disastermouse
Banned
This disdain, you think it serves your cause, yes?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops
- Thread starter Diablos
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
You have no idea what you're talking about. I mean that with all due respect, but it's just true. There are about two or three candidates who would have detracted from Sanders' current share, and none of them are ones you named bar Brown. If Sanders was just an anti-Clinton sentiment, then when Biden dropped out, his votes would have gone to Sanders. They didn't, they went back to Clinton, because they are both establishment Democrats and thus represented a joint "not-Sanders" vote. You have the race entirely the wrong way round - if Hickenlooper, Biden, Warner, and Kaine were in the race, they would be draining from Clinton and Sanders would be leading by a country mile.
disastermouse
Banned
Yes, and they used to burn witches too. Do you really want to compare today's white working class with the white working class of the 30s/40s?
Also, saying that a condition is necessary for advancement isn't the same thing as saying it will cause it. Economic equality is required but not sufficient.
Required.
Not.
Sufficient.
The argument is not symmetrical and saying it one way does not mean it works the other way.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I wouldn't pressure her to do otherwise; I'm just pointing out she'd be shooting herself in the foot.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
There is no reason to believe they've changed, lol. Trump has gotten a massive amount of the white working class the Democrats lost in the 60s on economic proposals that will fuck them far harder than any Reagan or Bush tax cuts just because Trump has said he will get rid of the brown people.
disastermouse
Banned
And that will primarily be a politically motivated decision, not an idealistic one.
Do you look at yourself? You're just anxious because the idea of a Warren endorsement of Hillary could upset the Bernie side and pull votes away from him, that's all. This arguing about how Warren would be turning her back on the movement she started, etc. is a disguise for your displeasure at losing support. It's because you're still attached to the idea that Bernie Sanders has a chance to actually win, and if Warren endorses Hillary that's when the dream shatters, so you'd rather she keep her mouth shut and let you dream longer.
Elizabeth Warren is Elizabeth Warren, she does what she pleases, and she isn't beholden to Bernie Sanders or to Hillary Clinton. If she chooses to endorse somebody, I'm sure she has her reasons. If the people who backed Warren are going to turn on her because she used her own judgment to decide on something, then let her regrets be her regrets. You seem very sure that the Democratic politician of the future will resemble Bernie, so if Warren falls then someone else will take her place.
Your frustration now has nothing to do with electability. That's your excuse for why Warren shouldn't endorse. I'm sure she's more aware of what her position is right now than you, that's for sure.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yes, and Sanders gets a decent portion of those back - hence why he beats Trump by bigger margins than Clinton. No, they're not perfect, but one step at a time - first they buy into your economics, then, if that works, they might start believing you on other issues. Nobody's selling this as "every single poor white person will vote Sanders" - but a reasonable amount will to get progress going.
And_Gignac
Member
LOL
Black Mamba
Member
You really don't think a decent portion of Sanders' current potential voters are just people who would rather have someone other than Clinton? you're in a bubble, dude.
Hell, polling consistently shows Sanders supporters as weak compared to Hillary. Why is that?
This happens all the time in primaries. People want to be contrarian for a while.
You have this notion that every current Sanders supporter is some far left person or someone who is anti-establishment or something, but this isn't true at all. There are definitely a bunch of people who don't even view Sanders as anti-establishment. They see him as Generic D not named Clinton.
I bet a lot, possibly most, of his current supporters don't even know he's not actually a Democrat until this primary!
In politics, we seem to think everyone conforms to our own beliefs. The truth is a lot of Bernie's support is coming from people who know little about him right now.
Shit, you know how many people are in Clinton's camp just because they think "yeah, but I bet Bill is the one who will actually run things?" It happened 8 years ago and is happening again.
I doubt the severity of your claim, but I agree with the overall point that 1)it's dumb for the Dem establishment to try to essentially peer pressure her and 2)she might be holding back such an endorsement because she does know that a large part of her contingent favor Bernie over Hillary and that she's just trying to be respectful of everyone in the meantime.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Sanders is losing anyway. I know this, it's just so very unlikely he wins. I don't care about Warren endorsing Clinton from Sanders' perspective, it would turn an initially tight loss into a wipe-out but the pressure has already been applied, so that's no loss. Genuinely, in the long run I care about establishing a powerful progressive movement within the Democratic party, and Warren is the strongest torch-bearer for that movement. I care *much* more about that.
disastermouse
Banned
Really? He's talking about shipping the African Americans back to Africa? Cuz that was a populist solution to the race issue once upon a time (Liberia says 'hi').
