't care that I don't want to drink a beer with them because their kinda a selfish dick. Because when on the floor, taking your licks while getting "Fag" yelled at you, you'll take any help you can get. We didn't know we were there before the election. We thought we had won the war, and were cleaning up the details. We were wrong. We need the votes of some white, hetero cis dudes if we want to win this fight. How do you plan on getting them? Because they aren't all racists. They voted Obama, but not Hillary. Why?
Obama didn't run "Anybody But Bush 2: Electric Boogaloo" as his game plan for one.
+3
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
If the choices are fight for a reasonable world or screw over the rights of women and minorities to chip away at little pieces of the problem when not being voted down I will fight for a reasonable world every fucking time.
I do not care in the least if this is Civil Rights Movement Two: Republican Hullaballoo.
I am fired the fuck up.
I am ready to fucking go.
I'm right with you on the energy, and I fucking love seeing it. But, and this is going to be a weird question, have you ever been in a fight? A real, actual knockdown drag out fight. Because you take every ally you can get. Don't care if their an asshole, don't care that I don't want to drink a beer with them because their kinda a selfish dick. Because when on the floor, taking your licks while getting "Fag" yelled at you, you'll take any help you can get. We didn't know we were there before the election. We thought we had won the war, and were cleaning up the details. We were wrong. We need the votes of some white, hetero cis dudes if we want to win this fight. How do you plan on getting them? Because they aren't all racists. They voted Obama, but not Hillary. Why?
Obama didn't run "Anybody But Bush 2: Electric Boogaloo" as his game plan for one.
Agreed. He sold himself, and didn't leverage how bad Bush 2 was nearly as hard as he could have. More focus on platforms and how we can make things better, less about how bad our opponents are. It entrenches fencesitters for one, and the Republicans are better at slinging mud than we are. If we couldn't sink Trump on personality, and lords know we tried, we are unlikely to be able to make the tactic work. We have to sell a vision of the future, because the future is looming right now. Things are changing at a breakneck pace, and we need to sell a happy, prosperous, more equal one. Fuck, turn us to the party of futurism. It works as a unifying tactic, for both minority and economic concerns. Tell America about the shining city on a hill that we've been, and tell them how we are going to make American even better. Acknowledge our imperfect history, but don't blame the present for the past, talk about how we can go forward, with as all as Americans. Own the patriotism, just a bit. Obama did, for sure. Sell the Hopium first, and have details when asked, but don't lead with it.
If the choices are fight for a reasonable world or screw over the rights of women and minorities to chip away at little pieces of the problem when not being voted down I will fight for a reasonable world every fucking time.
I do not care in the least if this is Civil Rights Movement Two: Republican Hullaballoo.
I am fired the fuck up.
I am ready to fucking go.
I'm right with you on the energy, and I fucking love seeing it. But, and this is going to be a weird question, have you ever been in a fight? A real, actual knockdown drag out fight. Because you take every ally you can get. Don't care if their an asshole, don't care that I don't want to drink a beer with them because their kinda a selfish dick. Because when on the floor, taking your licks while getting "Fag" yelled at you, you'll take any help you can get. We didn't know we were there before the election. We thought we had won the war, and were cleaning up the details. We were wrong. We need the votes of some white, hetero cis dudes if we want to win this fight. How do you plan on getting them? Because they aren't all racists. They voted Obama, but not Hillary. Why?
Obama didn't run "Anybody But Bush 2: Electric Boogaloo" as his game plan for one.
Agreed. He sold himself, and didn't leverage how bad Bush 2 was nearly as hard as he could have. More focus on platforms and how we can make things better, less about how bad our opponents are. It entrenches fencesitters for one, and the Republicans are better at slinging mud than we are. If we couldn't sink Trump on personality, and lords know we tried, we are unlikely to be able to make the tactic work. We have to sell a vision of the future, because the future is looming right now. Things are changing at a breakneck pace, and we need to sell a happy, prosperous, more equal one. Fuck, turn us to the party of futurism. It works as a unifying tactic, for both minority and economic concerns. Tell America about the shining city on a hill that we've been, and tell them how we are going to make American even better. Acknowledge our imperfect history, but don't blame the present for the past, talk about how we can go forward, with as all as Americans. Own the patriotism, just a bit. Obama did, for sure. Sell the Hopium first, and have details when asked, but don't lead with it.
