Support NeoGAF

[phanphare]

Ironically the one area where I think the Democrats should swing way harder left is the one that Bernie, disappointingly, didn't go in on nearly hard enough for my opinion: tax the fuck out of the rich. Taxing the middle class is suicide, you will get fucked, never ever run on it, but I think a really aggressive platform of "make them pay" could be effective.

that was one of the things bernie talked about most, actually. both in regards to individuals and corporations paying their fair share. income inequality and the redistribution of wealth was probably the biggest single issue he talked about.

 

[Moofers]

I mean, right now the line from a lot of people is that we need to swing even further into far left policies that get smacked down when they're voted on in order to appeal to a youth vote that's notoriously fickle at the best of times at risk of alienating more reliable demographics. That, frankly, sounds delusional to me, it sounds like people who never leave Twitter and who really really think that immediete single payer healthcare is so obvious that 60% of the country is just waiting for a candidate who runs on it to suddenly turn up at the polls

Ironically the one area where I think the Democrats should swing way harder left is the one that Bernie, disappointingly, didn't go in on nearly hard enough for my opinion: tax the fuck out of the rich. Taxing the middle class is suicide, you will get fucked, never ever run on it, but I think a really aggressive platform of "make them pay" could be effective.

Then please explain how Bernie managed to become such a firebrand and fill stadiums with passionate people during his campaign. He literally went from obscurity to filling stadiums in a year's time. Were those people just there because he was charismatic? If that's the case, the countless thinkpieces I saw about his lack of charisma being the reason he could never win in a general were all wrong. So could it be that those people actually agreed with his policies? Nah! It couldn't be that! They were too far out in leftie millenial dreamland to ever resonate with real Americans!

Come on man. Its not a super far left position to expect that corporations and the wealthy super elite pay their share in order to pave the way for things like universal healthcare and free tuition. Its not crazy. Hell, your 2nd paragraph even says that's the one area you agree with him. Also, you think he somehow didn't go hard enough on that? I mean that was like 75% of his platform! How many speeches did he give where he talked about oligarchy and the 1%? Like ALL of them?

I do not understand what you guys want sometimes or what you think you saw for the last 18 months.

 

[Jonm1010]

I mean, right now the line from a lot of people is that we need to swing even further into far left policies that get smacked down when they're voted on in order to appeal to a youth vote that's notoriously fickle at the best of times at risk of alienating more reliable demographics. That, frankly, sounds delusional to me, it sounds like people who never leave Twitter and who really really think that single payer healthcare is so obvious that 60% of the country is just waiting for a candidate who runs on it to suddenly turn up at the polls

I think it can't be forgotten that this election knocked down a lot of assumptions that Democrats had tethered themselves to since Reagan. The country has shifted in lots of ways that Trump and Bernie exposed by what people got passionate about and what people have grown indifferent too.

And so in a sense, yes, the Democrats would be stupid not to go further left on a number of issues. Keynesian stimulus all of the sudden is not held up as a pejorative. Less interventionist foreign policy is now on the table. Unfettered free trade as a universal positive and working class issues are back in the limelight. Political ethics and structural reforms. Throw on top looming land mines Republicans have set themselves up for on Medicare privatization and undoing the ACA, giving an opening for Liberals to once again claim the moral and economic high ground on healthcare reform.

In my mind it's how effective they can be at getting the messaging right, building around these issues as a party and finding candidates that represent and channel these issues.

 

[Dude Abides]

Bernie has a hard time concealing his glee in this interview.

 

[Sirpopopop]

My response to the OP: No.

Especially when Sanders has shown he is willing to compromise with Trump on a $10 minimum wage. Yet, there was never a compromise on the table for $12.50.

 

[The Technomancer]

that was one of the things bernie talked about most, actually. both in regards to individuals and corporations paying their fair share. income inequality and the redistribution of wealth was probably the biggest single issue he talked about.

Come on man. Its not a super far left position to expect that corporations and the wealthy super elite pay their share in order to pave the way for things like universal healthcare and free tuition. Its not crazy. Hell, your 2nd paragraph even says that's the one area you agree with him. Also, you think he somehow didn't go hard enough on that? I mean that was like 75% of his platform! How many speeches did he give where he talked about oligarchy and the 1%? Like ALL of them?

