How the fuck would CNN know what the Democratic Parties policies were for working class jobs? They spent a total of 36 minutes talking about policy over the entire general election.
i guess maybe voters perceive it as a zero-sum game? like any effort put into one thing is perceived as wasted energy that could be spent on the other thing
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
We need to be able to push more than one message, which isn't necessarily wrong. But we shouldn't stop pushing for more rights for specific minorities either.
How the fuck would CNN know what the Democratic Parties policies were for working class jobs? They spent a total of 36 minutes talking about policy over the entire general election.
That was the network news broadcasts. Despite being 24 hours a day, I bet CNN spent even less time on it.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
CNN host Chris Cuomo said the Democratic Party is criticized for caring more about gender-neutral bathrooms than jobs during an interview Tuesday with Karen Finney.
Finney, a former spokeswoman for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, discussed with Cuomo how to unite more Americans under the Democratic Party on CNN’s show New Day.
Cuomo called out the party during the interview for being out of touch with blue-collar voters.
“The criticism of your party is you’re talking about which bathroom to use, you know, more than what jobs people have in the middle class and that’s why your party objectively–I mean, there’s zero opinion about this. It used to be Republicans, white-collar, Democrats, blue collar. Now that’s flipped,” Cuomo said.
Finney agreed the party had seen a shift.
“We need to do a better job of understanding” why voters picked Donald Trump over Clinton, she said.
Finney added that part of the problem could be the hateful rhetoric stemming from the so-called alt-right movement.
“I’m very concerned about some of the hateful rhetoric we heard from Donald Trump and whether or not that was also a motivating factor, Chris. I don’t think we can ignore that,” she said.
“The alt-right didn’t get him elected. The alt-right, it’s a small group, it may be growing,” Cuomo responded. “That’s not why you lost.”
For fuck's sake, she has a hefty majority now. I hate this stupid spin.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
we desperately need strong socialist leaders, but we need them to not be confused elderly white men
A really, really important thing (at least in my mind):
Socialism (and a lot of left-wing ideology) from way back in the Civil Rights era had incredibly problematic elements and Sanders did embody (some of) them. Sexism, for example; socialist rallies emphatically rejected the suffrage movement & intersectionality with feminism. The scars of that extremely ugly divide are still with us to this day, even though the schism is currently being mended.
The sort of 'polite' racism that was underscored by people like Malcolm X - and not just in terms of things like white Civil Rights allies cowing black people, but protecting school segregation in northern states that were traditionally seen as havens.
People getting way too comfortable with the idea of personal armament = personal liberty, and/or the belief that we need to share in the monopoly of violence to accomplish political goals.
So... yeah. There is a lot of pretty bad history to be reckoned with, and I see a lot of resistance to that reckoning when we're away from election seasons if I'm honest. I'd love for another firebrand who wants to beat the drum about income equality, regardless of their age or awkwardness, but I really hope a lesson is learned about banging-on about income equality to the exclusion of just about everything else.
House members do tend to be older than the public in general. But the average House Democrat is 59, according to FiveThirtyEight, and the average age of Democrats’ senior leadership is 72. (It’s just 49 for Republicans.)
Today in sadness: I realized tomorrow is the last Sasha and Malia awkwardly stand by while their father makes terrible turkey jokes/pardoning ceremony. An annual highlight of this administration.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I think it's super important to take a moment to point out exactly what Bernie Sanders is doing here. Of course we want candidates that are going to be ideologically aligned with our interests. Of course we want qualified individuals regardless of their physical attributes. Of course it goes without saying that diversity is good, because it brings different kinds of life experiences into the levers of power to create better policy for all walks of life.
Why, then, are you saying it, Mr. Sanders?
Oh, right. Because you're not actually calling for diversity. You're dog-whistling to belittle diversity by calling into question the credentials and purity of every non-white non-male candidate. You know what really goes without saying? We're not going to vote for a minority just because they're a minority. We're not fucking idiots. We still want qualified candidates, we just simply celebrate when they bring more diversity in addition to being qualified for the job. So, I guess what really goes without saying, here, is that you didn't lose because Hillary was an Affirmative Action candidate. She was fucking better than you, and today, with these words, you've proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You know what does need to be said? You're a spineless coward, Bernie, a loathsome opportunistic hack willing to throw the ideals of this party and this nation under the bus for the cheap and empty validation of an "I told you so". So I hope you can hear me when I say: Fuck Off. Get out of my party.
If Elizabeth Warren (also a woman) was the nominee, you would not be hearing this from Bernie Sanders.
Hillary Clinton is a third-way corporatist who favors free trade and a loosely-regulated Wall Street. She unsuccessfully triangulated those positions to mollify the electorate. That's where his criticism is coming from, and it is totally justified. Ignoring the substance of that criticism and claiming its use is misogynistic is a recipe for future electoral failures.
I earnestly believe that if Elizabeth Warren runs in 2020, it will then be discovered that she's just, somehow, unlikeable. Not presidential? Something seems off about her. :P :x :x
I earnestly believe that if Elizabeth Warren runs in 2020, it will then be discovered that she's just, somehow, unlikeable. Not presidential? Something seems off about her. :P :x :x
We're going to hear 18 months of coverage on whether or not she's actually native american.
I think it's super important to take a moment to point out exactly what Bernie Sanders is doing here. Of course we want candidates that are going to be ideologically aligned with our interests. Of course we want qualified individuals regardless of their physical attributes. Of course it goes without saying that diversity is good, because it brings different kinds of life experiences into the levers of power to create better policy for all walks of life.
Why, then, are you saying it, Mr. Sanders?
Oh, right. Because you're not actually calling for diversity. You're dog-whistling to belittle diversity by calling into question the credentials and purity of every non-white non-male candidate. You know what really goes without saying? We're not going to vote for a minority just because they're a minority. We're not fucking idiots. We still want qualified candidates, we just simply celebrate when they bring more diversity in addition to being qualified for the job. So, I guess what really goes without saying, here, is that you didn't lose because Hillary was an Affirmative Action candidate. She was fucking better than you, and today, with these words, you've proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You know what does need to be said? You're a spineless coward, Bernie, a loathsome opportunistic hack willing to throw the ideals of this party and this nation under the bus for the cheap and empty validation of an "I told you so". So I hope you can hear me when I say: Fuck Off. Get out of my party.
If Elizabeth Warren (also a woman) was the nominee, you would not be hearing this from Bernie Sanders.
Hillary Clinton is a third-way corporatist who favors free trade and a loosely-regulated Wall Street. She unsuccessfully triangulated those positions to mollify the electorate. That's where his criticism is coming from, and it is totally justified. Ignoring the substance of that criticism and claiming its use is misogynistic is a recipe for future electoral failures.
She favours free trade yes, but so what? And she doesn't favour a loosely regulated Wall Street.
That's not where his criticism comes from. His criticism comes from the idea that the Democratic Party isn't anything more then "identity politics", which is just the roundabout way of saying "civil rights" and similar things, and that what really matters is the class struggle. This is the same shit he peddled early in the primary. It's the same shit a bunch of people are peddling now. "Hey guys, how about we appeal more to white people again instead of talking about diversity and minority issues so much."
Today in sadness: I realized tomorrow is the last Sasha and Malia awkwardly stand by while their father makes terrible turkey jokes/pardoning ceremony. An annual highlight of this administration.
The pardoned turkey will have to live on in Trump's America. How can President Obama be so cruel?
a) Most positions in entry-level politics are volunteer-based, and demand a lot of time
b) You have to deal with a lot of difficult people & inter-personal conflicts / bullshit office politics for very little reward
Young people who I would most want on board are busy. I mean, of course they are; the kind of people we want engaged in the system are also people who want a good education & career. Asking them to do a bunch of volunteer work on top of their school schedule, work schedule & what little time they can partition for hobbies & quality family / SO time probably is asking too much.
I think it would be easier to involve young people if we offered a bunch of entry-level paid positions that could lead into careers. But doing that would involve opening a whole can of worms regarding public funding of political parties & bringing parties in as an official part of government apparatus and... ugh.
There's just a long way to go before I can see a realistic outlet for getting young people involved in a big way.
That's not where his criticism comes from. His criticism comes from the idea that the Democratic Party isn't anything more then "identity politics", which is just the roundabout way of saying "civil rights" and similar things, and that what really matters is the class struggle. This is the same shit he peddled early in the primary. It's the same shit a bunch of people are peddling now. "Hey guys, how about we appeal more to white people again instead of talking about diversity and minority issues so much."
I don't know how he could put it more clearly. He said being pro civil rights is necessary but not sufficient. And he's right. There must be a persuasive economic message, and the Democrats picked a poor messenger.
+4
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Have you guys seen how rapidly both Bush and Obama aged while doing the job? Being a top politician is extremely stressful and demanding. I would not be surprised if Trump had to quit early for medical reasons, or just claim medical reasons and quit because he doesn't like that much work.
And I am looking forward to him making an ass out of himself while meeting foreign politicians.
I'm assuming it's only stressful if you care about doing a good job.
.
You know what does need to be said? You're a spineless coward, Bernie, a loathsome opportunistic hack willing to throw the ideals of this party and this nation under the bus for the cheap and empty validation of an "I told you so". So I hope you can hear me when I say: Fuck Off. Get out of my party.
Jesus christers are you people high? Like, do all of y'all post with the mouse in one hand and a doobie in the other? I can't imagine a more clear-cut case of missing the point.
He's not saying that electing minority candidates is bad he's saying that they have to have something else to recommend them other than the color of their skin. "Vote for me because I'm X" failed. It's offensive to both voter intelligence and anyone who is not X, because it assumes being X is better than being Y, because why else would you make it your primary argument?
"Vote for me because I'm a woman!" Sounds great, right? We all want more women in politics. But that statement could be from both Elizabeth Warren and Ann Coulter. Policy matters immensely. Identity politics alone made Clarence Thomas a Supreme Court Justice.
Also if you're saying that calling for more progressive politicians is "throwing the ideals of the Democratic Party under the bus" then fuck the Democratic party. That attitude towards progressivism is why you lost and will continue to lose.
That's not where his criticism comes from. His criticism comes from the idea that the Democratic Party isn't anything more then "identity politics", which is just the roundabout way of saying "civil rights" and similar things, and that what really matters is the class struggle. This is the same shit he peddled early in the primary. It's the same shit a bunch of people are peddling now. "Hey guys, how about we appeal more to white people again instead of talking about diversity and minority issues so much."
I don't know how he could put it more clearly. He said being pro civil rights is necessary but not sufficient. And he's right. There must be a persuasive economic message, and the Democrats picked a poor messenger.
He couldn't have been more clear, the problem is you aren't listening.
We need candidates — black and white and Latino and gay and male — we need all of that. But we need all of those candidates and public officials to have the guts to stand up to the oligarchy. That is the fight of today.
The fight of today is not about equal rights, it's about class. Same shit as always from him. Yeah, yeah, civil rights, but class!!!
I think you'll find the people really worried about Trump right now and who need help from the Democratic party are more the muslims-afraid-of-being-deported types then the poor.
Yup, one guy is up there screaming about "talking your country back". But no, this wasn't about "identity politics"...
Again, there's a concerted effort here to say "Clinton lost because she made this race about things that don't appeal to white men, so lets pull back and appeal to white men more" by all sorts of people.
It's an attempt by many to spin a new narrative to push the agenda towards their pet issues.
shryke on
+13
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
It's denigrating her campaign, because that's not what it was.
And identity politics worked beautifully in this campaign. The winning campaign was 100% white identity politics.
What are you talking about? Both candidates were white.
Trump won because he appealed to more voters outside of cities (mostly on immigration and trade issues), and with the way the Electoral College is set up he gets more electoral votes for winning Podunk than she does for winning Chicago. It's killing me to see you guys take the wrong lesson from this.
You don't know what identity politics actually means is the problem. Identity politics is appealing to people based on elements of their identity. It's not "vote for me because I look like you" it's vote for me because you're white/black/Hispanic/male/female/gay/whatever. The Trump campaign's not very implicit message was "America was great when whites were in charge." That's white identity politics.
We're for women's rights and gay rights and minority rights and the rights of children is also identity politics. It did not appeal as much to white people in the right places.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+20
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Everyone needs to stop worrying about swaying a handful of Trump voters and start focusing on increasing turnout. We already know America is majority liberal because of widespread support for liberal social policies. The problem is that they just don't vote.
Trying to win a fraction of 55% is idiotic when you could be focusing on winning over the 45%.
House members do tend to be older than the public in general. But the average House Democrat is 59, according to FiveThirtyEight, and the average age of Democrats’ senior leadership is 72. (It’s just 49 for Republicans.)
Obama truly was an anomaly
You might want to consider exactly why the GOP is so young these days, though - they tossed out their old guard for neophyte Teapers.
Everyone needs to stop worrying about swaying a handful of Trump voters and start focusing on increasing turnout. We already know America is majority liberal because of widespread support for liberal social policies. The problem is that they just don't vote.
Trying to win a fraction of 55% is idiotic when you could be focusing on winning over the 45%.
We should start calling it something...like the silent majority.
Everyone needs to stop worrying about swaying a handful of Trump voters and start focusing on increasing turnout. We already know America is majority liberal because of widespread support for liberal social policies. The problem is that they just don't vote.
Trying to win a fraction of 55% is idiotic when you could be focusing on winning over the 45%.
We should start calling it something...like the silent majority.
I'm partial to "the silenced majority" with that popular vote gap widening.
The "identity politics=suspect" argument is PRECISELY in the face of the other team winning on it. The majority of the electorate is still white, if everyone votes their color then minorities lose.
House members do tend to be older than the public in general. But the average House Democrat is 59, according to FiveThirtyEight, and the average age of Democrats’ senior leadership is 72. (It’s just 49 for Republicans.)
Obama truly was an anomaly
You might want to consider exactly why the GOP is so young these days, though - they tossed out their old guard for neophyte Teapers.
Why do you think she ran away from her own position on TPP? It's electoral poison in the rust belt.
Why is fre trade a bad thing is the question I'm asking, since you say it in the same breath as the bullshit about deregulating Wall St.
It's bad insofar as it creates an incentive to relocate jobs out of the U.S. and, at least as implemented thus far, does nothing for the newly-jobless beyond empty promises of retraining. For the purposes of this thread, it's bad because supporting it hurts you in Wisconsin and Michigan.
As far as the Wall Street 'bullshit,' I suggest revisiting Hillary Clinton's time in the Senate and what Elizabeth Warren had to say about Clinton's vote on the bankruptcy bill. I'm not even that mad about it--she probably saw no other way to win in New York than courting the financial sector. But let's be honest about it. Goldman Sachs didn't pay Clinton a fortune to hear her views on how they have run roughshod over the country and desperately need more regulation.
+8
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Yup, one guy is up there screaming about "talking your country back". But no, this wasn't about "identity politics"...
Again, there's a concerted effort here to say "Clinton lost because she made this race about things that don't appeal to white men, so lets pull back and appeal to white men more" by all sorts of people.
It's an attempt by many to spin a new narrative to push the agenda towards their pet issues.
Also, away from having to actually try to be inclusive.
Everyone needs to stop worrying about swaying a handful of Trump voters and start focusing on increasing turnout. We already know America is majority liberal because of widespread support for liberal social policies. The problem is that they just don't vote.
Trying to win a fraction of 55% is idiotic when you could be focusing on winning over the 45%.
.
You know what does need to be said? You're a spineless coward, Bernie, a loathsome opportunistic hack willing to throw the ideals of this party and this nation under the bus for the cheap and empty validation of an "I told you so". So I hope you can hear me when I say: Fuck Off. Get out of my party.