My Obama did ties into what I was talking about above with how Democrat voters behave. Obama sold himself as a statement. As an event. As a movement. As something you could tell other people you had been a part of years from now. Which taps into what alot of left-wing voters want from their candidate, which is a chance to make some sort of affirmation with their vote that says something about themselves.
So often a lack of enthusiasm and voting from left-wing demos is based on alot of statements about how it doesn't make them feel moral. That compromising for a candidate that's not perfect makes them dirty and they want no part of it. Obama managed to skip over this by going right for their desire to be part of something big and important.
Clinton tried the same shit with "First Women President". It just turns out that doesn't work and neither she nor even the Obamas can sell her as that enough to overcome sexism and deepseated issues born of decades of smear campaigns. And so you get a bunch more Stein voters because the alternative would be some sort of compromise with your own entitled self-image.
If the choices are fight for a reasonable world or screw over the rights of women and minorities to chip away at little pieces of the problem when not being voted down I will fight for a reasonable world every fucking time.
I do not care in the least if this is Civil Rights Movement Two: Republican Hullaballoo.
I am fired the fuck up.
I am ready to fucking go.
I'm right with you on the energy, and I fucking love seeing it. But, and this is going to be a weird question, have you ever been in a fight? A real, actual knockdown drag out fight. Because you take every ally you can get. Don't care if their an asshole, don't care that I don't want to drink a beer with them because their kinda a selfish dick. Because when on the floor, taking your licks while getting "Fag" yelled at you, you'll take any help you can get. We didn't know we were there before the election. We thought we had won the war, and were cleaning up the details. We were wrong. We need the votes of some white, hetero cis dudes if we want to win this fight. How do you plan on getting them? Because they aren't all racists. They voted Obama, but not Hillary. Why?
Obama didn't run "Anybody But Bush 2: Electric Boogaloo" as his game plan for one.
The election came about one month after "Black Tuesday 2: it's clearly the Republicans fault because they just said the economy was the strongest it had ever been and they were in charge and also Obama ran super hard against the continuation of Bush policies".
So saying "Obama ran on himself and that is why he won" kind of missiles the elephant in the rokm
If the choices are fight for a reasonable world or screw over the rights of women and minorities to chip away at little pieces of the problem when not being voted down I will fight for a reasonable world every fucking time.
I do not care in the least if this is Civil Rights Movement Two: Republican Hullaballoo.
I am fired the fuck up.
I am ready to fucking go.
I'm right with you on the energy, and I fucking love seeing it. But, and this is going to be a weird question, have you ever been in a fight? A real, actual knockdown drag out fight. Because you take every ally you can get. Don't care if their an asshole, don't care that I don't want to drink a beer with them because their kinda a selfish dick. Because when on the floor, taking your licks while getting "Fag" yelled at you, you'll take any help you can get. We didn't know we were there before the election. We thought we had won the war, and were cleaning up the details. We were wrong. We need the votes of some white, hetero cis dudes if we want to win this fight. How do you plan on getting them? Because they aren't all racists. They voted Obama, but not Hillary. Why?
Obama didn't run "Anybody But Bush 2: Electric Boogaloo" as his game plan for one.
The election came about one month after "Black Tuesday 2: it's clearly the Republicans fault because they just said the economy was the strongest it had ever been and they were in charge and also Obama ran super hard against the continuation of Bush policies".
So saying "Obama ran on himself and that is why he won" kind of missiles the elephant in the rokm
Hillary's game plan was to repeatedly tell everybody how bad of a person Trump was and how they shouldn't vote for him. Her plans rarely entered the discussion (and yes, the media ignored her, that's what those millions in ad buys are for).
Obama didn't run on how bad of a person McCain (or Romney) was. Yes, he talked about how bad the Republicans were at governing and some occasional digs at his opponents, but he also talked policy and sold himself.
