Winning the popular vote without beating the winner of the previous election is actually somewhat rare due to population growth. It does happen but not all that often, last time was Clinton/Bush in 94'. Clinton matching Obama's popular vote doesn't mean much at all.
-
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.
Cenk Uygur and Sanders Campaign Advisor Launch the "Justice Democrats"
- Thread starter Kid Kamikaze10
- Start date
- Status
Winning the popular vote without beating the winner of the previous election is actually somewhat rare due to population growth. It does happen but not all that often, last time was Clinton/Bush in 94'. Clinton matching Obama's popular vote doesn't mean much at all.
I think that coupled with the narrow margin she lost the EC votes means burning the party to the ground to be short sighted. I don't see this being a worthy fight as a blanket mandate across all dem nominees, but Booker could do with being primaried and losing.
Sinfamy
Member
Now how do you get people out to vote when they're disgruntled with their party?
Put people in charge that have strong populist messaging and energy.
Someone that says the status quo is great ain't gonna do that.
The point is fighting gerrymandering and showing up against a common enemy; the republicans.
Obama blew Romney out and had just a few more votes than clinton. Think about that. If anything despite the hatred for Hillary she still got close to Obama numbers without them showing up.
Perhaps we need to encourage unifying more? I know ill keep showing up to the voting booths.
I agree with a lot you've said so far. I wish I had been able to make such sentiments during the primaries without fear of getting dogpiled, but that is in the past now. Not every voter strictly adheres to the party platform, i.e., there are people who support gun rights but are also pro-choice, and vice versa. Conservatives have done a great job of turning them into wedge issues, where they frame that particular issue as the most important, and send that message to the demographics most receptive to that. I'd say we need to do a lot of work, starting at the local level, in the coming years in order to counteract that. With that said, I see two main options from a campaign point of view:
1. Try to break down the context of the issue to show voters that it is as not as black and white as conservative politicians and media make it seem. Samantha Bee did a great job with her videos on the Southern Strategy, abortion, and "democrats started the KKK" videos. This is more accurate, but also more difficult for the average voter to relay to members of the other party effectively.
2. Appropriate their rhetoric. The right has basically taken over the "fake news" label now, and people on the left act like fighting back is beneath them unless they can pull off secret-ninja political jui-jitsu in order to turn the tables. Well, guess what? A lot of people like someone who can hold their own in a head-on fight, even if that means getting down to their level. All that matters to them is who wins in the end. So what the left should consider doing is taking all that "freedom" and "real American" BS the right uses to elevate themselves, and claim it as their own. "Abortion is baby killing, it's family freedom!" "Racists aren't brave Americans, they're cowards who run away from challenges! Real Americans aren't afraid to expose themselves to the strange and unfamiliar!" And if you don't want your arguments to be parroted back at you (no you're the puppet!) , make sure to frame them in a manner specific to the context of their party's actions.
2. Appropriate their rhetoric. The right has basically taken over the "fake news" label now, and people on the left act like fighting back is beneath them unless they can pull off secret-ninja political jui-jitsu in order to turn the tables. Well, guess what? A lot of people like someone who can hold their own in a head-on fight, even if that means getting down to their level. All that matters to them is who wins in the end. So what the left should consider doing is taking all that "freedom" and "real American" BS the right uses to elevate themselves, and claim it as their own. "Abortion is baby killing, it's family freedom!" "Racists aren't brave Americans, they're cowards who run away from challenges! Real Americans aren't afraid to expose themselves to the strange and unfamiliar!" And if you don't want your arguments to be parroted back at you (no you're the puppet!) , make sure to frame them in a manner specific to the context of their party's actions.
The other thing I would suggest is to not necessarily approach everything from a purely legislative or social perspective. As much as it's unfortunate, a lot of people don't care about those things. We need to be able to take an issue, and make sure that each group understands how it specifically affects them. Even if they're not the primary concern of that movement, use language they're familiar with in order to explain that it won't negatively affect their lives. Preventing a knee-jerk reaction against something makes it a lot easier to move onto explaining the situation, and hopefully making others sympathetic and supportive to their cause. But it's important to have this done effectively at a leadership and messaging level, so it doesn't become the burden of the average proponent to white/man/straight-splain every issue to people who are hearing about it for the first time.