I do not understand what you guys want sometimes or what you think you saw for the last 18 months.

What I wanted from him was for him to take it to its natural conclusion and properly state that we have all the money we need for Americans to enjoy prosperity if we distribute it properly instead of going in on trade deals and globalism quite frankly. Every single time he felt the need to go "and look at these horrible trade deals that took your jobs" instead of "and look at all the wealth we now have to spread around" he completely lost me. Protectionism and manufacturing labor are not the future

 

[Cocaloch]

What I wanted from him was for him to take it to its natural conclusion and properly state that we have all the money we need for Americans to enjoy prosperity if we distribute it properly instead of going in on trade deals and globalism quite frankly. Every single time he felt the need to go "and look at these horrible trade deals that took your jobs" instead of "and look at all the wealth we now have to spread around" he completely lost me. Protectionism and manufacturing labor are not the future

I agree they aren't the future, by they are certainly issues that have popular weight behind them. Regardless of the optimal policy for the country's well being, those certainly seem to be useful policies for winning this election.

 

[aeolist]

My response to the OP: No.

Especially when Sanders has shown he is willing to compromise with Trump on a $10 minimum wage. Yet, there was never a compromise on the table for $12.50.

any raise to the minimum wage should be accepted at this point, and sanders has been crystal clear about the kinds of policies he will fight

 

[guek]

What I wanted from him was for him to take it to its natural conclusion and properly state that we have all the money we need for Americans to enjoy prosperity if we distribute it properly instead of going in on trade deals and globalism quite frankly. Every single time he felt the need to go "and look at these horrible trade deals that took your jobs" instead of "and look at all the wealth we now have to spread around" he completely lost me. Protectionism and manufacturing labor are not the future

He speaks plenty about taxing the 1%

What he doesn't do is ever use the words "wealth redistribution" because that sounds a lot more radical than tax the 1%.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Dear moofers, guek, et. al.:

You lost the primary.

You lost single-payer in Colorado.

You lost with Jane Kim.

You lost with Tim Canova.

You lost with Zephyr Teachout.

You lost with Russ Feingold.

You lost Prop 61.

Face it - if Clinton is a loser, the Sanders path is an even bigger loser. Following that path is an even narrower path than Clinton's path.

 

[Sirpopopop]

any raise to the minimum wage should be accepted at this point, and sanders has been crystal clear about the kinds of policies he will fight

This doesn't answer my question. Why was a compromise with your "fellow" Democrats not alright, but a compromise with Republicans is acceptable?

 

[The Technomancer]

You lost with Russ Feingold.

You wanna talk egg on faces? I was so sure, so convinced, as someone who grew up in Wisconsin and who was living in Wisconsin in the four months leading up to the election, that Feingold was so popular among Wisconsin democrats that his participation in the race would actually drive turnout among people who were otherwise apathetic to Clinton

That he lost by an even larger margin than Clinton lost Wisconsin has me legit shook, and it scares me that other people don't see that as something to be very concerned about

 

[Cocaloch]

Dear moofers, guek, et. al.:

You lost the primary.

You lost single-payer in Colorado.

You lost with Jane Kim.

You lost with Tim Canova.

You lost with Zephyr Teachout.

You lost with Russ Feingold.

You lost Prop 61.

Face it - if Clinton is a loser, you guys are even bigger losers. Following your path is an even narrower path than Clinton's path.

You don't seem to understand at least part of the issue though. If people are told to abandon their policy goals and support more "moderates" because they are more electable, and they aren't actually electable, then what exactly was the point?

I also think you attribute too much importance to the nitty gritty of policy instead of message.

 

[aeolist]

This doesn't answer my question. Why was a compromise with your "fellow" Democrats not alright, but a compromise with Republicans is acceptable?

you don't campaign on a compromise. you promise to fight for a good policy and then maybe compromise to get it passed, there's no point in lowering expectations before negotiations even begin. it made people think hillary didn't really care about raising the minimum wage when she was pushing back so hard against a widely popular movement to $15.

 

[kirblar]

You don't seem to understand at least part of the issue though. If people are told to abandon their policy goals and support more "moderates" because they are more electable, and they aren't actually electable, then what exactly was the point?

I also think you attribute too much importance to the nitty gritty of policy instead of message.

You don't abandon them. You temper them.

you don't campaign on a compromise. you promise to fight for a good policy and then maybe compromise to get it passed, there's no point in lowering expectations before negotiations even begin. it made people think hillary didn't really care about raising the minimum wage when she was pushing back so hard against a widely popular movement to $15.

$15 minimum wage is NOT going to go over well in these rust belt states. These voters don't see themselves as poor, don't want a minimum wage job, and are going to think the benefits are going to "those people."

 

[guek]

Dear moofers, guek, et. al.:

You lost the primary.

You lost single-payer in Colorado.

You lost with Jane Kim.

You lost with Tim Canova.

You lost with Zephyr Teachout.

You lost with Russ Feingold.

You lost Prop 61.

Face it - if Clinton is a loser, you guys are even bigger losers. Following your path is an even narrower path than Clinton's path.

We're all losers right now, ya dingus. You've shown time and time again you're more concerned with candidate loyalty than actual policy.

This doesn't answer my question. Why was a compromise with your "fellow" Democrats not alright, but a compromise with Republicans is acceptable?

Like this bullshit. Taking a hard stance debating policy while vying for office then trying to compromise and work with the powers that be to achieve your goals is basic politics. But nope, I don't think you're capable of looking at Sanders beyond labeling him as some sort of enemy.

 

[soul creator]

Saying "sure, many Americans are okay with white nationalism, but let's try to get them to vote with us anyway" is not very convincing to me. White nationalists seek to drive me out of America. People who are like, "eh, I can take that or leave that" are not actually people I want in my coalition. How could I trust them?

I mean, there are plenty of Democratic voters that are "okay with white nationalism" also! A sample. Should we start kicking them out of the voting booth? Where does this idea come from that I somehow need to like or "trust" the people that vote for the same candidates I do? Progressives just need more votes, not more "friends". If I (not me personally, but the national Democratic party as an organization) can convince some white nationalist (or someone who's just passive/ignorant of white nationalism, which is far more numerous) to vote for a progressive, antiracist candidate, because you can appeal to some other part of their self-interest, and that keeps right-wing Republicans from getting into office, why wouldn't I try that?

I'm not sure what your actual end goal is. Most Clinton supporters spent the past year talking about "pragmatism" and "acknowledging political reality" and rejecting "moral purity", yet the argument now seems to be "we should make sure no one gives any inch to racism first, before we allow them to vote for our candidates"? I mean, that's fine and all, but I can't see too many elections being won with the strategy of "if you've remotely held any sort of racist view or even just casually ignored a racist view, I don't want you voting for my candidates".

Never mind the fact that Clinton's support was down in a lot of areas among her supposed "firewalls", latinos and black folks, so chalking that up solely to white supremacy seems odd.

Maybe the confusion is that you think the only possible way to reach Trump voters or non-voters is with racism, so you're thinking Democrats will have to compromise on antiracism/antisexism/etc. to win elections from now on? I guess if you think that's true, I'd understand your reaction.

But then Obama's campaign literally did what you're saying is "not very convincing", and he was able to win a couple elections, so I don't quite understand this idea of "we can't have any racists voting for us!" Do you think people who voted Democrat in 2008-2012 were purely progressive people who were all free of racism, sexism, and homophobia?

 

[Father_Brain]

I mean, there are plenty of Democratic voters that are "okay with white nationalism" also! A sample. Should we start kicking them out of the voting booth? Where does this idea come from that I somehow need to like or "trust" the people that vote for the same candidates I do? Progressives just need more votes, not more "friends". If I (not me personally, but the national Democratic party as an organization) can convince some white nationalist (or someone who's just passive/ignorant of white nationalism, which is far more numerous) to vote for a progressive, antiracist candidate, because you can appeal to some other part of their self-interest, and that keeps right-wing Republicans from getting into office, why wouldn't I try that?

I'm not sure what your actual end goal is. Most Clinton supporters spent the past year talking about "pragmatism" and "acknowledging political reality" and rejecting "moral purity", yet the argument now seems to be "we should make sure no one gives any inch to racism first, before we allow them to vote for our candidates"? I mean, that's fine and all, but I can't see too many elections being won with the strategy of "if you've remotely held any sort of racist view or even just casually ignored a racist view, I don't want you voting for my candidates".

Never mind the fact that Clinton's support was down in a lot of areas among her supposed "firewalls", latinos and black folks, so chalking that up solely to white supremacy seems odd.

