Perez was on Maher a few days ago, and he basically said the things that I think about the election. Racism had a part to play, but it wasn't the only part. And we can't put up a table at the county fair once every 4 years and call that organizing.
The point with racism is that it underlies everything. Economic anxiety (that corresponds heavily to racial lines), support by religious voters (again, where there are clear racial delineations), et cetera. And that distorts the conversation - it's hard to get someone to sign on to policies that will help everyone across the board if they feel that what's causing their distress is other groups being given support.
It's really hard to overestimate the level of connections and pull Clinton had within the party. Booker is nowhere near that. If he runs, and can somehow get over the fact that he happily took money from a Trump, he's still just another dude in the race. Not the assumed candidate for a decade running.
Booker needn't be as connected as Hillary to be persona non grata with the left. He's an establishment dem with access to big donors and connections to Wall steer plus Republicans. It's not him who need to get over this when he's in a primary, all his bad deeds are going to come back to haunt him in the primary and the general if he makes it.
I'm really, honestly unable to parse this as a response to what you've quoted.
The thing is this - the Far Left don't have a Hillary problem, they gave an establishment/centrist problem. If Booker ran for president he'd have similar issues they had with Hillary and additional baggage. Upthread you even agreed it was a bad idea to get the Left on board if Booker was the nominee. This applies to any centrist running.
Obama was able to get around this by being antiestablishment.
The Far left are not easily going to coalesce with any centrist who wins the nomination, not at first anyway and the media and other parties are going to exploit this again in theg general.why wouldn't they?
edit: Thankfully we have a caveat where it is possible for centrists to win over a significant portion of the Far Left, as Hillary had shown. It's the radicalized assholes who are the problem, and who are going to cause trouble for any Dem candidates in the future even if they have the presidential election in the bag. If they did to Hillary, they're going to do this with Booker or whoever establishment candidate wins the nomination.
I disagree that this is a problem the far left has.
This is a problem the party has if we collectively insist on running someone like Cory Booker.
This isn't "our" call to make unless you want to enact some rule that prevents people from running if they've ever worked for wall street. Which, yeah, that's not going to survive a court challenge.
g, but I find that the only reason they didn't vote for her was because she failed to visit (which yeah she should have) is not exactly a shining example of that region being super loyal Democrats begin with. It have been a firewall for Obama* and maybe Biden and Bernie, but for establishment candidates it was a region who'd severe ties from the Democrats with the slightest excuse. That type of instability can't be healed for a centrist within a few months during an election IMO.
That's not why she lost- the region has been devastated by job loss and for better or for worse Trump was the "jobs" candidate this election. He was the one that hammered companies for sending jobs overseas and he was the one that promised they'd come back. Hillary offered to teach the laid-off factory workers how to code. Voting to screw over the rich assholes who laid you off isn't "instability", and if you want to win there in 2020 you have to appeal to that same populist chord.
Those jobs aren't coming back they went to robots
again and again you just keep coming back to "lie to middle America better" as a political platform
But CM doesn't believe that. Several people, including myself, have said so and he refuses to accept it. So when he advocates it, it's not a lie - he honestly believes (IMO) that's an achievable goal and something that we should be promising people - and then making it happen.
Commander Zoom on
+1
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
But CM doesn't believe that. Several people, including myself, have said so and he refuses to accept it. So when he advocates it, it's not a lie - he honestly believes (IMO) that's an achievable goal and something that we should be promising people - and then making it happen.
It is an achievable goal. Claiming that the jobs all went to robots is b.s.; haven't you seen all the thousands of corporate announcements about moving plants and call centers overseas? Throwing up your hands and going "welp let's teach 55-year old factory workers how to code" both condones the greed of corporations and forces more people to compete for the shrinking number of middle-class jobs we have left. Automation's a different story, and there's a national debate we need to have about corporate profits vs jobs, but to claim that every factory worker's job was filled by a robot is nonsense.
Carrier sure as hell isn't using robots down in Mexico.
I think Hillary's jobs plan was unrealistic and far too establishment friendly. "Let them code" was asinine when they're outsourcing coders, and both Bernie and Trump reeled in the votes by going after the corporations instead of the workers.
edit- if you want to win the next election you need to harp on this thread and steal Trump's thunder away from him. If you don't learn any lessons from the defeat of the best-qualified candidate in modern times to a reality TV businessman and keep on with the identity politics and hoping that minorities outbreed white people, well, you're going to lose again. They're people too and they worry about economic issues as much as anyone else and a sizable chunk of them voted Trump. If your message still is "let them code" in four years while everyone's scraping by with McJobs and crap-ass part time work you'll lose, plain and simple.
g, but I find that the only reason they didn't vote for her was because she failed to visit (which yeah she should have) is not exactly a shining example of that region being super loyal Democrats begin with. It have been a firewall for Obama* and maybe Biden and Bernie, but for establishment candidates it was a region who'd severe ties from the Democrats with the slightest excuse. That type of instability can't be healed for a centrist within a few months during an election IMO.
That's not why she lost- the region has been devastated by job loss and for better or for worse Trump was the "jobs" candidate this election. He was the one that hammered companies for sending jobs overseas and he was the one that promised they'd come back. Hillary offered to teach the laid-off factory workers how to code. Voting to screw over the rich assholes who laid you off isn't "instability", and if you want to win there in 2020 you have to appeal to that same populist chord.
Those jobs aren't coming back they went to robots
again and again you just keep coming back to "lie to middle America better" as a political platform
It worked a treat for Trump.
Hard Truth: These people cannot be counted on to make rational decisions. Simply presenting solutions to problems is not enough to win them over. Hell sometimes that actually turns them off. Current theory is that she lost firewall stats just because she didn't physically show up there. That's ridiculous to me, an intellectual, but it matters to them. Disclaimer: IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE RURAL. I AM NOT LOOKING DOWN ON RURAL/MIDWESTERN VOTERS AS LESSER PEOPLE. There are many causes for this, such as a shitty media and worthless educational system, that are factors beyond their control. Not gonna go into the weeds about that right now, though. My point is that to win this demographic, you gotta be prepared to lie to them. That's not a bad thing.
Now, exactly where and how hard you should go after this demographic is a different debate. In 4 years it may be worthwhile to butter up the "firewall states", maybe not. We'll see.
g, but I find that the only reason they didn't vote for her was because she failed to visit (which yeah she should have) is not exactly a shining example of that region being super loyal Democrats begin with. It have been a firewall for Obama* and maybe Biden and Bernie, but for establishment candidates it was a region who'd severe ties from the Democrats with the slightest excuse. That type of instability can't be healed for a centrist within a few months during an election IMO.
That's not why she lost- the region has been devastated by job loss and for better or for worse Trump was the "jobs" candidate this election. He was the one that hammered companies for sending jobs overseas and he was the one that promised they'd come back. Hillary offered to teach the laid-off factory workers how to code. Voting to screw over the rich assholes who laid you off isn't "instability", and if you want to win there in 2020 you have to appeal to that same populist chord.
Those jobs aren't coming back they went to robots
again and again you just keep coming back to "lie to middle America better" as a political platform
But CM doesn't believe that. Several people, including myself, have said so and he refuses to accept it. So when he advocates it, it's not a lie - he honestly believes (IMO) that's an achievable goal and something that we should be promising people - and then making it happen.
My position is that it is not an achievable goal, we should promise it, not make it happen, then spin it. If we get Dems in power and start to meaningfully make rural voter's lives better, even if it's not the way they wanted, it will be easier to not-lie to them next time.
Perez was on Maher a few days ago, and he basically said the things that I think about the election. Racism had a part to play, but it wasn't the only part. And we can't put up a table at the county fair once every 4 years and call that organizing.
The point with racism is that it underlies everything. Economic anxiety (that corresponds heavily to racial lines), support by religious voters (again, where there are clear racial delineations), et cetera. And that distorts the conversation - it's hard to get someone to sign on to policies that will help everyone across the board if they feel that what's causing their distress is other groups being given support.
This is one of the hardest lessons for older folks and my suburban friends to understand, the refrain is always "but what about those economically vulnerable midwesterners? Why don't democrats care about them!?" Which is such a loaded and unfair question, because obviously we do. But there's nothing super special about the blue collar southerner or midwesterner that makes them more important than the blue collar folks in cities and coasts, either. Folks in cities are suffering too, and opportunity is shrinking for many, especially those without college degrees.
One of things I've tried to explain to my parents is that - especially in the rural areas - part of their economic anxiety is directly tied to their racial anxiety. In other words, it is not their economic anxiety that leads to their attachment of racial identity politics, it's racial identity politics that leads them to being economically vulnerable. Because all of the innovation and creation of wealth is coming from cities. Why is that? I think it's a couple of reasons:
Cities have better infrastructure, especially when it comes to fiber.
The talent pool is greater is cities, with access to more qualified and higher educated individuals who can drive that innovation.
Better access to markets and more capital investment.
What advantages do rural areas have? Cheaper labor and building/land costs. But those advantages pale in comparison to the advantages of cities. And it's a self reinforcing loop. Young, educated people migrate to cities where the jobs are, which means the people most like to embrace new ideas and greater tolerance to changing demographics naturally select themselves to be removed from areas that are strongly influenced by racial identity. (not that age or education are insulation from racial identity - hardly - just the likelihood of them being more tolerant is higher).
The only way to fight this through is through collective action, actual investment into suburban and rural areas to increase their infrastructure and education programs to make them more attractive to private enterprise. But that involves Government action, which those areas loathe not because it will benefit them, but it will benefit minorities as well and they can't stand that.
g, but I find that the only reason they didn't vote for her was because she failed to visit (which yeah she should have) is not exactly a shining example of that region being super loyal Democrats begin with. It have been a firewall for Obama* and maybe Biden and Bernie, but for establishment candidates it was a region who'd severe ties from the Democrats with the slightest excuse. That type of instability can't be healed for a centrist within a few months during an election IMO.
That's not why she lost- the region has been devastated by job loss and for better or for worse Trump was the "jobs" candidate this election. He was the one that hammered companies for sending jobs overseas and he was the one that promised they'd come back. Hillary offered to teach the laid-off factory workers how to code. Voting to screw over the rich assholes who laid you off isn't "instability", and if you want to win there in 2020 you have to appeal to that same populist chord.
Those jobs aren't coming back they went to robots
again and again you just keep coming back to "lie to middle America better" as a political platform
It worked a treat for Trump.