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
The answer is never apparently. Hold the line they say.. but even when that line ain't worth holding? Fuck that noise - I want a new line.
soul creator
Member
I don't get posts like this. The centrist "pragmatic" Democrats have largely had all the power for like 30 years now (including the past 6 years of losses), and THE standard bearer for liberal pragmatism and incrementalism was nominated in 2016 to succeed the previous standard bearer for liberal pragmatism and incrementalism (Obama) that was in charge during those past 6 years, and they lost as well to Trump.
Some people decide to try something different and now you're worried that it will make it easy for Republicans and Trump to get elected? Were you cryogenically frozen the past 6 years?
And again with the "purity" claims. Why can't people just admit that there are others out there with serious ideological disagreements, and people aren't just being "pure" to troll you? There's a different group of voters with different views than you, and they're attempting to organize and influence the party. If you have different views, you should attempt to organize and influence the party as well. And that's fine. It doesn't make one side purity trolls and your side "reasonable". You just have different views and strategies, why can't it just be left at that?
it isn't left at that because "fuck purity" is a campaign and messaging strategy to stifle debate from the left, and not an actual philosophy, since literally every voter, including whoever reads this, is pure about some set of issues
What's even weirder especially in regards to this particular thread is that apparently "purity" just means "not liking so much big money influencing candidates, and preferring someone that takes a more grassroots approach to campaign donations and organizing". If that's considered "pure", doesn't that kind of prove the point that Democrats have swung far to the right up until now on various issues? And doesn't the last 6 years prove that swinging too far to the right on various issues and getting in bed with corporations because the other side does it too isn't automatically the winning strategy it's always painted as?
Again, I'm not necessarily saying every Democrat needs to go full communist now and that will somehow automatically guarantee a win, but the sheer resistance to basic democracy and politics is weird to me. People might band together and primary Democrats they don't like, in order to get Democrats they do like better, the horror! Such purity! How dare they!
Kid Kamikaze10 said:
What's up with the notion that non-corporate "economic justice" democrats are somehow by definition white males? That's one of the things that's bugged me the past year or so, the notion that apparently only white people are apparently capable of caring about economic justice and money in politics.
And a large amount of black people don't get anything out of the current Democratic party, so it's not like the status quo Democratic Party is some amazing thing for us either, lol. That's probably why there's so many non-voters in the first place (and non-voters are largely poor, young, and more racially/ethnically diverse)
sugarhigh4242
Banned
This is such a ridiculous, unthinking talking point.
The corporate neoliberals in power have been devasting to women of color. Just ask these latino women on hunger strike in immigration detention:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/...hers-speak-out-10th-day-hunger-strike-n632826
Or why Obama's former chief of staff covered up a police murder in Chicago:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/opinion/cover-up-in-chicago.html
Or 8 years of unchecked killing in 8 Muslim countries throughout the middle east and Africa.
And seriously, what are you even trying to imply anyway? That single black mothers working 12 hour days wouldn't benefit from a $15 minimum wage and a union?
The neoliberals don't have a leg to stand on. Least of all on social justice questions. The standard-bearer Hillary Clinton only found the wherewithall to support marriage equality in 2013.
And while we're on the subject, I'll just leave you with this:
https://youtu.be/Hgwtd4X_qFM
TurnipFritters
Member
It's basically "this person does not vote the way I want them to on certain issues and therefore they're not Real True (whatever)." It's used derisively because people can get really silly with that sort of thing (like calling Paul Ryan a RINO or labeling Elizabeth Warren as a neoliberal because she endorsed Clinton in the primary)
elrechazado
Banned
It's the idea that if someone isn't 100% on my side, I'll try to defeat them in favor of a perceived superior candidate. Think tea party Republicans going after moderates, or the progressive wing of the Democrats going after their moderates. Critics of these approaches would say that it's better to have power by including moderates, than having a more ideologically pure minority.
ShironRedshift
Member
Very similar concept, yes--that even if a candidate is otherwise neatly oerfect, if they CE down on the wrong side of particular issues we should nonetheless fight against them anyway for not being the best in these arbitrarily picked issues, even if fighting against them because of those issues means someone even worse sneaks in because we were too busy fighting among ourselves to unite against a common, truly disputable enemy.
..So yeah, pretty much no true Scotsman: "you're not a TRUE member of the party unless you do X, Y, and Z, even if you've done a billion amazing things that prove you're good for it."
The idea might be well-intentioned in theory, but in practice just leafs to terribly weak oppositions more obsessed with maintaining those stances than actually functioning as opposition or actually fighting the majority party, such a the current state of the Labour party in the U.K. which followed exactly this trajectory and are entirely irrelevant because of it.