Maybe the confusion is that you think the only possible way to reach Trump voters or non-voters is with racism, so you're thinking Democrats will have to compromise on antiracism/antisexism/etc. to win elections from now on? I guess if you think that's true, I'd understand your reaction.

But then Obama's campaign literally did what you're saying is "not very convincing", and he was able to win a couple elections, so I don't quite understand this idea of "we can't have any racists voting for us!" Do you think people who voted Democrat in 2008-2012 were purely progressive people who were all free of racism, sexism, and homophobia?

Seriously, I'm struggling to understand what the end point of pigeon's argument is, if not "give up, sit back, and passively wait for demographics to change."

 

[Cocaloch]

You don't abandon them. You temper them.

I thought you blocked me after that last thread since you hadn't responded to my earlier posts haha.

That certainly is a strategy, but some understandings of politics and political economy suggest it was always an alliance of convenience at best. What is the point of that alliance if there is no convenience for those people?

 

[phanphare]

What I wanted from him was for him to take it to its natural conclusion and properly state that we have all the money we need for Americans to enjoy prosperity if we distribute it properly instead of going in on trade deals and globalism quite frankly. Every single time he felt the need to go "and look at these horrible trade deals that took your jobs" instead of "and look at all the wealth we now have to spread around" he completely lost me. Protectionism and manufacturing labor are not the future

he did just that, and a lot of it. like I said that was one of his biggest talking points. the only reason he started hammering the trade deals is because he was running against clinton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VePpQBCbKBw

you'll notice that was the first episode of the series he did

 

[Boney]

So saying we need to talk more about social programs that will help them seems a little bit like wishful thinking to me without understanding why they hate social programs that will help them. Hint: historically, it's because those social programs will also help people of color.

While there's a deep rooted resentment in some areas, many sociologists discuss the autological feedback loop of Red States, where anti state sentiment is built with a negative relationship to government agencies due to poor services and allowing outside forces like oil companies to predate the environment which is exascerbated due to Republican propaganda. Democrats completely cutting those states lose to optimize the electoral college (oh the irony) is a critical element for that to work.

 

[necrosis]

There were a lot of reasons that led to her losing by a hair. That was certainly one of them, because the right took his talking points and ran with them. He was attacking her character throughout the process.

that's not on him

bernie had no obligation to ignore hillary's faults; in fact, as a fellow nominee, it could be argued that he had a responsibility not to

the truth of the matter is that hillary couldn't relate to voters in key swing states in a way that sanders, and later trump, very much could. warranted or not, she is also perceived as shady and untrustworthy by large swathes of the voting population. she was simply not a good candidate

 

[Arkeband]

You lost with Zephyr Teachout.

The attack ads on her were some of the slimiest I've ever seen since Daisy. The singular repeated phrase was "she wants to give money to terrorists" with crosshairs and mushroom clouds. It was insane nonsense, but rednecks ate it up.

 

[Quixzlizx]

The $12/hr instead of $15/hr argument is pretty embarrassingly simplistic. If higher is always better, why not make it $150/hr?

I mean, if you have economic studies showing that $15/hr would have a better long-term effect than $12/hr, then that's one thing. But "$15 being a policy of the people, $12 being the reluctant handout of a corporate shill" without any sort of data beyond that is middle school-level analysis.

Although, I guess that's what wins elections, so maybe I should just go with the flow.

 

[phanphare]

The $12/hr instead of $15/hr argument is pretty embarrassingly simplistic. If higher is always better, why not make it $150/hr?

I mean, if you have economic studies showing that $15/hr would have a better long-term effect than $12/hr, then that's one thing. But "$15 being a policy of the people, $12 being the reluctant handout of a corporate shill" without any sort of data beyond that is middle school-level analysis.

Although, I guess that's what wins elections, so maybe I should just go with the flow.

yeah I never really knocked hillary for that because she wanted a $12 national standard but supported states that wanted to go higher than that

 

[aeolist]

The $12/hr instead of $15/hr argument is pretty embarrassingly simplistic. If higher is always better, why not make it $150/hr?

I mean, if you have economic studies showing that $15/hr would have a better long-term effect than $12/hr, then that's one thing. But "$15 being a policy of the people, $12 being the reluctant handout of a corporate shill" without any sort of data beyond that is middle school-level analysis.