Hard Truth: These people cannot be counted on to make rational decisions. Simply presenting solutions to problems is not enough to win them over. Hell sometimes that actually turns them off. Current theory is that she lost firewall stats just because she didn't physically show up there. That's ridiculous to me, an intellectual, but it matters to them. Disclaimer: IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE RURAL. I AM NOT LOOKING DOWN ON RURAL/MIDWESTERN VOTERS AS LESSER PEOPLE. There are many causes for this, such as a shitty media and worthless educational system, that are factors beyond their control. Not gonna go into the weeds about that right now, though. My point is that to win this demographic, you gotta be prepared to lie to them. That's not a bad thing.
Now, exactly where and how hard you should go after this demographic is a different debate. In 4 years it may be worthwhile to butter up the "firewall states", maybe not. We'll see.
A thought: perhaps you can just say on twitter that ,"It was great meeting with the fine folks of 'x county/state' and I look forward to their vote." But not having actually visited the place in actuality. Get enough people to believe that you visited with them and their neighbors without the expense of actually having to do it.
g, but I find that the only reason they didn't vote for her was because she failed to visit (which yeah she should have) is not exactly a shining example of that region being super loyal Democrats begin with. It have been a firewall for Obama* and maybe Biden and Bernie, but for establishment candidates it was a region who'd severe ties from the Democrats with the slightest excuse. That type of instability can't be healed for a centrist within a few months during an election IMO.
That's not why she lost- the region has been devastated by job loss and for better or for worse Trump was the "jobs" candidate this election. He was the one that hammered companies for sending jobs overseas and he was the one that promised they'd come back. Hillary offered to teach the laid-off factory workers how to code. Voting to screw over the rich assholes who laid you off isn't "instability", and if you want to win there in 2020 you have to appeal to that same populist chord.
Those jobs aren't coming back they went to robots
again and again you just keep coming back to "lie to middle America better" as a political platform
But CM doesn't believe that. Several people, including myself, have said so and he refuses to accept it. So when he advocates it, it's not a lie - he honestly believes (IMO) that's an achievable goal and something that we should be promising people - and then making it happen.
My position is that it is not an achievable goal, we should promise it, not make it happen, then spin it. If we get Dems in power and start to meaningfully make rural voter's lives better, even if it's not the way they wanted, it will be easier to not-lie to them next time.
Except that they won't give you credit for improving their lives. The Atlantic had a piece on this:
But despite the decisions that the Obama administration made that might have helped Elkhart, many people here have a strong dislike of Obama, who presided over an economic recovery in which the unemployment rate fell nationally to 4.6 percent from a high of 10 percent in October 2009. They say it’s not Obama who is responsible for the city or the country’s economic progress, and furthermore, that the economy won’t truly start to improve until President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
“He didn’t help us here, but he took credit for what happened,” Chris Corbin, 47, who works for a dispatch company in Elkhart, told me. Corbin thinks it will be Trump who improves the economy. “It’s going to take two terms, but he’ll fix things,” he said.
Elkhart is a case study in how Democrats lost the 2016 elections despite the economic resurgence the country experienced under Obama. It shows how, in an increasingly polarized country, an improving economy is not enough to get Republicans to vote for Democrats, in part because they don’t give Democrats any credit for fixing the economy. Gallup, for instance, found that while just 16 percent of Republicans said they thought the economy was getting better in the week leading up to the election, 49 percent said they thought it was getting better in the week after the election. And in a Pew poll in 2015, one in three Republicans said the economy wasn’t recovering at all, while just 7 percent of Democrats said that. This bias is true for Democrats, too, of course. Before the election, according to the Gallup poll, 35 percent thought the economy was getting worse, while after the election, 47 percent of Democrats thought that.
Fuck em. You up the urban area turnout a few points you don't need nearly as many of these voters as you think
Ellison is right the Dems need to focus on getting new voters into the fold.
YES! Strength in numbers. We're more numerous then them, therefore we're sure to win. I mean, the only way this could go wrong is if Republicans resort to gerrymandering, voter suppression, disenfranchisement, spreading disinformation about voter rights and the election, voter fraud, and outright removing the voter rights act. And they respect democracy and the will of the people too much to ever try anything like that!
Fuck em. You up the urban area turnout a few points you don't need nearly as many of these voters as you think
Ellison is right the Dems need to focus on getting new voters into the fold.
YES! Strength in numbers. We're more numerous then them, therefore we're sure to win. I mean, the only way this could go wrong is if Republicans resort to gerrymandering, voter suppression, disenfranchisement, spreading disinformation about voter rights and the election, voter fraud, and outright removing the voter rights act. And they respect democracy and the will of the people too much to ever try anything like that!
Well we're fucked that way regardless
Yup, you're starting to catch on.
I've been saying this on the forum for a year, since people started acting like a permanent Democratic majority and the demise of the Republican party were inevitability because demographics were changing. The only demographic that matters is the one that can vote, and while Democrats have been content to sit back and watch their numbers grow, Republicans have been hard at work insuring that the growing Democratic demographics were denied the right to vote and the voting demographics were loyal Republican.
Increasing your numbers is not a winning strategy. Increasing your numbers more is not going to fix it. Increasing your numbers even more after that won't be a silver bullet.
+1
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
Fuck em. You up the urban area turnout a few points you don't need nearly as many of these voters as you think
We can stop pretending we're good allies anytime now if that's the strategy, because we gambled on that strategy this time, against the worst candidate the GOP has ever seen, and we have Trump to show for it. That's not good stewardship of Dem political power.
The problem is only going to get worse as Dem voters continue to self-segregate in blue enclaves.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
g, but I find that the only reason they didn't vote for her was because she failed to visit (which yeah she should have) is not exactly a shining example of that region being super loyal Democrats begin with. It have been a firewall for Obama* and maybe Biden and Bernie, but for establishment candidates it was a region who'd severe ties from the Democrats with the slightest excuse. That type of instability can't be healed for a centrist within a few months during an election IMO.
That's not why she lost- the region has been devastated by job loss and for better or for worse Trump was the "jobs" candidate this election. He was the one that hammered companies for sending jobs overseas and he was the one that promised they'd come back. Hillary offered to teach the laid-off factory workers how to code. Voting to screw over the rich assholes who laid you off isn't "instability", and if you want to win there in 2020 you have to appeal to that same populist chord.
Those jobs aren't coming back they went to robots
again and again you just keep coming back to "lie to middle America better" as a political platform
It worked a treat for Trump.
Hard Truth: These people cannot be counted on to make rational decisions. Simply presenting solutions to problems is not enough to win them over. Hell sometimes that actually turns them off. Current theory is that she lost firewall stats just because she didn't physically show up there. That's ridiculous to me, an intellectual, but it matters to them. Disclaimer: IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE RURAL. I AM NOT LOOKING DOWN ON RURAL/MIDWESTERN VOTERS AS LESSER PEOPLE. There are many causes for this, such as a shitty media and worthless educational system, that are factors beyond their control. Not gonna go into the weeds about that right now, though. My point is that to win this demographic, you gotta be prepared to lie to them. That's not a bad thing.
Now, exactly where and how hard you should go after this demographic is a different debate. In 4 years it may be worthwhile to butter up the "firewall states", maybe not. We'll see.
You can't appeal to them because their economic interests are grounded in racism. What can you promise them that the GOP can't also promise them, except with an extra spicy layer of white identity politics?
You want an example, look right above you in the thread:
But CM doesn't believe that. Several people, including myself, have said so and he refuses to accept it. So when he advocates it, it's not a lie - he honestly believes (IMO) that's an achievable goal and something that we should be promising people - and then making it happen.
It is an achievable goal. Claiming that the jobs all went to robots is b.s.; haven't you seen all the thousands of corporate announcements about moving plants and call centers overseas? Throwing up your hands and going "welp let's teach 55-year old factory workers how to code" both condones the greed of corporations and forces more people to compete for the shrinking number of middle-class jobs we have left. Automation's a different story, and there's a national debate we need to have about corporate profits vs jobs, but to claim that every factory worker's job was filled by a robot is nonsense.
Carrier sure as hell isn't using robots down in Mexico.
I think Hillary's jobs plan was unrealistic and far too establishment friendly. "Let them code" was asinine when they're outsourcing coders, and both Bernie and Trump reeled in the votes by going after the corporations instead of the workers.
edit- if you want to win the next election you need to harp on this thread and steal Trump's thunder away from him. If you don't learn any lessons from the defeat of the best-qualified candidate in modern times to a reality TV businessman and keep on with the identity politics and hoping that minorities outbreed white people, well, you're going to lose again. They're people too and they worry about economic issues as much as anyone else and a sizable chunk of them voted Trump. If your message still is "let them code" in four years while everyone's scraping by with McJobs and crap-ass part time work you'll lose, plain and simple.
This is the issues you are dealing with. A fundamental belief in white identity politics immune to facts. It's about "immigrants taking our jobs" and it's the Democrats fault for just trying to help non-whites too much.
But CM doesn't believe that. Several people, including myself, have said so and he refuses to accept it. So when he advocates it, it's not a lie - he honestly believes (IMO) that's an achievable goal and something that we should be promising people - and then making it happen.
It is an achievable goal. Claiming that the jobs all went to robots is b.s.; haven't you seen all the thousands of corporate announcements about moving plants and call centers overseas? Throwing up your hands and going "welp let's teach 55-year old factory workers how to code" both condones the greed of corporations and forces more people to compete for the shrinking number of middle-class jobs we have left. Automation's a different story, and there's a national debate we need to have about corporate profits vs jobs, but to claim that every factory worker's job was filled by a robot is nonsense.
Carrier sure as hell isn't using robots down in Mexico.
I think Hillary's jobs plan was unrealistic and far too establishment friendly. "Let them code" was asinine when they're outsourcing coders, and both Bernie and Trump reeled in the votes by going after the corporations instead of the workers.
edit- if you want to win the next election you need to harp on this thread and steal Trump's thunder away from him. If you don't learn any lessons from the defeat of the best-qualified candidate in modern times to a reality TV businessman and keep on with the identity politics and hoping that minorities outbreed white people, well, you're going to lose again. They're people too and they worry about economic issues as much as anyone else and a sizable chunk of them voted Trump. If your message still is "let them code" in four years while everyone's scraping by with McJobs and crap-ass part time work you'll lose, plain and simple.
No, because then enough of them will blame Trump for their lot in life that it won't matter.
In 8 years "let them code" will be a problematic answer, but for now the ball's in Trump's court to produce real change or face the consequences.
One of the cuts that helped bleed Clinton dry was her capitulating to the far left and taking on Sanders' positions. All that did was make her look like a phony to not just the far left people who wouldn't ever vote for her anyway, but to the people more to the center who watched her give concessions to the loser like a weakling.