Similarly, looking to Canada, the only way Harper got defeated was win the opposition parties stopped fighting among themselves and people strategically voted to make sure that Harper was given the boot and Trudeau became Prime Minister. Would have never happened without the strategic voting. Unless we do the same and stop this in-fighting, things ain't going to be pretty.
Cooperation and working together >>>>>>>>>>> in-fighting, competing against each other and ridiculous purity test nonsense.
population growth.
That's a 3 point spread to Obama's smaller 2013 victory of 51%
ones Clinton needed
Pennsylvania 0.73%
Michigan 0.23%
Wisconsin 0.77%
closest in 2012 florida was 0.88% and Obama would have won without it. All the states he needed he cleared by over 2%. That's well within the 3 point spread he has nationally.
She didn't do as good as Obama. The vote tally being near is because of the population growth. She needed that extra 1-2% who swung to trump or 3rd party. She quite simply didn't put up the numbers she needed and didn't have the appeal she needed against Donald Fucking Trump.
Now, I was for her obviously. And unlike some posters on GAF I am perfectly fine with a centrist left candidate. But imo the candidate needs to have some extra star power/ charisma if theyre going to be centrist as a democrat. Note Hillary also probably swung many ppl just cause he was up against Trump. Obama is a completely one off given how many seats democrats have lost in the past 8 years. You cant base things solely on his coalition without having him.
So if you want to primary some dems that's fine just don't put up an independent to act as spoiler. Also Obama talked about grassroots organizing and grassroots dems will come both in the Bernie , the Obama and the Clinton flavor. Don't purity test one or the other away is my opinion. Keep all your options let the best man/woman win the primary and then push for them to get the republicans. Don't handicap yourself by totally disavowing big donors ... Bernie, Obama etc ran national campaigns with high exposure which got them many small donations. The local/state person may not be so lucky.
EDIT:
also look at the trends apart from some liberal bastians like California and even in liberal bastions like ny it all swung red. The ones which swung the other way which are conservative are the ones where latinos are a growing segment. She bled votes in too many places.(outlier being Utah due to 3rd party)
Spyder_Monkey
Banned
Why would an Armenian genocide denier want purity tests?
soul creator
Member
A lot of the purity test talk does help explain this, now that I think about it.
Either way your data also supports strong numbers for Democrats. Also consider the hate towards hillary and those that didnt show up as a result - and it is more impressive. It would be foolish to abandon it now.
We need to strengthen the party and unify. And vote as one.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
I'm all for unification as I mentioned in the later part of my posts. but I don't buy the Hillary did really well or nearly as Obama part due to the overall vote being near his weaker one.
Plus I am sure just as many don't like her and didn't vote for her some voted for her inspite of not liking her simply because the alternative was trump.
how's the republican party doing?
TurnipFritters
Member
I mean the biggest issue is that Cenk Uygur is an asshole who spent a year and half going on and on about how Clinton was exactly as bad as, if not worse than, Trump. Which, uh, is maybe not a great tactic to use, going forward. (My second biggest issue is that even if all of the Evil Corporate Democrats are replaced by Real True Sanders Endorsed Democrats they'll still be a minority and won't be able to actually do anything, so it's maybe not great that they're exclusively focusing on democrats already in office)
Good, because at the end of the day they actually vote.
eBay Huckster
Member
Pretty well, because at the end of the day they've at least worked together to vote someone in.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
Their goal isn't preventing republicans.
Their goal is to get money out of politics.
Democrats are the lesser evil in their eyes, because even though their stances on many issues are way more reasonable than republicans, they are still playing ball with large corporations.
I disagree with TYT on quite a few issues, but on this one I think they are spot on.
The current system is corrupted by the influence of money. "For the people" is not possible under these circumstances.
This is the single biggest issue the US is facing.
Zap Rowsdower
Banned
It's this. The Democrats' problem for decades is that they haven't been mobilizing their voters during midterms. Republicans have been, that's what the Tea Party was really about, and that's why they rule most of the country. Gerrymandering reinforces this even harder because the Republicans were able to district the states themselves thanks to said midterm victories.
Going all circular firing squad is just going make things worse. I voted for Bernie, I never expected him to win, but having the main Democratic platform adopt most of his stuff was heartening. I was also totally willing to vote for Hillary. All these rabid Bernie Bros have no idea of the world works and just think nebulous ideological purity is more important than getting anything done. Like the fact that they think you can run a political campaign without lots of money is freaking laughable. Also anyone who thinks both sides are the same and that center-leftism is worse than freaking outright fascism is a complete moron.