$15 comes from grassroots movement with wide popular support, so by definition it is the policy of the people. the point is that clinton couldn't ever bring herself to fully back progressive economic policies and negotiated everything downward before even trying to implement them.

"it's the most progressive platform ever!" wasn't a big selling point when the candidate had campaigned against a lot of it and was clearly reluctant about it.

Although, I guess that's what wins elections, so maybe I should just go with the flow.

pretty much

 

[kirblar]

$15 comes from grassroots movement with wide popular support, so by definition it is the policy of the people. the point is that clinton couldn't ever bring herself to fully back progressive economic policies and negotiated everything downward before even trying to implement them.

"it's the most progressive platform ever!" wasn't a big selling point when the candidate had campaigned against a lot of it and was clearly reluctant about it.

pretty much

The "popular grassroots movement with popular support" occurs entirely in high-earning urban areas. (It also has an advocacy campaign backed by labor groups behind it.)

You campaign on that in a red state, they can (probably correctly) campaign against it as a job killer.

 

[aeolist]

The "popular grassroots movement with popular support" occurs entirely in high-earning urban areas.

You campaign on that in a red state, they can (probably correctly) campaign against it as a job killer.

clinton's desire to win "moderate" republicans in red states over motivating her base is probably the biggest thing that cost her the election

 

[The Technomancer]

clinton's desire to win "moderate" republicans in red states over motivating her base is probably the biggest thing that cost her the election

Clinton didn't have a problem getting liberals in coastal cities to turn out, its one of the reasons why she won the popular vote so handily

 

[guek]

The "popular grassroots movement with popular support" occurs entirely in high-earning urban areas.

But you just said

These voters don't see themselves as poor, don't want a minimum wage job

to describe why people voters don't want $15 minimum wage, but now only high earning people do?

Nevermind, your original assertion that voters in the rust belt this election didn't consider themselves poor is ridiculous enough.

 

[Quixzlizx]

$15 comes from grassroots movement with wide popular support, so by definition it is the policy of the people. the point is that clinton couldn't ever bring herself to fully back progressive economic policies and negotiated everything downward before even trying to implement them.

"it's the most progressive platform ever!" wasn't a big selling point when the candidate had campaigned against a lot of it and was clearly reluctant about it.



pretty much

I feel like there isn't going to be any party for me in the future, since now it's just going to be two populist hype-men blowing smoke up my ass. I prefer evidence-based governance because I realize that the voters on "my side" are capable of being just as stupid on policy as voters on the other side.

 

[kirblar]

But you just said

to describe why people voters don't want $15 minimum wage, but now only high earning people do?

Nevermind, your original assertion that voters in the rust belt this election didn't consider themselves poor is ridiculous enough.

They don't consider themselves poor. These Trump voters aren't all poor. Many are middle class but slipping. They consider welfare benefits handout to people of color. They don't want to be talking about minimum wage jobs because they don't want to have to take them in the wake of layoffs and such.

High minimum wage gets through because it's a feel-good easy "win" for liberals, yes. It's getting passed through labor lobbying in areas that already have high costs of living anyway. (and thus, higher wages than the norm.)

clinton's desire to win "moderate" republicans in red states over motivating her base is probably the biggest thing that cost her the election

Not bothering to actually have a ground game when we assumed Mook was competent at actually doing the basic motions was the big one.

 

[Sinfamy]

I'm waiting for 2020, I want to see if GAF learned it's lesson or if it will blindly support another corporatist neoliberal like Cory Booker because he's a "strong" candidate.

 

[kirblar]

I'm waiting for 2020, I want to see if GAF learned it's lesson or if it will blindly support another corporatist neoliberal like Cory Booker because he's a "strong" candidate.

No one wants Cory Booker except people who are utterly unfamiliar with NJ politics.

 

[Elfforkusu]

If Bernie's platform was too far left, so was FDR's. Bet that guy never got elected...

 

[OldMan]

For some reason I thought it was the football player

 

[BanGy.nz]

I'm waiting for 2020, I want to see if GAF learned it's lesson or if it will blindly support another corporatist neoliberal like Cory Booker because he's a "strong" candidate.

Anyone but Corey is probably the few things we'd all agree on tbh.

 

[Azzanadra]

I'm waiting for 2020, I want to see if GAF learned it's lesson or if it will blindly support another corporatist neoliberal like Cory Booker because he's a "strong" candidate.

Rumours say the DNC will push Kaine, actually.

Good to see this interview though. Bernie is still out there fighting for the people, whereas Hilary is... where exactly? I think we should take Bernie's advice though on looking to the future, despite what happened I am more optimistic about America's future now than before the election. Hilary Clinton will be forgotten as a footnote in history, and deservedly so- we must look to the future to ensure this never happens again.

 

[UnObtainium17]

I like how Bernie is still out there sending a message lomg after the dist has settled. ❤️ ya bern

Rumours say the DNC will push Kaine, actually.

Dang. Trump will go back to back then.

 

[Byakuya769]

No one wants Cory Booker except people who are utterly unfamiliar with NJ politics.

Gave you a little assist.

 

[kirblar]

Rumours say the DNC will push Kaine, actually.

Good to see this interview though. Bernie is still out there fighting for the people, whereas Hilary is... where exactly? I think we should take Bernie's advice though on looking to the future, despite what happened I am more optimistic about America's future now than before the election. Hilary Clinton will be forgotten as a footnote in history, and deservedly so- we must look to the future to ensure this never happens again.

lol no. He is done.

The losing candidate after an election steps back. This is normal.

 

[UnObtainium17]

I want a Warren- Sanders 2020. Lets do dis

 

[Azzanadra]

I like how Bernie is still out there sending a message lomg after the dist has settled. ❤️ ya bern


Dang. Trump will go back to back then.

To be honest I expect Trump for 8 years anyways, I think the economy will do well under him (not necessarily because of him) and the same people that voted for him in the first place will come around, and all the fence sitters who went third-party or begrudgingly went for Clinton will turn to him as well. That, combined with the difficulty of removing an incumbent president- the only thing ensuring a Democrat victory in 2020 is if Trump is gone and the candidate is Pence or someone else.

I'm probably just being pessimistic, but like I said I a more optimistic about the future now more than ever, I just don't think the change we desire will come in 4 years.

lol no. He is done.

The losing candidate after an election steps back. This is normal.

Tell that to Al Gore, John McCain and Kerry. Pretty much everyone the past 4 election cycles except Romney. Those 3 figures remained relevant and known, wether its Gore for "the inconvenient truth", Kerry who continued to serve and McCain who remains a sitting senator to this day.

 

[Azzanadra]

EDIT: Double post.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Bernie Sanders is an outstanding individual who did something remarkable. It is not fair to blame him on Hillary Clintons shortcomings.
He took the fight to the conventions, like Hillary had done in 08, and he managed to get so much of his platform endorsed. A terrific feat for a real political outsider who half of registered Democrats wanted to drop out. It's real political prowess to get your agenda hurt, and the Democratic Party was wise and inclusive enough to embrace him.
His person is not the reason why Hillary lost. This was a historic election- and a historic year in the entire world in that the west collectively lost faith in its governments in both the UK and the US. Hillary represented the ultimate establishment. In a conventional election she would have smoked Sanders and Trump and won in a landslide. And Trump and Sanders would not have made it off the first debate.
It is incredible unfortunate, but it is not Sanders fault.

 

[kirblar]

Tell that to Al Gore, John McCain and Kerry. Pretty much everyone the past 4 election cycles except Romney. Those 3 figures remained relevant and known, wether its Gore for "the inconvenient truth", Kerry who continued to serve and McCain who remains a sitting senator to this day.

They did not jump back into the fray less than a month after the election. Gore emerged years later, Kerry stayed quiet till the SoS gig, and McCain isn't a party leader nor is he as vocal.

 

[necrosis]

I want a Warren- Sanders 2020. Lets do dis

this is what i'm hoping for. it would be fucking incredible

 

[pigeon]

I mean, there are plenty of Democratic voters that are "okay with white nationalism" also! A sample. Should we start kicking them out of the voting booth? Where does this idea come from that I somehow need to like or "trust" the people that vote for the same candidates I do? Progressives just need more votes, not more "friends". If I (not me personally, but the national Democratic party as an organization) can convince some white nationalist (or someone who's just passive/ignorant of white nationalism, which is far more numerous) to vote for a progressive, antiracist candidate, because you can appeal to some other part of their self-interest, and that keeps right-wing Republicans from getting into office, why wouldn't I try that?

This is precisely the thought process that brought us to the current situation. Democrats decided to try to get along with white working class voters for 50 years to advance economic and social justice together. But it turned out those voters had never been convinced that social justice was important at all, so they happily turned around and voted a white nationalist into office along with large majorities to ensure he can enact his agenda.

So the answer to "why wouldn't I try that" is mostly "because the historical record on it is not convincing."

Those Democratic voters who are okay with white nationalism are exactly the people I'm talking about. Preventing Trump from getting to the White House is a political question for them. It's an existential question for me. That's why we lost.

I'm not sure what your actual end goal is. Most Clinton supporters spent the past year talking about "pragmatism" and "acknowledging political reality" and rejecting "moral purity", yet the argument now seems to be "we should make sure no one gives any inch to racism first, before we allow them to vote for our candidates"? I mean, that's fine and all, but I can't see too many elections being won with the strategy of "if you've remotely held any sort of racist view or even just casually ignored a racist view, I don't want you voting for my candidates".

My end goal is for my family to be able to live safely in America. Elections are kind of secondary to that.

My argument hasn't changed since the elections. I said then that Trump was a moral choice, not a political choice. I still believe that. The fact that large numbers of Americans made the wrong moral choice does not change my view, it merely sharpens the importance of communicating it.

That said, people make wrong moral choices all the time, and it doesn't make them irredeemable. But absolution is not free. It requires contrition and confession. My expectation, mostly unfulfilled, is that people who claim to be allies would hold that line rather than working hard to give people forgiveness they haven't earned.

Conflating "white nationalism" with "racism" is deeply and dangerously incorrect and is another part of why we lost. I understand that most Americans have at one time or another considered or actually voted for a racist. One whole party is racist and the other one spends a lot of time faking it, so that's kind of inevitable. Electing somebody who explicitly campaigned on using the state apparatus to directly oppress people of color because they are people of color is different. I had hoped that people understood that distinction and cared about it. One of those assumptions was clearly inaccurate.

Seriously, I'm struggling to understand what the end point of pigeon's argument is, if not "give up, sit back, and passively wait for demographics to change."

It's not about giving up and waiting -- it's the exact opposite.

My point is, before asking what we can do in order to win elections in America, it is necessary to first ask the question of whether it is safe for people of color to live in America, as it is currently constituted, at all.

 

[mrhyderager]

Okay, and this bullshit needs to die too.

Clinton *was* the Democratic party. She raised money for them/with them for years and has actually been a Democrat for her entire political career. Bernie Sanders switched parties only to get into the primary- He isn't a Democrat.

What a shocker! The party supported someone who was actually a Democrat, and who actually raised money for them, as opposed to someone who was a Democrat for 5 minutes to win a primary.

There was no rigging, and the primary win for Clinton was clear and resounding. Enough.

Except the DNC is supposed to be a neutral vehicle for Democratic candidates until AFTER the primary. It was undeniably not so. If the party is going to support a candidate prior to the primary, why run a primary at all?

There's nothing stopping either party from simply nominating and supporting any person they choose - both the GOP and DNC Charters state that they are to remain neutral leading up to the primary. It's odd to me that the GOP held up to this while the DNC did not.

 

[IrishNinja]

i really didn't care for bernie's purity test bullshit, but the "crooked hillary" nonsense owed a lot more to decades of GOP witchhunts. looking back, bernie did what he could to at least not indulge email/etc fuckery - did he exacerbate a point where she's not strong? sure, when they were in competition, but he backed her after & certainly didn't make up that line of attack

I hated Bernie in the primary but he has been vindicated as fuck.

yeah, hard to argue this now, especially since he was strong in a few key places she didn't bother with that ended up costing the whole thing

i'm also more a fan of his firebrand anti-dem establishment thing now, because it's hard to say they won't do some dumb shit and try to run someone like kaine in 4 years, learning nothing

GAF loves Hillary? Where?

This site has turned into the biggest anti-Hillary circle jerk outside of Reddit. GAF liked her when she was ahead in every poll, but now that she's lost, everyone on here acts like she's the anti-christ.

It's obnoxious and exhausting.

also this - i understand the bernie-or-bust crew found things insufferable going up to the final night, but the backlash hasn't been any better really