No, Clinton refused to campaign because she thought that Republican decency would deliver her a landslide victory.
Clinton thought that the people the Democratic Party fucked over/betrayed in '10 and '14 were going to turn out in Obama numbers, refused to prove her leftist bona-fides by making an appearance in key states, and refused to campaign because she refused to take data from key states state party apparatuses when they were calling her in desperation and saying that they were fucking dying.
g, but I find that the only reason they didn't vote for her was because she failed to visit (which yeah she should have) is not exactly a shining example of that region being super loyal Democrats begin with. It have been a firewall for Obama* and maybe Biden and Bernie, but for establishment candidates it was a region who'd severe ties from the Democrats with the slightest excuse. That type of instability can't be healed for a centrist within a few months during an election IMO.
That's not why she lost- the region has been devastated by job loss and for better or for worse Trump was the "jobs" candidate this election. He was the one that hammered companies for sending jobs overseas and he was the one that promised they'd come back. Hillary offered to teach the laid-off factory workers how to code. Voting to screw over the rich assholes who laid you off isn't "instability", and if you want to win there in 2020 you have to appeal to that same populist chord.
Those jobs aren't coming back they went to robots
again and again you just keep coming back to "lie to middle America better" as a political platform
It worked a treat for Trump.
Hard Truth: These people cannot be counted on to make rational decisions. Simply presenting solutions to problems is not enough to win them over. Hell sometimes that actually turns them off. Current theory is that she lost firewall stats just because she didn't physically show up there. That's ridiculous to me, an intellectual, but it matters to them. Disclaimer: IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE RURAL. I AM NOT LOOKING DOWN ON RURAL/MIDWESTERN VOTERS AS LESSER PEOPLE. There are many causes for this, such as a shitty media and worthless educational system, that are factors beyond their control. Not gonna go into the weeds about that right now, though. My point is that to win this demographic, you gotta be prepared to lie to them. That's not a bad thing.
Now, exactly where and how hard you should go after this demographic is a different debate. In 4 years it may be worthwhile to butter up the "firewall states", maybe not. We'll see.
You can't appeal to them because their economic interests are grounded in racism. What can you promise them that the GOP can't also promise them, except with an extra spicy layer of white identity politics?
You want an example, look right above you in the thread:
But CM doesn't believe that. Several people, including myself, have said so and he refuses to accept it. So when he advocates it, it's not a lie - he honestly believes (IMO) that's an achievable goal and something that we should be promising people - and then making it happen.
It is an achievable goal. Claiming that the jobs all went to robots is b.s.; haven't you seen all the thousands of corporate announcements about moving plants and call centers overseas? Throwing up your hands and going "welp let's teach 55-year old factory workers how to code" both condones the greed of corporations and forces more people to compete for the shrinking number of middle-class jobs we have left. Automation's a different story, and there's a national debate we need to have about corporate profits vs jobs, but to claim that every factory worker's job was filled by a robot is nonsense.
Carrier sure as hell isn't using robots down in Mexico.
I think Hillary's jobs plan was unrealistic and far too establishment friendly. "Let them code" was asinine when they're outsourcing coders, and both Bernie and Trump reeled in the votes by going after the corporations instead of the workers.
edit- if you want to win the next election you need to harp on this thread and steal Trump's thunder away from him. If you don't learn any lessons from the defeat of the best-qualified candidate in modern times to a reality TV businessman and keep on with the identity politics and hoping that minorities outbreed white people, well, you're going to lose again. They're people too and they worry about economic issues as much as anyone else and a sizable chunk of them voted Trump. If your message still is "let them code" in four years while everyone's scraping by with McJobs and crap-ass part time work you'll lose, plain and simple.
This is the issues you are dealing with. A fundamental belief in white identity politics immune to facts. It's about "immigrants taking our jobs" and it's the Democrats fault for just trying to help non-whites too much.
Easy. You promise them anything they want to hear. Lie through your teeth, appeal to their basest instincts, and it doesn't matter how unrealistic or contradictory or physically impossible your promises are. If they want you to put rocket boosters on the moon and fire it at their brown next-door neighbour without hitting their house, you promise you have the best rockets with the biggest boost like seriously it's yuge.
Once you're in power you can actually work on implementing policies that will benefit the USA against their will. But until you get in power you shut the fuck up about policy. People don't vote for policy, the media don't report on policy, pundits don't analyze policy, and debates don't ask questions on policy. No one cares about policy, and Clinton's policy-rich failure against Trump's policy vacuum has made abundantly clear. So start pandering to their base instincts already.
We lost, people didn't care enough. Tens of millions of BernieBros, Greens, Republicans, and non-voters fucked us.
I love how the Clinton camp continues to pretend that people who voted Bernie in the primaries didn't vote for Hillary.
Continue going into your Republican-esque post-reality bubble, liberal, because guess what? There are so many Democrats regretting their Hillary vote right now. Just keep fucking that chicken.
+6
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
This is the issues you are dealing with. A fundamental belief in white identity politics immune to facts. It's about "immigrants taking our jobs" and it's the Democrats fault for just trying to help non-whites too much.
White identity politics? What? You know what, I'm not going to get sucked into this, just know that my first and foremost priority in politics is capital-L Labor. Mostly that means the working class and people without a college degree, because mainstream politicians on both sides sure as hell don't care about them.
Easy. You promise them anything they want to hear. Lie through your teeth, appeal to their basest instincts, and it doesn't matter how unrealistic or contradictory or physically impossible your promises are. If they want you to put rocket boosters on the moon and fire it at their brown next-door neighbour without hitting their house, you promise you have the best rockets with the biggest boost like seriously it's yuge.
Once you're in power you can actually work on implementing policies that will benefit the USA against their will.
Canada might be different but if you lie to voters "read my lips"-style here you'll get crushed in the next election. And the opposition will have a callback they can hit your party with forever.
We lost, people didn't care enough. Tens of millions of BernieBros, Greens, Republicans, and non-voters fucked us.
I love how the Clinton camp continues to pretend that people who voted Bernie in the primaries didn't vote for Hillary.
Continue going into your Republican-esque post-reality bubble, liberal, because guess what? There are so many Democrats regretting their Hillary vote right now. Just keep fucking that chicken.
Oh, a majority of them ended up voting Clinton. But dragging out the primary process for too long made the party look divided and disorganized, then by spending the campaign constantly bringing back the "she stole the nomination from Bernie" bullshit to the forefront they made Clinton look like an illegitimate establishment-imposed candidate and played right into Trump's anti-establishment narrative. Not to mention that, even though Clinton took over most of Bernie's platform, they kept hammering on how Clinton was too far right and a Republican in disguise, and nullified her strongest point against Trump - her strong, comprehensive, left-wing platform.
So yeah, BernieBros voted Clinton, but winning them over was Hillary's Pyrrhic victory.
No, Richy, she refused to campaign. When the party sent assets to states that needed them she pulled them back so she could focus on winning Republicans over.
g, but I find that the only reason they didn't vote for her was because she failed to visit (which yeah she should have) is not exactly a shining example of that region being super loyal Democrats begin with. It have been a firewall for Obama* and maybe Biden and Bernie, but for establishment candidates it was a region who'd severe ties from the Democrats with the slightest excuse. That type of instability can't be healed for a centrist within a few months during an election IMO.
That's not why she lost- the region has been devastated by job loss and for better or for worse Trump was the "jobs" candidate this election. He was the one that hammered companies for sending jobs overseas and he was the one that promised they'd come back. Hillary offered to teach the laid-off factory workers how to code. Voting to screw over the rich assholes who laid you off isn't "instability", and if you want to win there in 2020 you have to appeal to that same populist chord.
Those jobs aren't coming back they went to robots
again and again you just keep coming back to "lie to middle America better" as a political platform
It worked a treat for Trump.
Hard Truth: These people cannot be counted on to make rational decisions. Simply presenting solutions to problems is not enough to win them over. Hell sometimes that actually turns them off. Current theory is that she lost firewall stats just because she didn't physically show up there. That's ridiculous to me, an intellectual, but it matters to them. Disclaimer: IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE RURAL. I AM NOT LOOKING DOWN ON RURAL/MIDWESTERN VOTERS AS LESSER PEOPLE. There are many causes for this, such as a shitty media and worthless educational system, that are factors beyond their control. Not gonna go into the weeds about that right now, though. My point is that to win this demographic, you gotta be prepared to lie to them. That's not a bad thing.
Now, exactly where and how hard you should go after this demographic is a different debate. In 4 years it may be worthwhile to butter up the "firewall states", maybe not. We'll see.
You can't appeal to them because their economic interests are grounded in racism. What can you promise them that the GOP can't also promise them, except with an extra spicy layer of white identity politics?
You want an example, look right above you in the thread:
But CM doesn't believe that. Several people, including myself, have said so and he refuses to accept it. So when he advocates it, it's not a lie - he honestly believes (IMO) that's an achievable goal and something that we should be promising people - and then making it happen.
It is an achievable goal. Claiming that the jobs all went to robots is b.s.; haven't you seen all the thousands of corporate announcements about moving plants and call centers overseas? Throwing up your hands and going "welp let's teach 55-year old factory workers how to code" both condones the greed of corporations and forces more people to compete for the shrinking number of middle-class jobs we have left. Automation's a different story, and there's a national debate we need to have about corporate profits vs jobs, but to claim that every factory worker's job was filled by a robot is nonsense.
Carrier sure as hell isn't using robots down in Mexico.
I think Hillary's jobs plan was unrealistic and far too establishment friendly. "Let them code" was asinine when they're outsourcing coders, and both Bernie and Trump reeled in the votes by going after the corporations instead of the workers.
edit- if you want to win the next election you need to harp on this thread and steal Trump's thunder away from him. If you don't learn any lessons from the defeat of the best-qualified candidate in modern times to a reality TV businessman and keep on with the identity politics and hoping that minorities outbreed white people, well, you're going to lose again. They're people too and they worry about economic issues as much as anyone else and a sizable chunk of them voted Trump. If your message still is "let them code" in four years while everyone's scraping by with McJobs and crap-ass part time work you'll lose, plain and simple.
This is the issues you are dealing with. A fundamental belief in white identity politics immune to facts. It's about "immigrants taking our jobs" and it's the Democrats fault for just trying to help non-whites too much.
Easy. You promise them anything they want to hear. Lie through your teeth, appeal to their basest instincts, and it doesn't matter how unrealistic or contradictory or physically impossible your promises are. If they want you to put rocket boosters on the moon and fire it at their brown next-door neighbour without hitting their house, you promise you have the best rockets with the biggest boost like seriously it's yuge.
Once you're in power you can actually work on implementing policies that will benefit the USA against their will. But until you get in power you shut the fuck up about policy. People don't vote for policy, the media don't report on policy, pundits don't analyze policy, and debates don't ask questions on policy. No one cares about policy, and Clinton's policy-rich failure against Trump's policy vacuum has made abundantly clear. So start pandering to their base instincts already.
You didn't actually read what I said. You can't promise them what they want to hear. Because what they want to hear is "Fuck non-white people". And the Democrats can't do that without both betraying one of the core purposes of the party at this point and without losing all the support that makes them viable. You can't say that is your policy, nor can you implement it.
And as already demonstrated, you can't just improve their lives because that won't win you elections. They want to be pandered too. And what they want most of all with that pandering is confirmation of white identity politics.
g, but I find that the only reason they didn't vote for her was because she failed to visit (which yeah she should have) is not exactly a shining example of that region being super loyal Democrats begin with. It have been a firewall for Obama* and maybe Biden and Bernie, but for establishment candidates it was a region who'd severe ties from the Democrats with the slightest excuse. That type of instability can't be healed for a centrist within a few months during an election IMO.
That's not why she lost- the region has been devastated by job loss and for better or for worse Trump was the "jobs" candidate this election. He was the one that hammered companies for sending jobs overseas and he was the one that promised they'd come back. Hillary offered to teach the laid-off factory workers how to code. Voting to screw over the rich assholes who laid you off isn't "instability", and if you want to win there in 2020 you have to appeal to that same populist chord.
Those jobs aren't coming back they went to robots
again and again you just keep coming back to "lie to middle America better" as a political platform
It worked a treat for Trump.
Hard Truth: These people cannot be counted on to make rational decisions. Simply presenting solutions to problems is not enough to win them over. Hell sometimes that actually turns them off. Current theory is that she lost firewall stats just because she didn't physically show up there. That's ridiculous to me, an intellectual, but it matters to them. Disclaimer: IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE RURAL. I AM NOT LOOKING DOWN ON RURAL/MIDWESTERN VOTERS AS LESSER PEOPLE. There are many causes for this, such as a shitty media and worthless educational system, that are factors beyond their control. Not gonna go into the weeds about that right now, though. My point is that to win this demographic, you gotta be prepared to lie to them. That's not a bad thing.
Now, exactly where and how hard you should go after this demographic is a different debate. In 4 years it may be worthwhile to butter up the "firewall states", maybe not. We'll see.
You can't appeal to them because their economic interests are grounded in racism. What can you promise them that the GOP can't also promise them, except with an extra spicy layer of white identity politics?
You want an example, look right above you in the thread:
But CM doesn't believe that. Several people, including myself, have said so and he refuses to accept it. So when he advocates it, it's not a lie - he honestly believes (IMO) that's an achievable goal and something that we should be promising people - and then making it happen.
It is an achievable goal. Claiming that the jobs all went to robots is b.s.; haven't you seen all the thousands of corporate announcements about moving plants and call centers overseas? Throwing up your hands and going "welp let's teach 55-year old factory workers how to code" both condones the greed of corporations and forces more people to compete for the shrinking number of middle-class jobs we have left. Automation's a different story, and there's a national debate we need to have about corporate profits vs jobs, but to claim that every factory worker's job was filled by a robot is nonsense.
Carrier sure as hell isn't using robots down in Mexico.
I think Hillary's jobs plan was unrealistic and far too establishment friendly. "Let them code" was asinine when they're outsourcing coders, and both Bernie and Trump reeled in the votes by going after the corporations instead of the workers.
edit- if you want to win the next election you need to harp on this thread and steal Trump's thunder away from him. If you don't learn any lessons from the defeat of the best-qualified candidate in modern times to a reality TV businessman and keep on with the identity politics and hoping that minorities outbreed white people, well, you're going to lose again. They're people too and they worry about economic issues as much as anyone else and a sizable chunk of them voted Trump. If your message still is "let them code" in four years while everyone's scraping by with McJobs and crap-ass part time work you'll lose, plain and simple.
This is the issues you are dealing with. A fundamental belief in white identity politics immune to facts. It's about "immigrants taking our jobs" and it's the Democrats fault for just trying to help non-whites too much.
Easy. You promise them anything they want to hear. Lie through your teeth, appeal to their basest instincts, and it doesn't matter how unrealistic or contradictory or physically impossible your promises are. If they want you to put rocket boosters on the moon and fire it at their brown next-door neighbour without hitting their house, you promise you have the best rockets with the biggest boost like seriously it's yuge.
Once you're in power you can actually work on implementing policies that will benefit the USA against their will. But until you get in power you shut the fuck up about policy. People don't vote for policy, the media don't report on policy, pundits don't analyze policy, and debates don't ask questions on policy. No one cares about policy, and Clinton's policy-rich failure against Trump's policy vacuum has made abundantly clear. So start pandering to their base instincts already.
You didn't actually read what I said. You can't promise them what they want to hear. Because what they want to hear is "Fuck non-white people". And the Democrats can't do that without both betraying one of the core purposes of the party at this point and without losing all the support that makes them viable. You can't say that is your policy, nor can you implement it.
And as already demonstrated, you can't just improve their lives because that won't win you elections. They want to be pandered too. And what they want most of all with that pandering is confirmation of white identity politics.
So all you can really do is make it as easy as possible for the people who WILL support you to vote.
Register them, year-round. Arrange transportation to the polls. Use every referendum system and government legislative power available to push for vote by mail.
Easy. You promise them anything they want to hear. Lie through your teeth, appeal to their basest instincts, and it doesn't matter how unrealistic or contradictory or physically impossible your promises are. If they want you to put rocket boosters on the moon and fire it at their brown next-door neighbour without hitting their house, you promise you have the best rockets with the biggest boost like seriously it's yuge.
Once you're in power you can actually work on implementing policies that will benefit the USA against their will.
Canada might be different but if you lie to voters "read my lips"-style here you'll get crushed in the next election. And the opposition will have a callback they can hit your party with forever.
Funny you should bring up "read my lips" as an example since (1) his son with the exact same name won two mandates 8 years later, and (2) his party now controls the entirety of government. So saying this will hit back "forever" is kind of overstating it a bit, eh?
More recently, Trump was caught in multiple lies during the campaign, sometimes with contradicting statements he made on the same day, and he didn't get crushed at all, he won the election handily.
We lost, people didn't care enough. Tens of millions of BernieBros, Greens, Republicans, and non-voters fucked us.
I love how the Clinton camp continues to pretend that people who voted Bernie in the primaries didn't vote for Hillary.
Or that this kind of 'blame the voters' post-election analysis makes any sense. It's like blaming the customer because you didn't make a sale. Who does that help? Sure, the people who switched from Bernie to Trump or stayed home are morons who probably never understood what Bernie was all about in the first place. Still want their votes.
g, but I find that the only reason they didn't vote for her was because she failed to visit (which yeah she should have) is not exactly a shining example of that region being super loyal Democrats begin with. It have been a firewall for Obama* and maybe Biden and Bernie, but for establishment candidates it was a region who'd severe ties from the Democrats with the slightest excuse. That type of instability can't be healed for a centrist within a few months during an election IMO.
That's not why she lost- the region has been devastated by job loss and for better or for worse Trump was the "jobs" candidate this election. He was the one that hammered companies for sending jobs overseas and he was the one that promised they'd come back. Hillary offered to teach the laid-off factory workers how to code. Voting to screw over the rich assholes who laid you off isn't "instability", and if you want to win there in 2020 you have to appeal to that same populist chord.
Those jobs aren't coming back they went to robots
again and again you just keep coming back to "lie to middle America better" as a political platform
It worked a treat for Trump.
Hard Truth: These people cannot be counted on to make rational decisions. Simply presenting solutions to problems is not enough to win them over. Hell sometimes that actually turns them off. Current theory is that she lost firewall stats just because she didn't physically show up there. That's ridiculous to me, an intellectual, but it matters to them. Disclaimer: IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE RURAL. I AM NOT LOOKING DOWN ON RURAL/MIDWESTERN VOTERS AS LESSER PEOPLE. There are many causes for this, such as a shitty media and worthless educational system, that are factors beyond their control. Not gonna go into the weeds about that right now, though. My point is that to win this demographic, you gotta be prepared to lie to them. That's not a bad thing.
Now, exactly where and how hard you should go after this demographic is a different debate. In 4 years it may be worthwhile to butter up the "firewall states", maybe not. We'll see.
You can't appeal to them because their economic interests are grounded in racism. What can you promise them that the GOP can't also promise them, except with an extra spicy layer of white identity politics?
You want an example, look right above you in the thread:
But CM doesn't believe that. Several people, including myself, have said so and he refuses to accept it. So when he advocates it, it's not a lie - he honestly believes (IMO) that's an achievable goal and something that we should be promising people - and then making it happen.
It is an achievable goal. Claiming that the jobs all went to robots is b.s.; haven't you seen all the thousands of corporate announcements about moving plants and call centers overseas? Throwing up your hands and going "welp let's teach 55-year old factory workers how to code" both condones the greed of corporations and forces more people to compete for the shrinking number of middle-class jobs we have left. Automation's a different story, and there's a national debate we need to have about corporate profits vs jobs, but to claim that every factory worker's job was filled by a robot is nonsense.
Carrier sure as hell isn't using robots down in Mexico.
I think Hillary's jobs plan was unrealistic and far too establishment friendly. "Let them code" was asinine when they're outsourcing coders, and both Bernie and Trump reeled in the votes by going after the corporations instead of the workers.
edit- if you want to win the next election you need to harp on this thread and steal Trump's thunder away from him. If you don't learn any lessons from the defeat of the best-qualified candidate in modern times to a reality TV businessman and keep on with the identity politics and hoping that minorities outbreed white people, well, you're going to lose again. They're people too and they worry about economic issues as much as anyone else and a sizable chunk of them voted Trump. If your message still is "let them code" in four years while everyone's scraping by with McJobs and crap-ass part time work you'll lose, plain and simple.
This is the issues you are dealing with. A fundamental belief in white identity politics immune to facts. It's about "immigrants taking our jobs" and it's the Democrats fault for just trying to help non-whites too much.
Easy. You promise them anything they want to hear. Lie through your teeth, appeal to their basest instincts, and it doesn't matter how unrealistic or contradictory or physically impossible your promises are. If they want you to put rocket boosters on the moon and fire it at their brown next-door neighbour without hitting their house, you promise you have the best rockets with the biggest boost like seriously it's yuge.