They really reek of the kind of people who only fight for progressive causes just to get off on a sense of moral superiority instead of really trying to enact the change to help the people around them. Also the fact that a lot of them are white dudes that are pretty much Ron Paulites with a slightly lefter bent. They're totally wiling to throw minorities under the bus for economic reform. But what they fail to grasp is that class and race have been intertwined in this country for centuries. You can't solve class issues without addressing racism. White people are totally willing to throw any kind of economic reform away if they get a whiff of non-white people benefiting from it. It's one of the major reasons Trump won.
LBJ said it best, 'll tell you what's at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
People should definitely let the Democrats know they'd be more open to more liberal ideas, I mean they are willing to listen if their platform was any indication. Also there's no problem in getting new blood for Democratic states, but its horrifically naive to think that there's some super liberal silent majority in red rural states. As I said before its far more important to get people involved for 2018 and get them to vote. It's especially important now to combat gerrymandering like previously stated.
My data on the page supports the strong numbers for Hillary despite many hating her. She also beat Trump in the popular vote.
We have to fight against Gerrymandering and being further disenfranchised.
But hey, you do you. Ill keep showing up to vote regardless.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
Quote MLK all y'all want, but honestly, I don't trust Cenk, nor Bernie's advisors, nor frankly, just about anyone who has sided with them, to earnest show and prove they give a damn about black women, black men, or other POCs. And it usually shows in their less than inclusive leadership circles.
And I would love to be proven wrong, but haven't seen that proof.
The Tea Party was also heavily armed.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
So I'm broadly in favor of this conceptually (haven't looked into the specifics and these don't seem like reliable or important people to execute it) but I just have to say.
Justice Democrats is the dumbest name ever, like, who thought that sounded good?
Justice Democrats is the dumbest name ever, like, who thought that sounded good?
Hey you're not wrong about that. 2008 Obama voters didn't suddenly disappear either. Some broke for Trump but many just stayed home. I'm just disagreeing with the notion that Hillary did just as well as Obama in 2012 when she didn't.
JesseEwiak
Member
I agree. That's why I hope you support my bill that bans unions from using members dues for GOTV or other political efforts. After all, you want money out of politics, right? Or are you a hypocrite?
ShironRedshift
Member
It's curious though... According to these guys, minorities just need to get to the end of the line because it's too risky to actually talk about minority rights and risk alienating Trump voters in doing so. But money in politics? Unlike minority rights, apparently THAT'S the sword their willing to die on and have no problem with that stance potentially costing them elections if need be because it's the right thing to do or whatever. With how we talk about minority rights, that's where we need to reevaluate our approach, but mine in politics? That's the sword they're willing to die on and have more full-throated, do-or-die support than anything else. Really telling to what their priorities really are, what they're willing to fight for until the end and erect purity tests over and what they're not...
And nah, it's nowhere near the largest issue. It's a large one, but not the largest. Institutional racism/sexism and voting right restrictions and shit easily dwarf it and have tremendously more influence on the way elections turn out and until we tackle the real bug problems like those, even if you somehow manage to get dark money completely out of politics or whatever, nothing will change anyway since those are the real driving forces of the way this shit turns out: not money, but pure unbridled hate. Of course money helps things along but the hate will be there either at do until we find a way of tackling that, nothing will change anyway because there will always be the Black/Latino/Muslim/etc. boogeymen to fall back on.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
No more money from Human Rights Campaign, either. Or the National Education Association. Or any advocacy group of any kind.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I still don't understand why people keep saying the Tea Party was some raving success. It held the Republicans back from easily regaining the Senate for 4-6 years. It was bankrolled by the Kock brothers and used by shills like Marco Rubio to win elections.
What awesome accomplishment have they given the world that should be replicated? Winning as the out party in midterms? That has been happening for a LONG time. You could just as easily credit whatever it was that caused the 2006 midterm wave for Democrats.
What awesome accomplishment have they given the world that should be replicated? Winning as the out party in midterms? That has been happening for a LONG time. You could just as easily credit whatever it was that caused the 2006 midterm wave for Democrats.
Nobody has said this. I don't follow TYT, but I'm fairly certain they report on issues of social justice more often than the mainstream media. And the Bernie Sanders who "doesn't talk/give a shit about issues pertaining to minorities/lgbt+/women's reproductive rights/islamophobia" is a strawman that appeared from the ether the moment the dude started pulling a bit in the polls. A complete fantasy used to browbeat dissent. From day one. That's all that ever was.
AlternativeUlster
Absolutely pathetic part deux
A division of the party is not what we need at the moment. This is our buckle down moment where we all need to stand united.
The focus should be on changing these politicians' minds and pushing more progressive politicians to run against Republicans. People can change and people have changed towards the more progressive platform but gradually. State elected officials listen to the people who elected them and people who could vote for them so now is the time to let our voices be heard.
The focus should be on changing these politicians' minds and pushing more progressive politicians to run against Republicans. People can change and people have changed towards the more progressive platform but gradually. State elected officials listen to the people who elected them and people who could vote for them so now is the time to let our voices be heard.
sparky2112
Member
Sure, sure.
Obamacare: take what you can get, not what you want. Pragmatism sucks, right?
Jobs? Welcome to the Thunderdome, bitch. Nobody guaranteed that the 1950s would last forever.
TurnipFritters
Member
imo "sanders doesn't care about minorities" came into being when two black women literally had to jump on stage and take the mic from him at a rally to get him to start talking about racism.
ShironRedshift
Member
Was speaking more of people here on GAF who say we should follow what people like this say and embrace this purity test hogwash, and not THAT themselves. People like this definitely have been saying that and having e made it very clear how they feel:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=227222764&postcount=447
eBay Huckster
Member
Pay no mind to the people like me with expensive chronic conditions, for whom it's measurably a fuckton better than the old system. It was a free check!
Nikodemos
Member
A lot of people have forgotten what a terrible shitshow the whole system used to be regarding people with pre-existing conditions.
reggieandTFE
Member
I honestly don't see the uproar in this thread over this. Republicans and their Tea Party wing taking out RINOS has led them to being 4 state legislatures away from a constitutional convention and control of all 3 branches of the federal government.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
Fine, then don't make it about bernie and cenk. There's a whole world of intersectional political organizing happening the country left of the democratic party. Get involved.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
"Start" talking about racism? He's been talking about racism for decades. Some might interpret that moment instead as him giving up his own time for his own self promotion to instead cede the spotlight to two black women to have their voices heard publically, instead of quietly shooing them offstage and telling them that we'll talk about it later in private.
Was the only candidate to be confronted by people representing BLM? How many other candidates were willing to concede their platform to the protestors?
Yeah, "minority issues on the backburner" is a poor way of framing that. Regardless, I don't think it's foolish/racist/whatever to focus your campaign on intersectional injustices like income inequality, poverty, access to healthcare and education when you're trying to win a national election.
I also think that the visceral, "fangs-out" response to people proposing a slightly different direction for the party reeks more of a "purity test" than anything else I've seen. Regardless, that pejorative is inherently anti-democratic and I feel greasy for even typing it out.
I can appreciate the fact that at least this time, we can see what's coming a mile away.
TyphoonStruggle
Member
Maybe it has an actual meaning. But I take it as a derogatory term from establishment democrats to other democrats that are disappointed with the establishment. The establishment democrats think these others are too idealized and unwilling to compromise (and continue to think this despite that Donald out lefted Hillary on multiple issues, and that Hillary lost hardcore).
eBay Huckster
Member
IIRC, only he and Clinton got confronted by people representing BLM.
Bingo, on both accounts: we can frame our campaigns on intersectional injustices without abandoning those that are less so, and taking the party in a slightly different direction shouldn't be instantly seen (as it seems to be, by many of my fellow ex-Clinton supporters) as a guarantee that those injustices will be abandoned.
That having been said, I want that giant shitbaby Cenk nowhere goddamn near this.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
80,000 votes in three states is losing hardcore?
:lol at the idea that Trump "out lefted" her on multiple issues as well
sugarhigh4242
Banned
*yawn*
https://youtu.be/v9hogCZKTi8
Which BTW he did improve his campaigning around racial justice issues after that incident. He frequently said the names of Sandra Bland, Tamir Rice, Mike Brown, and so on afterward. He hired Simone Sanders, a young black woman as his press secretary. I was happy those women took the mic, and Bernie's response stands in contrast to Clinton's condescending interactions with BLM that would happen later.
JesseEwiak
Member
Wait I'd been told Bernie is the one true hero to minorities ever since he matched with MLK. Especially ially much more than a neoliberal sellout like John Lewis.
- Status