Jesus christers are you people high? Like, do all of y'all post with the mouse in one hand and a doobie in the other? I can't imagine a more clear-cut case of missing the point.
He's not saying that electing minority candidates is bad he's saying that they have to have something else to recommend them other than the color of their skin. "Vote for me because I'm X" failed. It's offensive to both voter intelligence and anyone who is not X, because it assumes being X is better than being Y, because why else would you make it your primary argument?
"Vote for me because I'm a woman!" Sounds great, right? We all want more women in politics. But that statement could be from both Elizabeth Warren and Ann Coulter. Policy matters immensely. Identity politics alone made Clarence Thomas a Supreme Court Justice.
Also if you're saying that calling for more progressive politicians is "throwing the ideals of the Democratic Party under the bus" then fuck the Democratic party. That attitude towards progressivism is why you lost and will continue to lose.
So, let me ask you this:
Who, on the Democratic Ticket, ran a "Vote for me because I'm X" campaign this year?
Posts
MWO: Adamski
i guess maybe voters perceive it as a zero-sum game? like any effort put into one thing is perceived as wasted energy that could be spent on the other thing
That was the network news broadcasts. Despite being 24 hours a day, I bet CNN spent even less time on it.
Kshama Sawant could have been one if she didn't spend so much time attacking Hillary Clinton after the primaries were already over.
For fuck's sake, she has a hefty majority now. I hate this stupid spin.
A really, really important thing (at least in my mind):
Socialism (and a lot of left-wing ideology) from way back in the Civil Rights era had incredibly problematic elements and Sanders did embody (some of) them. Sexism, for example; socialist rallies emphatically rejected the suffrage movement & intersectionality with feminism. The scars of that extremely ugly divide are still with us to this day, even though the schism is currently being mended.
The sort of 'polite' racism that was underscored by people like Malcolm X - and not just in terms of things like white Civil Rights allies cowing black people, but protecting school segregation in northern states that were traditionally seen as havens.
People getting way too comfortable with the idea of personal armament = personal liberty, and/or the belief that we need to share in the monopoly of violence to accomplish political goals.
So... yeah. There is a lot of pretty bad history to be reckoned with, and I see a lot of resistance to that reckoning when we're away from election seasons if I'm honest. I'd love for another firebrand who wants to beat the drum about income equality, regardless of their age or awkwardness, but I really hope a lesson is learned about banging-on about income equality to the exclusion of just about everything else.
Obama truly was an anomaly
this means you
You're sweet.
Unrelated: Why does it take CA so long to count their votes? Are the absentee ballots not set up for scantron or something?
They are scantron. I'm not sure what the delay is. Verifying provisional ballots maybe?
I heard on npr today they are manually copying ballots that have coffee stains on them because it throws off the scantron machine.
If Elizabeth Warren (also a woman) was the nominee, you would not be hearing this from Bernie Sanders.
Hillary Clinton is a third-way corporatist who favors free trade and a loosely-regulated Wall Street. She unsuccessfully triangulated those positions to mollify the electorate. That's where his criticism is coming from, and it is totally justified. Ignoring the substance of that criticism and claiming its use is misogynistic is a recipe for future electoral failures.
We're going to hear 18 months of coverage on whether or not she's actually native american.
She favours free trade yes, but so what? And she doesn't favour a loosely regulated Wall Street.
That's not where his criticism comes from. His criticism comes from the idea that the Democratic Party isn't anything more then "identity politics", which is just the roundabout way of saying "civil rights" and similar things, and that what really matters is the class struggle. This is the same shit he peddled early in the primary. It's the same shit a bunch of people are peddling now. "Hey guys, how about we appeal more to white people again instead of talking about diversity and minority issues so much."
The pardoned turkey will have to live on in Trump's America. How can President Obama be so cruel?
Steam | XBL
It's so hard to get younger people involved.