Once you're in power you can actually work on implementing policies that will benefit the USA against their will. But until you get in power you shut the fuck up about policy. People don't vote for policy, the media don't report on policy, pundits don't analyze policy, and debates don't ask questions on policy. No one cares about policy, and Clinton's policy-rich failure against Trump's policy vacuum has made abundantly clear. So start pandering to their base instincts already.
You didn't actually read what I said. You can't promise them what they want to hear. Because what they want to hear is "Fuck non-white people". And the Democrats can't do that without both betraying one of the core purposes of the party at this point and without losing all the support that makes them viable. You can't say that is your policy, nor can you implement it.
And as already demonstrated, you can't just improve their lives because that won't win you elections. They want to be pandered too. And what they want most of all with that pandering is confirmation of white identity politics.
I read you loud and clear. What I said is, Democrats need to betray their core purpose and appease these people by promising to fuck non-white-people over harder and better than Republicans. Then they can turn around to non-white-people and promise to elevate them higher than they've ever been. This election has already demonstrated that most people live in media bubbles and are conditioned to believe news they want to believe, so you actually can promise to different groups to fuck the other over without them noticing, and the few people who do notice won't believe the contradicting statement anyway.
Once you're in power you can actually implement responsible policies. But you can't campaign on them, because you will lose to the guy without responsible policies who's promising to fuck other people over.
g, but I find that the only reason they didn't vote for her was because she failed to visit (which yeah she should have) is not exactly a shining example of that region being super loyal Democrats begin with. It have been a firewall for Obama* and maybe Biden and Bernie, but for establishment candidates it was a region who'd severe ties from the Democrats with the slightest excuse. That type of instability can't be healed for a centrist within a few months during an election IMO.
That's not why she lost- the region has been devastated by job loss and for better or for worse Trump was the "jobs" candidate this election. He was the one that hammered companies for sending jobs overseas and he was the one that promised they'd come back. Hillary offered to teach the laid-off factory workers how to code. Voting to screw over the rich assholes who laid you off isn't "instability", and if you want to win there in 2020 you have to appeal to that same populist chord.
Those jobs aren't coming back they went to robots
again and again you just keep coming back to "lie to middle America better" as a political platform
It worked a treat for Trump.
Hard Truth: These people cannot be counted on to make rational decisions. Simply presenting solutions to problems is not enough to win them over. Hell sometimes that actually turns them off. Current theory is that she lost firewall stats just because she didn't physically show up there. That's ridiculous to me, an intellectual, but it matters to them. Disclaimer: IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE RURAL. I AM NOT LOOKING DOWN ON RURAL/MIDWESTERN VOTERS AS LESSER PEOPLE. There are many causes for this, such as a shitty media and worthless educational system, that are factors beyond their control. Not gonna go into the weeds about that right now, though. My point is that to win this demographic, you gotta be prepared to lie to them. That's not a bad thing.
Now, exactly where and how hard you should go after this demographic is a different debate. In 4 years it may be worthwhile to butter up the "firewall states", maybe not. We'll see.
You can't appeal to them because their economic interests are grounded in racism. What can you promise them that the GOP can't also promise them, except with an extra spicy layer of white identity politics?
You want an example, look right above you in the thread:
But CM doesn't believe that. Several people, including myself, have said so and he refuses to accept it. So when he advocates it, it's not a lie - he honestly believes (IMO) that's an achievable goal and something that we should be promising people - and then making it happen.
It is an achievable goal. Claiming that the jobs all went to robots is b.s.; haven't you seen all the thousands of corporate announcements about moving plants and call centers overseas? Throwing up your hands and going "welp let's teach 55-year old factory workers how to code" both condones the greed of corporations and forces more people to compete for the shrinking number of middle-class jobs we have left. Automation's a different story, and there's a national debate we need to have about corporate profits vs jobs, but to claim that every factory worker's job was filled by a robot is nonsense.
Carrier sure as hell isn't using robots down in Mexico.
I think Hillary's jobs plan was unrealistic and far too establishment friendly. "Let them code" was asinine when they're outsourcing coders, and both Bernie and Trump reeled in the votes by going after the corporations instead of the workers.
edit- if you want to win the next election you need to harp on this thread and steal Trump's thunder away from him. If you don't learn any lessons from the defeat of the best-qualified candidate in modern times to a reality TV businessman and keep on with the identity politics and hoping that minorities outbreed white people, well, you're going to lose again. They're people too and they worry about economic issues as much as anyone else and a sizable chunk of them voted Trump. If your message still is "let them code" in four years while everyone's scraping by with McJobs and crap-ass part time work you'll lose, plain and simple.
This is the issues you are dealing with. A fundamental belief in white identity politics immune to facts. It's about "immigrants taking our jobs" and it's the Democrats fault for just trying to help non-whites too much.
Easy. You promise them anything they want to hear. Lie through your teeth, appeal to their basest instincts, and it doesn't matter how unrealistic or contradictory or physically impossible your promises are. If they want you to put rocket boosters on the moon and fire it at their brown next-door neighbour without hitting their house, you promise you have the best rockets with the biggest boost like seriously it's yuge.
Once you're in power you can actually work on implementing policies that will benefit the USA against their will. But until you get in power you shut the fuck up about policy. People don't vote for policy, the media don't report on policy, pundits don't analyze policy, and debates don't ask questions on policy. No one cares about policy, and Clinton's policy-rich failure against Trump's policy vacuum has made abundantly clear. So start pandering to their base instincts already.
You didn't actually read what I said. You can't promise them what they want to hear. Because what they want to hear is "Fuck non-white people". And the Democrats can't do that without both betraying one of the core purposes of the party at this point and without losing all the support that makes them viable. You can't say that is your policy, nor can you implement it.
And as already demonstrated, you can't just improve their lives because that won't win you elections. They want to be pandered too. And what they want most of all with that pandering is confirmation of white identity politics.
I read you loud and clear. What I said is, Democrats need to betray their core purpose and appease these people by promising to fuck non-white-people over harder and better than Republicans. Then they can turn around to non-white-people and promise to elevate them higher than they've ever been. This election has already demonstrated that most people live in media bubbles and are conditioned to believe news they want to believe, so you actually can promise to different groups to fuck the other over without them noticing, and the few people who do notice won't believe the contradicting statement anyway.
Once you're in power you can actually implement responsible policies. But you can't campaign on them, because you will lose to the guy without responsible policies who's promising to fuck other people over.
And core purposes don't win elections.
This is a great way to have nobody vote for you. Because telling the most loyal of your base to go fuck themselves destroys your base, and chasing after the people who want to fuck them over won't work because they won't buy it.
And honestly, this cynicism is getting old. Again, stop pretending that this was a trouncing - the margin was on a knife's edge.
g, but I find that the only reason they didn't vote for her was because she failed to visit (which yeah she should have) is not exactly a shining example of that region being super loyal Democrats begin with. It have been a firewall for Obama* and maybe Biden and Bernie, but for establishment candidates it was a region who'd severe ties from the Democrats with the slightest excuse. That type of instability can't be healed for a centrist within a few months during an election IMO.
That's not why she lost- the region has been devastated by job loss and for better or for worse Trump was the "jobs" candidate this election. He was the one that hammered companies for sending jobs overseas and he was the one that promised they'd come back. Hillary offered to teach the laid-off factory workers how to code. Voting to screw over the rich assholes who laid you off isn't "instability", and if you want to win there in 2020 you have to appeal to that same populist chord.
Those jobs aren't coming back they went to robots
again and again you just keep coming back to "lie to middle America better" as a political platform
It worked a treat for Trump.
Hard Truth: These people cannot be counted on to make rational decisions. Simply presenting solutions to problems is not enough to win them over. Hell sometimes that actually turns them off. Current theory is that she lost firewall stats just because she didn't physically show up there. That's ridiculous to me, an intellectual, but it matters to them. Disclaimer: IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE RURAL. I AM NOT LOOKING DOWN ON RURAL/MIDWESTERN VOTERS AS LESSER PEOPLE. There are many causes for this, such as a shitty media and worthless educational system, that are factors beyond their control. Not gonna go into the weeds about that right now, though. My point is that to win this demographic, you gotta be prepared to lie to them. That's not a bad thing.
Now, exactly where and how hard you should go after this demographic is a different debate. In 4 years it may be worthwhile to butter up the "firewall states", maybe not. We'll see.
You can't appeal to them because their economic interests are grounded in racism. What can you promise them that the GOP can't also promise them, except with an extra spicy layer of white identity politics?
You want an example, look right above you in the thread:
But CM doesn't believe that. Several people, including myself, have said so and he refuses to accept it. So when he advocates it, it's not a lie - he honestly believes (IMO) that's an achievable goal and something that we should be promising people - and then making it happen.
It is an achievable goal. Claiming that the jobs all went to robots is b.s.; haven't you seen all the thousands of corporate announcements about moving plants and call centers overseas? Throwing up your hands and going "welp let's teach 55-year old factory workers how to code" both condones the greed of corporations and forces more people to compete for the shrinking number of middle-class jobs we have left. Automation's a different story, and there's a national debate we need to have about corporate profits vs jobs, but to claim that every factory worker's job was filled by a robot is nonsense.
Carrier sure as hell isn't using robots down in Mexico.
I think Hillary's jobs plan was unrealistic and far too establishment friendly. "Let them code" was asinine when they're outsourcing coders, and both Bernie and Trump reeled in the votes by going after the corporations instead of the workers.
edit- if you want to win the next election you need to harp on this thread and steal Trump's thunder away from him. If you don't learn any lessons from the defeat of the best-qualified candidate in modern times to a reality TV businessman and keep on with the identity politics and hoping that minorities outbreed white people, well, you're going to lose again. They're people too and they worry about economic issues as much as anyone else and a sizable chunk of them voted Trump. If your message still is "let them code" in four years while everyone's scraping by with McJobs and crap-ass part time work you'll lose, plain and simple.
This is the issues you are dealing with. A fundamental belief in white identity politics immune to facts. It's about "immigrants taking our jobs" and it's the Democrats fault for just trying to help non-whites too much.
Easy. You promise them anything they want to hear. Lie through your teeth, appeal to their basest instincts, and it doesn't matter how unrealistic or contradictory or physically impossible your promises are. If they want you to put rocket boosters on the moon and fire it at their brown next-door neighbour without hitting their house, you promise you have the best rockets with the biggest boost like seriously it's yuge.