Many of the advances of the unions were based in multi-racial unity. Further, the economic advancement of the white working class is what cleared the way for civil rights movement.
Uhhh...
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/10/...views-on-selected-2014-ballot-measure-issues/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latino-millennials-are-more-conservative-abortion-n330921
Let's head to gay marriage, shall we?
http://www.people-press.org/2015/06...-record-high-but-key-segments-remain-opposed/
As for Asian-Americans; article below explains it better than I can.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/opinion/why-are-asian-americans-such-loyal-democrats.html?_r=0
As for guns, that's just the NRA doing their thing. I think everyone's in agreement on that one.
But think about how many jokes people make about poor, dumb white southerners / rural folks in relation to that platform. THAT'S an identity.
Bingo.
My issue isn't that we should throw away progressive policies towards race or gender or sexuality simply to cater to southern democrats or whatnot. I am saying that we should focus on the myriad of things we have in common with them, and build our party around those (and a common identity on that) just as much as anything else. We're too busy trying to define ourselves by our differences rather than working together based on our commonalities, and we've been succumbing to this very conservative bullshit of "if you aren't our ally 100% you are the enemy".
Hell, look at the Sanders / Warren / Clinton fight you have going on here. Personally, I would probably lean Sanders between the two, but if Clinton wins, it's not like she's a bad candidate. She will push a lot of the same issues that Sanders will, even if not as hard, and that incremental change is important to me. But look at the bloodbath that goes on about it.
Fundamentally - I'm taking pragmatism over principles when it comes to it. (I worked for Obama for too long, what can I say)
Because its easy for me to stand on principles (even as I get "randomly checked" at airport security every time I fly because I'm a brown dude with a beard) because fundamentally I know I'm well off all things considered. But I can't ask someone who actually needs help to wait an extra 4 years, 8 years, however long, because the solution that was proposed wasn't perfect.
If I have to pound the economic message in order to get us to a place where I can stop black people from getting shot because they looked funny at a cop, or I can appoint a new SCOTUS judge to restore VRA; I'll freaking do it.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Preach.
Black Mamba
Member
You guys need to stop bringing this up. Not only is the polling this far out completely worthless, nobody really knows Bernie outside of the early primary states.
Let me tell you, and I know anecdotes aren't good arguments, but nobody in California is paying attention to the democrat primary. Just the other day someone asked me "wait, who is it again that's running against Hillary?"
Bernie is a generic D placeholder in national polls for the general election voters.
If you want to argue Bernie would attract those voters over Trump, you have to use philosophical or political arguments, not empirical ones because no reliable empirical data exists.
I guarantee you, if I conducted a national poll and put a fake name but a D next to it, it would beat Trump by the same Sanders vote or around it.
disastermouse
Banned
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
So first, I dispute this. Sanders is at 84% national recognition now (Clinton 96%). Secondly, even if you were right about this, which you're not, that tells you that Clinton polls *worse* than a generic (D). Don't you need to seriously reconsider how viable she is at that point?
Black Mamba
Member
National Recognition means "yeah, I've heard that name."
It does not mean "Yeah, I know what his policies are and his history is and pretty much exactly who he appears to be as a person and politician."
To the bold: no, because every well-known Democrat not named Bill Clinton would poll that way.
edit: Also like to point out that those recognition polls are highly suspect. For one, 85% of voters couldn't pick Joe Biden out of a picture lineup. Not joking.
For another, the respondents on those polls are likely more active politically than the real electorate because those people hang up the phone this far out from an election.
Elaugaufein
Member
Yes. This, Australian swing voters want low taxes (right) and good public services while loathing privatization and public-private partnerships (left) . These things are mutually exclusive so they vote for whoever they feel presents the greatest benefit to them right now.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
No, it's more than that. That's 86% who felt informed enough to say very favourable/favourable/unfavourable/very unfavourable. I just disagree on your second point, because Sanders is now more well-known than perhaps any active Democratic politician not named Clinton/Obama/Biden/Warren, and he is not polling that way.
You should be looking to build a progressive movement outside the Democratic Party.
...what happened to the gay rights movement, exactly? Or feminism? Or the environmental movement?