If the choices are fight for a reasonable world or screw over the rights of women and minorities to chip away at little pieces of the problem when not being voted down I will fight for a reasonable world every fucking time.
I do not care in the least if this is Civil Rights Movement Two: Republican Hullaballoo.
I am fired the fuck up.
I am ready to fucking go.
I'm right with you on the energy, and I fucking love seeing it. But, and this is going to be a weird question, have you ever been in a fight? A real, actual knockdown drag out fight. Because you take every ally you can get. Don't care if their an asshole, don't care that I don't want to drink a beer with them because their kinda a selfish dick. Because when on the floor, taking your licks while getting "Fag" yelled at you, you'll take any help you can get. We didn't know we were there before the election. We thought we had won the war, and were cleaning up the details. We were wrong. We need the votes of some white, hetero cis dudes if we want to win this fight. How do you plan on getting them? Because they aren't all racists. They voted Obama, but not Hillary. Why?
Obama didn't run "Anybody But Bush 2: Electric Boogaloo" as his game plan for one.
The election came about one month after "Black Tuesday 2: it's clearly the Republicans fault because they just said the economy was the strongest it had ever been and they were in charge and also Obama ran super hard against the continuation of Bush policies".
So saying "Obama ran on himself and that is why he won" kind of missiles the elephant in the rokm
Hillary's game plan was to repeatedly tell everybody how bad of a person Trump was and how they shouldn't vote for him. Her plans rarely entered the discussion (and yes, the media ignored her, that's what those millions in ad buys are for).
Obama didn't run on how bad of a person McCain (or Romney) was. Yes, he talked about how bad the Republicans were at governing and some occasional digs at his opponents, but he also talked policy and sold himself.
Even if I grant that; my point was that it doesn't matter. Attributing Obama winning to the style of his campaign compared to the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression, cause by the party in power whose policy position was more of the same with a side of "there is nothing wrong" while half the party in power literally wanted to watch everything burn down and almost got their wish while the entire electorate watched the end of their world coming on every news channel 24 hours a day and an immediate feedback effect with the market crashing again after the republican congress failed to pass the relief package on the first try is foolish.
Even if Obamas campaign style helped disambiguating that advantage from the Elephant's elephant in the room is impossible.
+6
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
Something that normally gets brought up after elections is whether or not it is useful to go negative in campaign advertising. Due to the... ahistoric nature of this election I think its worth talking about something less devisive like more general campaign options for the future, like whether or not its useful to attack Republicans on character grounds, or what angles of criticism might be leveled legally to slow what the Republicans can do with their time.
If the choices are fight for a reasonable world or screw over the rights of women and minorities to chip away at little pieces of the problem when not being voted down I will fight for a reasonable world every fucking time.
I do not care in the least if this is Civil Rights Movement Two: Republican Hullaballoo.
I am fired the fuck up.
I am ready to fucking go.
I'm right with you on the energy, and I fucking love seeing it. But, and this is going to be a weird question, have you ever been in a fight? A real, actual knockdown drag out fight. Because you take every ally you can get. Don't care if their an asshole, don't care that I don't want to drink a beer with them because their kinda a selfish dick. Because when on the floor, taking your licks while getting "Fag" yelled at you, you'll take any help you can get. We didn't know we were there before the election. We thought we had won the war, and were cleaning up the details. We were wrong. We need the votes of some white, hetero cis dudes if we want to win this fight. How do you plan on getting them? Because they aren't all racists. They voted Obama, but not Hillary. Why?
Obama didn't run "Anybody But Bush 2: Electric Boogaloo" as his game plan for one.
The election came about one month after "Black Tuesday 2: it's clearly the Republicans fault because they just said the economy was the strongest it had ever been and they were in charge and also Obama ran super hard against the continuation of Bush policies".
So saying "Obama ran on himself and that is why he won" kind of missiles the elephant in the rokm
Hillary's game plan was to repeatedly tell everybody how bad of a person Trump was and how they shouldn't vote for him. Her plans rarely entered the discussion (and yes, the media ignored her, that's what those millions in ad buys are for).
Obama didn't run on how bad of a person McCain (or Romney) was. Yes, he talked about how bad the Republicans were at governing and some occasional digs at his opponents, but he also talked policy and sold himself.
Even if I grant that; my point was that it doesn't matter. Attributing Obama winning to the style of his campaign compared to the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression, cause by the party in power whose policy position was more of the same with a side of "there is nothing wrong" while half the party in power literally wanted to watch everything burn down and almost got their wish while the entire electorate watched the end of their world coming on every news channel 24 hours a day and an immediate feedback effect with the market crashing again after the republican congress failed to pass the relief package on the first try is foolish.
Even if Obamas campaign style helped disambiguating that advantage from the Elephant's elephant in the room is impossible.
Nowhere did I state it was entirely due to his style of campaign, however I feel that it's foolish to ignore that he was able to sell himself as somebody who A) wanted to fix the problem and was capable of fixing it.
But hey, if you want to try "Anybody But Bush 3, Trump Harder" in 2020 be my guest. It's been a winning strategy so far.
This thread has gone to a deeply unproductive place, and I can't even.
Maybe we will revisit when I have regained my ability to even.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
Nope; it's the wife's support of the husband that's problematic, not the fact that he was philandering.
The attack you're looking for would be something more like, "He was sleeping around, so she obviously isn't a very good woman" or whatever, which is definitely not what is being said.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
You and I both know that if Hillary had divorced Bill, she would have been raked over the coals for that, too.
Steam: pazython
Random example, picked to be enough people that if it were true would flip Michigan. I guess I'm guilty of creating a false narrative.
But, we do have all kinds of examples of abusers doing shit exactly like this. For example, the reason that your doctor now asks you verbally, rather than on a form if you are a victim of abuse is because on the old 'secret form' the abusers would threaten the womans life if she failed to come out with a picture (or a copy) of the secret form saying she hadn't been abused.
edit - Hell, the reason why men get asked too now is not just because they get abused too, but because the abusers would go to their doctor and then not get asked about whether they were being abused and then go home and beat their wives for lying when they said the doctor asked them verbally instead of on a form.
I know that's the dodge agreed upon when this topic is brought up but this is not about infidelity, it's about glossing over power and consent issues in the workplace.
Anyway, I don't think it had much of an impact. Democrats forgave Clinton for not abandoning her predator husband who harrassed and coerced interns for years, Republicans forgave Trump for talking shit about how much pussy he can grab (and possibly did grab).
Maybe that says a lot about misogyny...
The ol' "Fuck you, got mine", politics edition.
Well, part of the issue is that because of the way the US government is structured, the Democrats need to compete in more conservative areas to win. As is continually pointed out about, say, Manchin, that's what it probably takes to win in WV. That's what a 50 state strategy looks like. That's why the majority the Dems had in 2008 made it hard to actually pass the ACA or something better.
There is at the end of the day a certain amount of concession that must be made to the fact that the US is not near as liberal or progressive as many in the Democratic party would like.
Now, it probably should be less then it is right now, but there is also a few issues there. Some of which may be linked together. In general Reps, Senate or House, seem to trend more conservative then their districts. At the same time, the part of the electorate that votes most consistently tends to skew older and more conservative. And while the Democratic party base has gotten more liberal over time, how it works out is that the more educated members have gotten ALOT more liberal whereas the less educated have gotten only slightly more liberal.
And maybe, just fucking maybe, she loved the guy, loved her family, and did something we now call shitty because she's a human being who either trusted the liar or sought to protect her daughter.
Lets not be absurd spool, even in the least favorable possible lens of Clinton which has any support from evidence it would lead you to believe that he exploited his power to have consensual sex with women who would not otherwise have had sex with him. Donald Trump literally confesses to doing that himself, and the tapes suggest he did far far more.
In terms of 'Does this person have a positive relationship with women and not seek to cause them pain or exploit them' the very WORST Bill could be is as bad as Trump. And Bill Clinton wasn't running for President. Hillary was.
For example, if Ivanka ever runs for President, I will not hold it against her that her father very likely sexually harassed women, because she is a different person.
All that happened in July of 2016?
Because she still has his back as of today, and few seem to mind that today.....