Once you're in power you can actually work on implementing policies that will benefit the USA against their will. But until you get in power you shut the fuck up about policy. People don't vote for policy, the media don't report on policy, pundits don't analyze policy, and debates don't ask questions on policy. No one cares about policy, and Clinton's policy-rich failure against Trump's policy vacuum has made abundantly clear. So start pandering to their base instincts already.
You didn't actually read what I said. You can't promise them what they want to hear. Because what they want to hear is "Fuck non-white people". And the Democrats can't do that without both betraying one of the core purposes of the party at this point and without losing all the support that makes them viable. You can't say that is your policy, nor can you implement it.
And as already demonstrated, you can't just improve their lives because that won't win you elections. They want to be pandered too. And what they want most of all with that pandering is confirmation of white identity politics.
I read you loud and clear. What I said is, Democrats need to betray their core purpose and appease these people by promising to fuck non-white-people over harder and better than Republicans. Then they can turn around to non-white-people and promise to elevate them higher than they've ever been. This election has already demonstrated that most people live in media bubbles and are conditioned to believe news they want to believe, so you actually can promise to different groups to fuck the other over without them noticing, and the few people who do notice won't believe the contradicting statement anyway.
Once you're in power you can actually implement responsible policies. But you can't campaign on them, because you will lose to the guy without responsible policies who's promising to fuck other people over.
And core purposes don't win elections.
This is a great way to have nobody vote for you. Because telling the most loyal of your base to go fuck themselves destroys your base, and chasing after the people who want to fuck them over won't work because they won't buy it.
And honestly, this cynicism is getting old. Again, stop pretending that this was a trouncing - the margin was on a knife's edge.
I never said you tell "the most loyal of your base to go fuck themselves". You never tell them that. You tell them whatever the fuck you need to get them energized. And it's not sound sensible policy. Clinton's base heard about policy for over a year, and they were not energized.
You want to talk about the base? Fine. Less black people voted this year than in 2008 and 2012, and a greater proportion that voted went to R. Think about that. The Dems offered a set of sound reasonable policies that would benefit them, and the Pubs offered an overtly-racist, KKK-endorsed, old white man who accused them of killing each other and promised to bring back stop-and-frisk. And support for the GOP increased compared to the past two elections. Policy isn't what's driving people to the polls. Feelings are, and people don't even care if you're lying to their faces or honestly promising to hurt them if you make them feel good about it, and they won't support the best plan to help themselves if they don't feel good about it.
You want to argue it was a knife's edge difference? It shouldn't have been. You are betting on a blatantly losing strategy, and your best comebacks so far are "well we didn't lose by much" and "at least we were true to our core principles."
This election, it came down to roughly 25% Clinton, 25% Trump, 50% not voting.
Clinton's camp looked at this and said, "how can we win over some of that 50%?"
Trump's camp looked at this and said, "how can we suppress some of Clinton's 25%?". They actually said that publicly, too.
Again, the results speak for themselves.
The 50% that didn't vote doesn't care about politics. You won't make progress with them. You can't convince someone who doesn't care enough to pay attention and listen, and you can't bring someone to the polls who doesn't think it's worth his time to go.
You can energize your base (see previous post) and erode your opponent's, either with lies and disinformation or with discriminatory legislation (Republicans are masters at both now). The two 25% values are the ones that can shift to 26%-24%, and that shift is electoral victory.
g, but I find that the only reason they didn't vote for her was because she failed to visit (which yeah she should have) is not exactly a shining example of that region being super loyal Democrats begin with. It have been a firewall for Obama* and maybe Biden and Bernie, but for establishment candidates it was a region who'd severe ties from the Democrats with the slightest excuse. That type of instability can't be healed for a centrist within a few months during an election IMO.
That's not why she lost- the region has been devastated by job loss and for better or for worse Trump was the "jobs" candidate this election. He was the one that hammered companies for sending jobs overseas and he was the one that promised they'd come back. Hillary offered to teach the laid-off factory workers how to code. Voting to screw over the rich assholes who laid you off isn't "instability", and if you want to win there in 2020 you have to appeal to that same populist chord.
Those jobs aren't coming back they went to robots
again and again you just keep coming back to "lie to middle America better" as a political platform
It worked a treat for Trump.
Hard Truth: These people cannot be counted on to make rational decisions. Simply presenting solutions to problems is not enough to win them over. Hell sometimes that actually turns them off. Current theory is that she lost firewall stats just because she didn't physically show up there. That's ridiculous to me, an intellectual, but it matters to them. Disclaimer: IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE RURAL. I AM NOT LOOKING DOWN ON RURAL/MIDWESTERN VOTERS AS LESSER PEOPLE. There are many causes for this, such as a shitty media and worthless educational system, that are factors beyond their control. Not gonna go into the weeds about that right now, though. My point is that to win this demographic, you gotta be prepared to lie to them. That's not a bad thing.
Now, exactly where and how hard you should go after this demographic is a different debate. In 4 years it may be worthwhile to butter up the "firewall states", maybe not. We'll see.
You can't appeal to them because their economic interests are grounded in racism. What can you promise them that the GOP can't also promise them, except with an extra spicy layer of white identity politics?
You want an example, look right above you in the thread:
But CM doesn't believe that. Several people, including myself, have said so and he refuses to accept it. So when he advocates it, it's not a lie - he honestly believes (IMO) that's an achievable goal and something that we should be promising people - and then making it happen.
It is an achievable goal. Claiming that the jobs all went to robots is b.s.; haven't you seen all the thousands of corporate announcements about moving plants and call centers overseas? Throwing up your hands and going "welp let's teach 55-year old factory workers how to code" both condones the greed of corporations and forces more people to compete for the shrinking number of middle-class jobs we have left. Automation's a different story, and there's a national debate we need to have about corporate profits vs jobs, but to claim that every factory worker's job was filled by a robot is nonsense.
Carrier sure as hell isn't using robots down in Mexico.
I think Hillary's jobs plan was unrealistic and far too establishment friendly. "Let them code" was asinine when they're outsourcing coders, and both Bernie and Trump reeled in the votes by going after the corporations instead of the workers.
edit- if you want to win the next election you need to harp on this thread and steal Trump's thunder away from him. If you don't learn any lessons from the defeat of the best-qualified candidate in modern times to a reality TV businessman and keep on with the identity politics and hoping that minorities outbreed white people, well, you're going to lose again. They're people too and they worry about economic issues as much as anyone else and a sizable chunk of them voted Trump. If your message still is "let them code" in four years while everyone's scraping by with McJobs and crap-ass part time work you'll lose, plain and simple.
This is the issues you are dealing with. A fundamental belief in white identity politics immune to facts. It's about "immigrants taking our jobs" and it's the Democrats fault for just trying to help non-whites too much.
Easy. You promise them anything they want to hear. Lie through your teeth, appeal to their basest instincts, and it doesn't matter how unrealistic or contradictory or physically impossible your promises are. If they want you to put rocket boosters on the moon and fire it at their brown next-door neighbour without hitting their house, you promise you have the best rockets with the biggest boost like seriously it's yuge.
Once you're in power you can actually work on implementing policies that will benefit the USA against their will. But until you get in power you shut the fuck up about policy. People don't vote for policy, the media don't report on policy, pundits don't analyze policy, and debates don't ask questions on policy. No one cares about policy, and Clinton's policy-rich failure against Trump's policy vacuum has made abundantly clear. So start pandering to their base instincts already.
You didn't actually read what I said. You can't promise them what they want to hear. Because what they want to hear is "Fuck non-white people". And the Democrats can't do that without both betraying one of the core purposes of the party at this point and without losing all the support that makes them viable. You can't say that is your policy, nor can you implement it.
And as already demonstrated, you can't just improve their lives because that won't win you elections. They want to be pandered too. And what they want most of all with that pandering is confirmation of white identity politics.
I read you loud and clear. What I said is, Democrats need to betray their core purpose and appease these people by promising to fuck non-white-people over harder and better than Republicans. Then they can turn around to non-white-people and promise to elevate them higher than they've ever been. This election has already demonstrated that most people live in media bubbles and are conditioned to believe news they want to believe, so you actually can promise to different groups to fuck the other over without them noticing, and the few people who do notice won't believe the contradicting statement anyway.
Once you're in power you can actually implement responsible policies. But you can't campaign on them, because you will lose to the guy without responsible policies who's promising to fuck other people over.
And core purposes don't win elections.
This is a great way to have nobody vote for you. Because telling the most loyal of your base to go fuck themselves destroys your base, and chasing after the people who want to fuck them over won't work because they won't buy it.
And honestly, this cynicism is getting old. Again, stop pretending that this was a trouncing - the margin was on a knife's edge.
I never said you tell "the most loyal of your base to go fuck themselves". You never tell them that. You tell them whatever the fuck you need to get them energized. And it's not sound sensible policy. Clinton's base heard about policy for over a year, and they were not energized.
You want to talk about the base? Fine. Less black people voted this year than in 2008 and 2012, and a greater proportion that voted went to R. Think about that. The Dems offered a set of sound reasonable policies that would benefit them, and the Pubs offered an overtly-racist, KKK-endorsed, old white man who accused them of killing each other and promised to bring back stop-and-frisk. And support for the GOP increased compared to the past two elections. Policy isn't what's driving people to the polls. Feelings are, and people don't even care if you're lying to their faces or honestly promising to hurt them if you make them feel good about it, and they won't support the best plan to help themselves if they don't feel good about it.
You want to argue it was a knife's edge difference? It shouldn't have been. You are betting on a blatantly losing strategy, and your best comebacks so far are "well we didn't lose by much" and "at least we were true to our core principles."
You want to argue it was a knife's edge difference? It shouldn't have been. You are betting on a blatantly losing strategy, and your best comebacks so far are "well we didn't lose by much" and "at least we were true to our core principles."
You know what's funny? The GOPe offered "at least we were true to our core principles." to the base, and the base told them "fuck that, you aren't winning elections, we are voting Trump". The base, above all, demands results, demands victory and they will go to any candidate that offers a break from orthodoxy if it brings results, like, say, winning the primary and beating the shit of the frontrunner. Being "true to your core principles" means that the Dem establishment is getting primed to face a Trump-style hostile takeover.
g, but I find that the only reason they didn't vote for her was because she failed to visit (which yeah she should have) is not exactly a shining example of that region being super loyal Democrats begin with. It have been a firewall for Obama* and maybe Biden and Bernie, but for establishment candidates it was a region who'd severe ties from the Democrats with the slightest excuse. That type of instability can't be healed for a centrist within a few months during an election IMO.
That's not why she lost- the region has been devastated by job loss and for better or for worse Trump was the "jobs" candidate this election. He was the one that hammered companies for sending jobs overseas and he was the one that promised they'd come back. Hillary offered to teach the laid-off factory workers how to code. Voting to screw over the rich assholes who laid you off isn't "instability", and if you want to win there in 2020 you have to appeal to that same populist chord.
Those jobs aren't coming back they went to robots
again and again you just keep coming back to "lie to middle America better" as a political platform
It worked a treat for Trump.
Hard Truth: These people cannot be counted on to make rational decisions. Simply presenting solutions to problems is not enough to win them over. Hell sometimes that actually turns them off. Current theory is that she lost firewall stats just because she didn't physically show up there. That's ridiculous to me, an intellectual, but it matters to them. Disclaimer: IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE RURAL. I AM NOT LOOKING DOWN ON RURAL/MIDWESTERN VOTERS AS LESSER PEOPLE. There are many causes for this, such as a shitty media and worthless educational system, that are factors beyond their control. Not gonna go into the weeds about that right now, though. My point is that to win this demographic, you gotta be prepared to lie to them. That's not a bad thing.
Now, exactly where and how hard you should go after this demographic is a different debate. In 4 years it may be worthwhile to butter up the "firewall states", maybe not. We'll see.
You can't appeal to them because their economic interests are grounded in racism. What can you promise them that the GOP can't also promise them, except with an extra spicy layer of white identity politics?
You want an example, look right above you in the thread:
But CM doesn't believe that. Several people, including myself, have said so and he refuses to accept it. So when he advocates it, it's not a lie - he honestly believes (IMO) that's an achievable goal and something that we should be promising people - and then making it happen.
It is an achievable goal. Claiming that the jobs all went to robots is b.s.; haven't you seen all the thousands of corporate announcements about moving plants and call centers overseas? Throwing up your hands and going "welp let's teach 55-year old factory workers how to code" both condones the greed of corporations and forces more people to compete for the shrinking number of middle-class jobs we have left. Automation's a different story, and there's a national debate we need to have about corporate profits vs jobs, but to claim that every factory worker's job was filled by a robot is nonsense.
Carrier sure as hell isn't using robots down in Mexico.
I think Hillary's jobs plan was unrealistic and far too establishment friendly. "Let them code" was asinine when they're outsourcing coders, and both Bernie and Trump reeled in the votes by going after the corporations instead of the workers.
edit- if you want to win the next election you need to harp on this thread and steal Trump's thunder away from him. If you don't learn any lessons from the defeat of the best-qualified candidate in modern times to a reality TV businessman and keep on with the identity politics and hoping that minorities outbreed white people, well, you're going to lose again. They're people too and they worry about economic issues as much as anyone else and a sizable chunk of them voted Trump. If your message still is "let them code" in four years while everyone's scraping by with McJobs and crap-ass part time work you'll lose, plain and simple.
This is the issues you are dealing with. A fundamental belief in white identity politics immune to facts. It's about "immigrants taking our jobs" and it's the Democrats fault for just trying to help non-whites too much.
Easy. You promise them anything they want to hear. Lie through your teeth, appeal to their basest instincts, and it doesn't matter how unrealistic or contradictory or physically impossible your promises are. If they want you to put rocket boosters on the moon and fire it at their brown next-door neighbour without hitting their house, you promise you have the best rockets with the biggest boost like seriously it's yuge.
Once you're in power you can actually work on implementing policies that will benefit the USA against their will. But until you get in power you shut the fuck up about policy. People don't vote for policy, the media don't report on policy, pundits don't analyze policy, and debates don't ask questions on policy. No one cares about policy, and Clinton's policy-rich failure against Trump's policy vacuum has made abundantly clear. So start pandering to their base instincts already.
You didn't actually read what I said. You can't promise them what they want to hear. Because what they want to hear is "Fuck non-white people". And the Democrats can't do that without both betraying one of the core purposes of the party at this point and without losing all the support that makes them viable. You can't say that is your policy, nor can you implement it.
And as already demonstrated, you can't just improve their lives because that won't win you elections. They want to be pandered too. And what they want most of all with that pandering is confirmation of white identity politics.
I read you loud and clear. What I said is, Democrats need to betray their core purpose and appease these people by promising to fuck non-white-people over harder and better than Republicans. Then they can turn around to non-white-people and promise to elevate them higher than they've ever been. This election has already demonstrated that most people live in media bubbles and are conditioned to believe news they want to believe, so you actually can promise to different groups to fuck the other over without them noticing, and the few people who do notice won't believe the contradicting statement anyway.
Once you're in power you can actually implement responsible policies. But you can't campaign on them, because you will lose to the guy without responsible policies who's promising to fuck other people over.
And core purposes don't win elections.
This is a great way to have nobody vote for you. Because telling the most loyal of your base to go fuck themselves destroys your base, and chasing after the people who want to fuck them over won't work because they won't buy it.
And honestly, this cynicism is getting old. Again, stop pretending that this was a trouncing - the margin was on a knife's edge.
I never said you tell "the most loyal of your base to go fuck themselves". You never tell them that. You tell them whatever the fuck you need to get them energized. And it's not sound sensible policy. Clinton's base heard about policy for over a year, and they were not energized.
You want to talk about the base? Fine. Less black people voted this year than in 2008 and 2012, and a greater proportion that voted went to R. Think about that. The Dems offered a set of sound reasonable policies that would benefit them, and the Pubs offered an overtly-racist, KKK-endorsed, old white man who accused them of killing each other and promised to bring back stop-and-frisk. And support for the GOP increased compared to the past two elections. Policy isn't what's driving people to the polls. Feelings are, and people don't even care if you're lying to their faces or honestly promising to hurt them if you make them feel good about it, and they won't support the best plan to help themselves if they don't feel good about it.
You want to argue it was a knife's edge difference? It shouldn't have been. You are betting on a blatantly losing strategy, and your best comebacks so far are "well we didn't lose by much" and "at least we were true to our core principles."
Democrats need to betray their core purpose and appease these people by promising to fuck non-white-people over harder and better than Republicans. Then they can turn around to non-white-people and promise to elevate them higher than they've ever been.
The rest of that post explains how you do that. It's quite different from what I'm alleged to have said.
Ignore the moral abhorence of the whole idea, campaigning as "Republican lite" never fucking works. Unless you're a good ole boy from Arkansas when it sorta does, and then it creates an environment where the base of the party doesn't trust you for going on 24 years.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
This is the issues you are dealing with. A fundamental belief in white identity politics immune to facts. It's about "immigrants taking our jobs" and it's the Democrats fault for just trying to help non-whites too much.
White identity politics? What? You know what, I'm not going to get sucked into this, just know that my first and foremost priority in politics is capital-L Labor. Mostly that means the working class and people without a college degree, because mainstream politicians on both sides sure as hell don't care about them.
I know that your first priority is white identity politics. Like many people, you confuse it with "Labour" or "The Economy" or "Jobs" or "Anti-PC" or all the other ways in which it manifests itself because whiteness is the "default" and so things that preserve what is viewed as the status quo go unnoticed. (see - your recent rant on official government webpages in spanish) Trump appealed directly to white identity politics. To the idea of America as it "should be". With a border wall to keep the mexicans out, to keep the Muslims out and law and order to keep the blacks in their place. When you could get a job out of high school and non-white, non-christian, non-straight culture wasn't around.
This is about more then jobs and always has been. That's why economic anxiety has as strong racial bias. And the fact that you keep insisting it's all about foreigners stealing jobs despite all the evidence about the rise in automation is kinda the whole point. You have a target you want to blame already. It couldn't possibly be that old paradigms are dying in the face of improving technology, it has to be those damn foreigners and we have to be able to bring back america like it used to be.
Democrats can't promise these voters what they want because what they want is an illusion of what America used to be. And a big part of that is white.
BTW, nobody is saying that you have to be more racist than the Pubs (you won't win that fight). What people are saying, is that instead of getting on the automatization/post-scarcity long explanation that nobody seems to care about, just say "yes, we are going to bring the jobs back".
Posts
No.
The point with racism is that it underlies everything. Economic anxiety (that corresponds heavily to racial lines), support by religious voters (again, where there are clear racial delineations), et cetera. And that distorts the conversation - it's hard to get someone to sign on to policies that will help everyone across the board if they feel that what's causing their distress is other groups being given support.
This isn't "our" call to make unless you want to enact some rule that prevents people from running if they've ever worked for wall street. Which, yeah, that's not going to survive a court challenge.
But CM doesn't believe that. Several people, including myself, have said so and he refuses to accept it. So when he advocates it, it's not a lie - he honestly believes (IMO) that's an achievable goal and something that we should be promising people - and then making it happen.
Carrier sure as hell isn't using robots down in Mexico.
I think Hillary's jobs plan was unrealistic and far too establishment friendly. "Let them code" was asinine when they're outsourcing coders, and both Bernie and Trump reeled in the votes by going after the corporations instead of the workers.
edit- if you want to win the next election you need to harp on this thread and steal Trump's thunder away from him. If you don't learn any lessons from the defeat of the best-qualified candidate in modern times to a reality TV businessman and keep on with the identity politics and hoping that minorities outbreed white people, well, you're going to lose again. They're people too and they worry about economic issues as much as anyone else and a sizable chunk of them voted Trump. If your message still is "let them code" in four years while everyone's scraping by with McJobs and crap-ass part time work you'll lose, plain and simple.
It worked a treat for Trump.
Hard Truth: These people cannot be counted on to make rational decisions. Simply presenting solutions to problems is not enough to win them over. Hell sometimes that actually turns them off. Current theory is that she lost firewall stats just because she didn't physically show up there. That's ridiculous to me, an intellectual, but it matters to them. Disclaimer: IT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE RURAL. I AM NOT LOOKING DOWN ON RURAL/MIDWESTERN VOTERS AS LESSER PEOPLE. There are many causes for this, such as a shitty media and worthless educational system, that are factors beyond their control. Not gonna go into the weeds about that right now, though. My point is that to win this demographic, you gotta be prepared to lie to them. That's not a bad thing.
Now, exactly where and how hard you should go after this demographic is a different debate. In 4 years it may be worthwhile to butter up the "firewall states", maybe not. We'll see.
My position is that it is not an achievable goal, we should promise it, not make it happen, then spin it. If we get Dems in power and start to meaningfully make rural voter's lives better, even if it's not the way they wanted, it will be easier to not-lie to them next time.
This is one of the hardest lessons for older folks and my suburban friends to understand, the refrain is always "but what about those economically vulnerable midwesterners? Why don't democrats care about them!?" Which is such a loaded and unfair question, because obviously we do. But there's nothing super special about the blue collar southerner or midwesterner that makes them more important than the blue collar folks in cities and coasts, either. Folks in cities are suffering too, and opportunity is shrinking for many, especially those without college degrees.
One of things I've tried to explain to my parents is that - especially in the rural areas - part of their economic anxiety is directly tied to their racial anxiety. In other words, it is not their economic anxiety that leads to their attachment of racial identity politics, it's racial identity politics that leads them to being economically vulnerable. Because all of the innovation and creation of wealth is coming from cities. Why is that? I think it's a couple of reasons:
What advantages do rural areas have? Cheaper labor and building/land costs. But those advantages pale in comparison to the advantages of cities. And it's a self reinforcing loop. Young, educated people migrate to cities where the jobs are, which means the people most like to embrace new ideas and greater tolerance to changing demographics naturally select themselves to be removed from areas that are strongly influenced by racial identity. (not that age or education are insulation from racial identity - hardly - just the likelihood of them being more tolerant is higher).
The only way to fight this through is through collective action, actual investment into suburban and rural areas to increase their infrastructure and education programs to make them more attractive to private enterprise. But that involves Government action, which those areas loathe not because it will benefit them, but it will benefit minorities as well and they can't stand that.
A thought: perhaps you can just say on twitter that ,"It was great meeting with the fine folks of 'x county/state' and I look forward to their vote." But not having actually visited the place in actuality. Get enough people to believe that you visited with them and their neighbors without the expense of actually having to do it.
Except that they won't give you credit for improving their lives. The Atlantic had a piece on this:
Take notice, people who believe "Trump will screw things so badly he can't possibly win a second term."
They have interests that surpass economic ones.
Well we're fucked that way regardless
Yup, you're starting to catch on.
I've been saying this on the forum for a year, since people started acting like a permanent Democratic majority and the demise of the Republican party were inevitability because demographics were changing. The only demographic that matters is the one that can vote, and while Democrats have been content to sit back and watch their numbers grow, Republicans have been hard at work insuring that the growing Democratic demographics were denied the right to vote and the voting demographics were loyal Republican.
Increasing your numbers is not a winning strategy. Increasing your numbers more is not going to fix it. Increasing your numbers even more after that won't be a silver bullet.
We can stop pretending we're good allies anytime now if that's the strategy, because we gambled on that strategy this time, against the worst candidate the GOP has ever seen, and we have Trump to show for it. That's not good stewardship of Dem political power.
The problem is only going to get worse as Dem voters continue to self-segregate in blue enclaves.
You can't appeal to them because their economic interests are grounded in racism. What can you promise them that the GOP can't also promise them, except with an extra spicy layer of white identity politics?
You want an example, look right above you in the thread:
This is the issues you are dealing with. A fundamental belief in white identity politics immune to facts. It's about "immigrants taking our jobs" and it's the Democrats fault for just trying to help non-whites too much.
No, because then enough of them will blame Trump for their lot in life that it won't matter.
In 8 years "let them code" will be a problematic answer, but for now the ball's in Trump's court to produce real change or face the consequences.
No, Clinton refused to campaign because she thought that Republican decency would deliver her a landslide victory.
Clinton thought that the people the Democratic Party fucked over/betrayed in '10 and '14 were going to turn out in Obama numbers, refused to prove her leftist bona-fides by making an appearance in key states, and refused to campaign because she refused to take data from key states state party apparatuses when they were calling her in desperation and saying that they were fucking dying.
Easy. You promise them anything they want to hear. Lie through your teeth, appeal to their basest instincts, and it doesn't matter how unrealistic or contradictory or physically impossible your promises are. If they want you to put rocket boosters on the moon and fire it at their brown next-door neighbour without hitting their house, you promise you have the best rockets with the biggest boost like seriously it's yuge.
Once you're in power you can actually work on implementing policies that will benefit the USA against their will. But until you get in power you shut the fuck up about policy. People don't vote for policy, the media don't report on policy, pundits don't analyze policy, and debates don't ask questions on policy. No one cares about policy, and Clinton's policy-rich failure against Trump's policy vacuum has made abundantly clear. So start pandering to their base instincts already.
I love how the Clinton camp continues to pretend that people who voted Bernie in the primaries didn't vote for Hillary.
Continue going into your Republican-esque post-reality bubble, liberal, because guess what? There are so many Democrats regretting their Hillary vote right now. Just keep fucking that chicken.
Canada might be different but if you lie to voters "read my lips"-style here you'll get crushed in the next election. And the opposition will have a callback they can hit your party with forever.
Oh, a majority of them ended up voting Clinton. But dragging out the primary process for too long made the party look divided and disorganized, then by spending the campaign constantly bringing back the "she stole the nomination from Bernie" bullshit to the forefront they made Clinton look like an illegitimate establishment-imposed candidate and played right into Trump's anti-establishment narrative. Not to mention that, even though Clinton took over most of Bernie's platform, they kept hammering on how Clinton was too far right and a Republican in disguise, and nullified her strongest point against Trump - her strong, comprehensive, left-wing platform.
So yeah, BernieBros voted Clinton, but winning them over was Hillary's Pyrrhic victory.
You didn't actually read what I said. You can't promise them what they want to hear. Because what they want to hear is "Fuck non-white people". And the Democrats can't do that without both betraying one of the core purposes of the party at this point and without losing all the support that makes them viable. You can't say that is your policy, nor can you implement it.
And as already demonstrated, you can't just improve their lives because that won't win you elections. They want to be pandered too. And what they want most of all with that pandering is confirmation of white identity politics.
So all you can really do is make it as easy as possible for the people who WILL support you to vote.
Register them, year-round. Arrange transportation to the polls. Use every referendum system and government legislative power available to push for vote by mail.
If people vote, the people win.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Funny you should bring up "read my lips" as an example since (1) his son with the exact same name won two mandates 8 years later, and (2) his party now controls the entirety of government. So saying this will hit back "forever" is kind of overstating it a bit, eh?
More recently, Trump was caught in multiple lies during the campaign, sometimes with contradicting statements he made on the same day, and he didn't get crushed at all, he won the election handily.
Or that this kind of 'blame the voters' post-election analysis makes any sense. It's like blaming the customer because you didn't make a sale. Who does that help? Sure, the people who switched from Bernie to Trump or stayed home are morons who probably never understood what Bernie was all about in the first place. Still want their votes.
I read you loud and clear. What I said is, Democrats need to betray their core purpose and appease these people by promising to fuck non-white-people over harder and better than Republicans. Then they can turn around to non-white-people and promise to elevate them higher than they've ever been. This election has already demonstrated that most people live in media bubbles and are conditioned to believe news they want to believe, so you actually can promise to different groups to fuck the other over without them noticing, and the few people who do notice won't believe the contradicting statement anyway.
Once you're in power you can actually implement responsible policies. But you can't campaign on them, because you will lose to the guy without responsible policies who's promising to fuck other people over.
And core purposes don't win elections.
This is a great way to have nobody vote for you. Because telling the most loyal of your base to go fuck themselves destroys your base, and chasing after the people who want to fuck them over won't work because they won't buy it.
And honestly, this cynicism is getting old. Again, stop pretending that this was a trouncing - the margin was on a knife's edge.
I never said you tell "the most loyal of your base to go fuck themselves". You never tell them that. You tell them whatever the fuck you need to get them energized. And it's not sound sensible policy. Clinton's base heard about policy for over a year, and they were not energized.
You want to talk about the base? Fine. Less black people voted this year than in 2008 and 2012, and a greater proportion that voted went to R. Think about that. The Dems offered a set of sound reasonable policies that would benefit them, and the Pubs offered an overtly-racist, KKK-endorsed, old white man who accused them of killing each other and promised to bring back stop-and-frisk. And support for the GOP increased compared to the past two elections. Policy isn't what's driving people to the polls. Feelings are, and people don't even care if you're lying to their faces or honestly promising to hurt them if you make them feel good about it, and they won't support the best plan to help themselves if they don't feel good about it.
You want to argue it was a knife's edge difference? It shouldn't have been. You are betting on a blatantly losing strategy, and your best comebacks so far are "well we didn't lose by much" and "at least we were true to our core principles."
Losing strategy, again.
This election, it came down to roughly 25% Clinton, 25% Trump, 50% not voting.
Clinton's camp looked at this and said, "how can we win over some of that 50%?"
Trump's camp looked at this and said, "how can we suppress some of Clinton's 25%?". They actually said that publicly, too.
Again, the results speak for themselves.
The 50% that didn't vote doesn't care about politics. You won't make progress with them. You can't convince someone who doesn't care enough to pay attention and listen, and you can't bring someone to the polls who doesn't think it's worth his time to go.
You can energize your base (see previous post) and erode your opponent's, either with lies and disinformation or with discriminatory legislation (Republicans are masters at both now). The two 25% values are the ones that can shift to 26%-24%, and that shift is electoral victory.
Yes, you did. It's right here:
This is literally what you are saying.
You know what's funny? The GOPe offered "at least we were true to our core principles." to the base, and the base told them "fuck that, you aren't winning elections, we are voting Trump". The base, above all, demands results, demands victory and they will go to any candidate that offers a break from orthodoxy if it brings results, like, say, winning the primary and beating the shit of the frontrunner. Being "true to your core principles" means that the Dem establishment is getting primed to face a Trump-style hostile takeover.
Maybe read the next sentence I wrote after that?
The rest of that post explains how you do that. It's quite different from what I'm alleged to have said.
I know that your first priority is white identity politics. Like many people, you confuse it with "Labour" or "The Economy" or "Jobs" or "Anti-PC" or all the other ways in which it manifests itself because whiteness is the "default" and so things that preserve what is viewed as the status quo go unnoticed. (see - your recent rant on official government webpages in spanish) Trump appealed directly to white identity politics. To the idea of America as it "should be". With a border wall to keep the mexicans out, to keep the Muslims out and law and order to keep the blacks in their place. When you could get a job out of high school and non-white, non-christian, non-straight culture wasn't around.
This is about more then jobs and always has been. That's why economic anxiety has as strong racial bias. And the fact that you keep insisting it's all about foreigners stealing jobs despite all the evidence about the rise in automation is kinda the whole point. You have a target you want to blame already. It couldn't possibly be that old paradigms are dying in the face of improving technology, it has to be those damn foreigners and we have to be able to bring back america like it used to be.
Democrats can't promise these voters what they want because what they want is an illusion of what America used to be. And a big part of that is white.