I can sympathize because:
a) Most positions in entry-level politics are volunteer-based, and demand a lot of time
b) You have to deal with a lot of difficult people & inter-personal conflicts / bullshit office politics for very little reward
Young people who I would most want on board are busy. I mean, of course they are; the kind of people we want engaged in the system are also people who want a good education & career. Asking them to do a bunch of volunteer work on top of their school schedule, work schedule & what little time they can partition for hobbies & quality family / SO time probably is asking too much.
I think it would be easier to involve young people if we offered a bunch of entry-level paid positions that could lead into careers. But doing that would involve opening a whole can of worms regarding public funding of political parties & bringing parties in as an official part of government apparatus and... ugh.
There's just a long way to go before I can see a realistic outlet for getting young people involved in a big way.
Why do you think she ran away from her own position on TPP? It's electoral poison in the rust belt.
I don't know how he could put it more clearly. He said being pro civil rights is necessary but not sufficient. And he's right. There must be a persuasive economic message, and the Democrats picked a poor messenger.
I'm assuming it's only stressful if you care about doing a good job.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
He's not saying that electing minority candidates is bad he's saying that they have to have something else to recommend them other than the color of their skin. "Vote for me because I'm X" failed. It's offensive to both voter intelligence and anyone who is not X, because it assumes being X is better than being Y, because why else would you make it your primary argument?
"Vote for me because I'm a woman!" Sounds great, right? We all want more women in politics. But that statement could be from both Elizabeth Warren and Ann Coulter. Policy matters immensely. Identity politics alone made Clarence Thomas a Supreme Court Justice.
Also if you're saying that calling for more progressive politicians is "throwing the ideals of the Democratic Party under the bus" then fuck the Democratic party. That attitude towards progressivism is why you lost and will continue to lose.
Why is fre trade a bad thing is the question I'm asking, since you say it in the same breath as the bullshit about deregulating Wall St.
He couldn't have been more clear, the problem is you aren't listening.
The fight of today is not about equal rights, it's about class. Same shit as always from him. Yeah, yeah, civil rights, but class!!!
I think you'll find the people really worried about Trump right now and who need help from the Democratic party are more the muslims-afraid-of-being-deported types then the poor.
And identity politics worked beautifully in this campaign. The winning campaign was 100% white identity politics.
Again, there's a concerted effort here to say "Clinton lost because she made this race about things that don't appeal to white men, so lets pull back and appeal to white men more" by all sorts of people.
It's an attempt by many to spin a new narrative to push the agenda towards their pet issues.
Trump won because he appealed to more voters outside of cities (mostly on immigration and trade issues), and with the way the Electoral College is set up he gets more electoral votes for winning Podunk than she does for winning Chicago. It's killing me to see you guys take the wrong lesson from this.
We're for women's rights and gay rights and minority rights and the rights of children is also identity politics. It did not appeal as much to white people in the right places.
Trying to win a fraction of 55% is idiotic when you could be focusing on winning over the 45%.
You might want to consider exactly why the GOP is so young these days, though - they tossed out their old guard for neophyte Teapers.
We should start calling it something...like the silent majority.
I'm partial to "the silenced majority" with that popular vote gap widening.
And it worked.
i mean it's not a panacea but they could at least give it a crack
It's bad insofar as it creates an incentive to relocate jobs out of the U.S. and, at least as implemented thus far, does nothing for the newly-jobless beyond empty promises of retraining. For the purposes of this thread, it's bad because supporting it hurts you in Wisconsin and Michigan.
As far as the Wall Street 'bullshit,' I suggest revisiting Hillary Clinton's time in the Senate and what Elizabeth Warren had to say about Clinton's vote on the bankruptcy bill. I'm not even that mad about it--she probably saw no other way to win in New York than courting the financial sector. But let's be honest about it. Goldman Sachs didn't pay Clinton a fortune to hear her views on how they have run roughshod over the country and desperately need more regulation.
Also, away from having to actually try to be inclusive.
Economic populism could be pretty helpful here.
So, let me ask you this:
Who, on the Democratic Ticket, ran a "Vote for me because I'm X" campaign this year?