OK can you quote Hillary defending Bill over his Lewinsky affair?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
We agree enough on more important things, and this year has felt enough like the dead hand of the early 90s coming back to strangle us. I'd rather not contribute to that, and I don't see it helping much.
I like Hillary Clinton, I respect her, and this was some salt on a raw spot. Can we leave it there?
This completely encapsulates the problem: We don't live in a reasonable world. We want to build one, on that we are agreed. We are agreed that western nations have huge fucking problems with racism and sexism, and a great many other -isms and flaws. But here is where we shoot ourselves in the foot, we expect the other side to be reasonable and do nothing other than throw tantrums when they aren't. Given that a giant part of our party platform is that things are broken, that the status quo is unreasonable, why in the everliving fuck do we think that behaving as if we are in a reasonable world is the winning play?
We control precious few states, and less of the federal government. If it means getting our hands dirty and pandering to what voting demographics want in order to enshrine minority/women's rights into law I am ok with doing a bit of that. We cannot expect America to behave like adults, our entire platform is built on the idea that America needs changing, and we cannot change anything if we are exiled from the halls of power. I see the current liberal schisms as being between realpolitick and idealism, and idealism is the hard sell. When we have an Obama running, we can and have won on idealism. When we don't? Realpolitick should win, because the stakes are too high to risk on long shots. We can and should decry that sexism is wrong, but we shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist. I give no fucks about the demographics of who we win with, but I won't bury my head in the sand and pretend that the rest of the country agrees, if they did, they'd already be Dems!
This is gonna be unpopular to say, but the Dems going high is what is costing them. We need to play hardball, in the same way that the Pubs do when we have power. Where was the sound and fury, screamed from every mountain, every day, about the Pubs blocking a supreme court nomination. Where is my party officials rage and action? I see the press releases since the election, and its more mealy mouthed focus group tested BS designed to sound reasonable. I'm tired of it. I want a party that is willing to actually fight, to stop speaking out the side of their mouths about the state of the nation, and treat politics like the bloodsport that it is. Shit is already getting bad out there for people on the streets of America, and its because we lost. We lost by inches on the presidency, but we got DESTROYED across this country. The down ticket was not good to us.
Stop pretending that if we're just nice enough, we'll win. We sure went high this election. The rhetoric soared, and we felt great about ourselves. That is poor comfort to those who are going to die as a result of this election, and make no mistake, this election, like all of them, will have a bodycount.
The way forward weirdly enough, is compromise. With ourselves. Our factionalism is what destroyed us. We must be more forgiving, more compassionate, more caring and understanding of our allies, whatever their skin tone, gender or race. We purity test ourselves constantly, on every front, in this forum, on all of social media. And I believe it destroyed us in the EC. Sections of our party are staying home because they don't feel welcome. And yes, some of those people are white, and male. We thought we could win without them. WE WERE WRONG.
When we've got all 3 branches of the government on lockdown, when we have 40+ states rolling with us in local governance, then I'll worry about the micro-aggressions of my allies when they gender me. Until then, I need their fucking votes. We attacked our fellow Dems over the smallest slights, when the wolves are literally at our gates. We worried about whether that white guy who is gonna vote for my fucking rights really believes in his vote more than we worried about fucking Neo-Nazis.
We have to start accepting less than perfection from our allies, and focus on those who want to strip away everything, rather those who agree with us on most issues, but might want their concerns to be given at least some lip service from the party that is asking for their loyalty. Because we sure as shit aren't in a position to be picky.
Oh, we're going there? Okay then, absolutely. Let's go there.
Firstly, this was not Bill Clinton's third term, and assuming it was is part of the fucking problem. I ESPECIALLY love that the #NotAllTrumpVoters it's about ethics in games journalism economic anxiety bullshit relies on stories that Bill pushed for a bigger presence in the dust belt and was ignored by Clinton's campaign (even though he wasn't really and he and Sanders practically lived in the dust belt for October drumming up Clinton votes.)
Secondly, yes Bill Clinton abused his position to have his way with an intern. This is utterly unacceptable. WHICH IS WHY HE WAS FUCKING WELL IMPEACHED!
Thirdly, Clinton stood by her husband. She did NOT excuse what he did. She did NOT blame Lewinsky - and good grief were there plenty of people just lining up to blame Lewinsky. She did NOT say that he had been lead astray, or tempted, or that what he did was excusable on ANY level. The ONLY quote that Republicans had to beat her over the head with was that she was "not some Tammy Wynette little woman standing by her man." which they seized on and forced her to apologize to Wynette while ignoring the rest of the fucking quote.
Finally, EVERY allegation about Bill Clinton dates to BEFORE or DURING the Lewinsky affair. ALL of them. Every damn one. There hasn't been a WHISPER of a scandal attached to him since. Even the rape allegations that have, thus far, failed to stand up to the most minor of legal scrutiny, predate Lewinsky by several years. Since then? Nothing. Nada. Bumpkins. Sweet fuck all. Which means the WORST you can say is that Bill Clinton was a conscionsless bastard who abused his power for sex and that Hillary Clinton, rather than turning her back on him, stayed with him and help make him a better man.
Do you want me to contrast that with Trump, or shall we leave it there?
The incumbent effect worries me though. Bush was terrible and he won by a greater margin in 2004. A lot of that may have been because there were wars going on, but Trump may start a couple as well
I don't care.
I'm sorry, I don't.
If the choices are fight for a reasonable world or screw over the rights of women and minorities to chip away at little pieces of the problem when not being voted down I will fight for a reasonable world every fucking time.
I do not care in the least if this is Civil Rights Movement Two: Republican Hullaballoo.
I am fired the fuck up.
I am ready to fucking go.
2004 wasn't incumbency effect. 2004 was 'Holy geese, we thought we were an invulnerable city on the hill to whom nothing severe could ever happen, and our dreams are as dust' effect.
For a repeat of 2004, we need an event to occur which unifies the country, and international allies behind America and the president, creating a sense of real shared vision and 'American-ness'. I do not think such an event exists any more. Just 'being in a war' won't do it. The country already has immense war weariness, even on the Republican side.
There have been plenty of rumors of more affairs, which I believe counts as a whisper.
I am all about the energy but there's no need to get mad at anyone in the thread for having other ideas for solutions, or not being worked up enough or whatever.
Ready to go with who? And for what? You have no power over your enemies. Your hatred feeds them. Do you plan to destroy those who are your allies because they aren't good enough? Will you turn your fury on the disinterested and un-involved? Will that make them help you?
There is NOTHING in the world that will let us pull this wall down in one fell swoop today. It cannot be done. It cannot be achieved. Even if the Republicans laid down their arms today and said "We give up, the liberals win" then we cannot create a 'reasonable world' within 4 years. All we can do is chip away.
The problem is that chances are you are as riddled with flaws as anyone else, and you can be picked apart like anyone else.
I'm right with you on the energy, and I fucking love seeing it. But, and this is going to be a weird question, have you ever been in a fight? A real, actual knockdown drag out fight. Because you take every ally you can get. Don't care if their an asshole, don't care that I don't want to drink a beer with them because their kinda a selfish dick. Because when on the floor, taking your licks while getting "Fag" yelled at you, you'll take any help you can get. We didn't know we were there before the election. We thought we had won the war, and were cleaning up the details. We were wrong. We need the votes of some white, hetero cis dudes if we want to win this fight. How do you plan on getting them? Because they aren't all racists. They voted Obama, but not Hillary. Why?
We take every ally we can, when they can actually prove they can follow through. If they didn't show up to stop Trump, someone who is going to hurt them as well, I can't trust them to show up when it's just us.
All this is bought up every time Hillary runs for office, or does something as simple as eating a sandwich.
Voting for Obama isn't proof they're not racist, and voting for Trump certainly isn't an action that won't look bad on them concerning racism or sexism, even if it is done by holding their nose.
You make a good argument about trying to get every ally we can get, and this includes racists who voted for Obama and Democrats - and it's not like Democrats can't be racist or sexist themselves.
Why? Because Obama avoided running overtly on his minority status, and they hated it when he commented on it office. Not every candidate can do this, and certainly not a white woman.
The bigger problem isn't the presidential election, since it was close and Trump won via technicality - it's losing congress.
Yes, it's foolish to rely on their voting as guaranteed as Hillary discovered. Their voting bloc is an unreliable stop gap (that's getting further away each day) until they can replaced by someone else who isn't Obama. Getting them back would take a massive amount of work, money and countering GOP propaganda. 4 years, if the Dems get their house in order, maybe. 2 years? Impossible.
We don't know how loyal they are to Trump, either. Or how well the GOP can hold them short or long term. When we know these answers we'll have a better idea how to react.
Yup. Conservatives vote consistently and always have. And so they continually define the ground on which battles are fought.
Left wing voters tend to include alot of flighty concession-demanding special-snowflake motherfuckers who will take their ball and go home at the drop of a hat.
Obama didn't run "Anybody But Bush 2: Electric Boogaloo" as his game plan for one.
Agreed. He sold himself, and didn't leverage how bad Bush 2 was nearly as hard as he could have. More focus on platforms and how we can make things better, less about how bad our opponents are. It entrenches fencesitters for one, and the Republicans are better at slinging mud than we are. If we couldn't sink Trump on personality, and lords know we tried, we are unlikely to be able to make the tactic work. We have to sell a vision of the future, because the future is looming right now. Things are changing at a breakneck pace, and we need to sell a happy, prosperous, more equal one. Fuck, turn us to the party of futurism. It works as a unifying tactic, for both minority and economic concerns. Tell America about the shining city on a hill that we've been, and tell them how we are going to make American even better. Acknowledge our imperfect history, but don't blame the present for the past, talk about how we can go forward, with as all as Americans. Own the patriotism, just a bit. Obama did, for sure. Sell the Hopium first, and have details when asked, but don't lead with it.
My Obama did ties into what I was talking about above with how Democrat voters behave. Obama sold himself as a statement. As an event. As a movement. As something you could tell other people you had been a part of years from now. Which taps into what alot of left-wing voters want from their candidate, which is a chance to make some sort of affirmation with their vote that says something about themselves.
So often a lack of enthusiasm and voting from left-wing demos is based on alot of statements about how it doesn't make them feel moral. That compromising for a candidate that's not perfect makes them dirty and they want no part of it. Obama managed to skip over this by going right for their desire to be part of something big and important.
Clinton tried the same shit with "First Women President". It just turns out that doesn't work and neither she nor even the Obamas can sell her as that enough to overcome sexism and deepseated issues born of decades of smear campaigns. And so you get a bunch more Stein voters because the alternative would be some sort of compromise with your own entitled self-image.
The election came about one month after "Black Tuesday 2: it's clearly the Republicans fault because they just said the economy was the strongest it had ever been and they were in charge and also Obama ran super hard against the continuation of Bush policies".
So saying "Obama ran on himself and that is why he won" kind of missiles the elephant in the rokm
Hillary's game plan was to repeatedly tell everybody how bad of a person Trump was and how they shouldn't vote for him. Her plans rarely entered the discussion (and yes, the media ignored her, that's what those millions in ad buys are for).
Obama didn't run on how bad of a person McCain (or Romney) was. Yes, he talked about how bad the Republicans were at governing and some occasional digs at his opponents, but he also talked policy and sold himself.
Even if I grant that; my point was that it doesn't matter. Attributing Obama winning to the style of his campaign compared to the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression, cause by the party in power whose policy position was more of the same with a side of "there is nothing wrong" while half the party in power literally wanted to watch everything burn down and almost got their wish while the entire electorate watched the end of their world coming on every news channel 24 hours a day and an immediate feedback effect with the market crashing again after the republican congress failed to pass the relief package on the first try is foolish.
Even if Obamas campaign style helped disambiguating that advantage from the Elephant's elephant in the room is impossible.
Nowhere did I state it was entirely due to his style of campaign, however I feel that it's foolish to ignore that he was able to sell himself as somebody who A) wanted to fix the problem and
But hey, if you want to try "Anybody But Bush 3, Trump Harder" in 2020 be my guest. It's been a winning strategy so far.
Maybe we will revisit when I have regained my ability to even.