JesseEwiak
Member
By well informed, it means, "hey, I like the guy I've seen on TV once or twice guy with the weird hair screaming about the banks."
It was destroyed when Bill didn't veto a bill and cripple his Presidency that was passing by veto proof margins anyway.
Poodlestrike
Banned
You should be looking to build a progressive movement outside the Democratic Party.
How is gay rights in a grave?
How does that even make sense?
EDIT: Ditto Feminism and the environmental movement.
Elaugaufein
Member
Yeah, to be fair some of those died because they achieve their motivating force. And some of them came back to life later (Gay rights, environmental).
Note the dates. That's the point at which the Democratic Party more or less abandoned those things as major issues. Some of them came back and got re-embraced.
please let this fucking guy get the nomination, I want to see him destroyed
https://twitter.com/nytnickc/status/687067969772388352
https://twitter.com/nytnickc/status/687067969772388352
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/chelsea-clinton-takes-bernie-sanders/story?id=36245706
Even Chelsea is getting into the action, interesting tactic by the Clinton campaign.
Poodlestrike
Banned
And Occupy is dead, but it's buried in the wrong graveyard; they died because they refused to play ball at all.
Black Mamba
Member
90% of people couldn't name anyone other than Obama and Clinton as a democrat in politics. I'm including Biden, here. You overestimate people so fucking much, dude. People know fuck all. And who the hell else would be a national politician, anyway? People hear Bernie's name on the news when they hear about a poll coming out. That's it. But that's more than everyone not named clinton, biden, obama!
Second, who cares if they pick a favorable or unfavorable?
You're starting to argue that polling is very reliable in terms of uninformed people's beliefs. lol. You need to back off what polling says in relation to actual people.
Look how quickly voters went from Carson to Cruz. Look at the "not Romney" in the last GOP Primary.
Look how Clinton went from high approval to lower approval simply by announcing she's running. What does that tell you about people and voters?
Most voters know very little. Most voters respond to polls and vote in an uninformed way. This is how it really works.
You're an informed person when it comes to politics. You are unique. Don't start to believe people are like you even if they disagree with you.
disastermouse
Banned
Look at the dates. The point is that the Democratic Party co-opted the energy of those movements and delayed them as long as they could. Dems flipped on gay rights only when it was politically advantageous to do so. They didn't lead the charge, they co-opted the energy for electoral gains while holding back the movements themselves.
so being co-opted and ultimately successful is the graveyard, I see
And_Gignac
Member
This is going to backfire terribly.
Damn, what a horrible day for Clinton Camp. The debate is going to be insane.
Rhomega Beta
Member
SOTU in an hour?
Well did they kill these movements or cynically exploit them when beneficial? Kind of feels like a mixed message cartoon.
disastermouse
Banned
Right. And it was 'led' by the Democratic Party...
Except it wasn't. Look at the dates. In the '90s, it was political suicide to be pro-gay rights as a Democrat. Even our great savior (Obama) had to 'evolve' on the issue.
Mrs. Manky
Banned
What exactly is the difference between "We hate black people so we don't want them to have something good" and "We are telling these white people that black people are horrible and they shouldn't share something good with them"? It's all racism. That "mythical black person who was abusing the system" wasn't something that was just pulled out of nowhere, it already existed as a racist stereotype of the "lazy black".
And it is disingenuous to believe that these politicians who sought to overturn the New Deal were neutral and distant types who were able to reach into the container of Racism with a long spoon and dole out little tidbits without getting any of the toxic ideology on them. The people who were using these caricatures to exploit the populace were also racist.
Would you say she is being...pimped out?
disastermouse
Banned
The success had nothing to do with the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party didn't actively fight for those causes, mass movements did. Starting in the '70s the gay community started working to 'normalize' gay culture which led to more people realizing that many of their friends, families, and neighbors were gay. That removed the threat of the 'other'. Gay activists did that, not the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party pushed 'don't ask, don't tell' and, if they were feeling frisky, 'civil unions'.
JesseEwiak
Member
So, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan became SC Justices to be the votes that helped make gay marriage legal nationwide by magic?
This is where the rubber hits the road. We can point to how these changes are reached.
It's easy to snipe. It's not so easy to present a precise, realistic alternative path towards these end goals.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Maybe I'll attend an event to give her a piece of my mind.
EDIT: Poo, the event closest to me in women only.
Do you think the supreme court is responsible for civil rights era progress?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked