whyamihere
Banned
I agree with this take.
I do not think "the sunbelt is the future" worked out tonight. That doesn't mean we don't try again in 18, but.
-
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 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
I agree with this take.
I do not think "the sunbelt is the future" worked out tonight. That doesn't mean we don't try again in 18, but.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Honestly, the only way is happens is if you go the celebrity route.
Not to mention Congress being based on areas as well as electoral votes when Democrats have a tendency to move to the same areas.
To spite the libs.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
It's still important to try in the changing districts in the Sun Belt because those *are* shifting to the left. They shouldn't be counted on to entirely secure the majority, but they should be invested in since that can shift districts even faster.
Whatever Democrat runs in 2018 in GA-06 is going to have plenty of voter information to utilize, for instance.
So now we're back to me making "Clooney 2020" jokes?
Pretty much everyone is going to say he should have focused more on their pet issues in order to win because when you have a pet issue that's what you do: you push it at every opportunity. Anyone saying they have a silver bullet that could have won him the election is lying. This was always going to be an uphill fight with odds no better than a coinflip. We knew that the second we saw the primary returns, the only shot he ever had was being his own candidate and it turns out it wasn't enough. It's that simple right now.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Not in this district. Problem with GA-06 isn't just that it's strong red, its also rich
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Man it's getting harder and harder to think this country is salvageable now. Trump was a huge first step in making me really despise this country and the people in it for just how dumb and gullible they are
Democrats don't have a message. Republican messsge is "democrats will kill you and take your money" and fear is a hell of a motivator
Democrats don't have a message. Republican messsge is "democrats will kill you and take your money" and fear is a hell of a motivator
Barack Obama was not the first Democrat to win the presidency. We've had many compelling messengers before and will continue to have more going forward. In three years? Who knows.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Well, you think that we can appeal to Southern whites by promoting socialist policies, so.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I'm pessimistic, but not overly so. In a two-party system, everything liberals and Leftists do that annoys conservatives hangs like an albatross around the Democratic Party because they are the electoral embodiment of that sentiment. Whether it's anarchists beating the fuck out of Trump supporters with a sign, critical theory'd college students surrounding professors and shaming them for minor shit they do, Bill Nye writing horrendous songs about gender fluidity, Kathy Griffith clinging to relevance with a disgusting picture, Kaep making people think about politics when they just wanna see gladiators give each other concussions by taking a knee, or whatever, the Dems are the sieve that all that annoyance and frustration flow into, and it seems to be coming more, not less, often since Trump got elected.
This is why, imo, electoral reform to destroy the two-party system NEEDS to be at the top of America's docket - look at France, it's hard to get a Trump when the conservative side of the spectrum is not electorally forced to hitch themselves to a racist, xenophobic wagon, but instead has multiple options - but neither the Reps nor the Dems are going to do that.
Poodlestrike
Banned
At the end of the day, there's not really any way to solve the visibility issue. Republicans are just better at hating than we are. Any time the R's can tie our guy to something the Republican voter base hates (and they can invent these, given even a modicum of time), they'll get out to vote. The only way to overbalance this is to get our guys excited, but policy clearly isn't enough.
Samesies. It's actually quite liberating since it makes it easier to just push on to the next one. Oh god, maybe I became an adult.
Haha no Plinko! I will stand for a lot, but I will not stand for believing those shoddy ass Shops had anything to do with the win. They were good for lolz though.
You jest, but...!!!!!
Look, I get annoyed when people make Barack Obama out to be some unicorn, because that's only true in the realm of politics.
I was raised in the black church. Barack Obama's are a dime a fucking dozen in the black church. And that's just the black church.
There are plenty of Barack Obamas out there. We just have to stop fawning over nerds long enough to look for them.
TheLaughingStock
Member
I don't think many people were energized by Bernie's version of socialism. It was more about him saying things like the system is rigged and calling out the corrupt establishment.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/20/15830316/clinton-sanders-issues-rigged
That kind of rhetoric made quite a few folks jump up, nod their head and say yeah he's on to something. Unfortunately, for him it wasn't nearly enough last year and a significant amount of Democrats continue to prefer the approach of their current leadership. According to them, Bernie and people like him don't have any better shot than they do. His people would do worse. Therefore, there is no alternative to the milquetoast approach and accordingly all the Ls Democrats are taking. Something that people will have to live with unfortunately.
You need to find a way to get youth turnout to the level Corbyn did.
That's it. Dems are super dependent on young people turning out at this point.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
This is sort of a chicken and the egg situation frankly. I've had this on my mind a lot lately. Young people don't have influence in the party because they don't vote so they have nothing to threaten to withhold
smokeandmirrors
Banned
And they are generally horrible as doing just that
Regardless of how you feel about the policies at least Labour HAD something and ran with it. Something fully fledged and and easy to say "here's our plan".
Jeez, is this loss as bad as I think it is?
I remember people saying this was the start of #TheResistance in terms of beating Republicans, but this is a clear loss.
I am deeply concerned that a woman so full of shit and so full of malice gets into power, as this is continuing a very fucking destructive trend.
I remember people saying this was the start of #TheResistance in terms of beating Republicans, but this is a clear loss.
I am deeply concerned that a woman so full of shit and so full of malice gets into power, as this is continuing a very fucking destructive trend.
Yea, before him it was Bill Clinton: a man who could literally stand at a podium and have everyone watching him speak eat out of his hands for hours on end without even having a written speech.
They gotta start running for stuff then. If they don't then they're never going to get to where they need to be.
Romney obliterated Obama in this district in 2012. Trump was the only reason this one was even a coin flip. It's disheartening, but who knows where we are in 2018.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
I don't give a shit if it's Oprah, Mark Zuckerberg, or the fucking Rock. Trump needs to be out of office.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Well, if you look at polls, the first time we saw a Handel lead was after those hit. Not saying they were the reason, but the timing is there.
I agree. The key is getting them to go into politics.
Poodlestrike
Banned
That's all great, but I'm not at all sure it's enough to overcome "Nancy Pelosi is coming for your guns and your babies" in enough districts to matter.
I'm just not sure it's doable at this point, or at least, not predictable. The youth vote does shit for reasons I'm not totally sure I get, and as a member of that vote, I'm certain they don't either.
I don't think outright socialism can win anywhere except some city-level races.
But in states with a big population of poor people, offering these folks something material is a hell of a lot better than the current defeatism. Tailoring progressive strategies to the specific social and economic needs of rural communities could pull the rug out from under the GOP and would undermine gerrymandering.
Louisiana, for instance, has a proud tradition of progressive social democrats who could unite poor white and poor black voters against the forces which oppress them. I don't see why Democrats can't attempt this in 2018.
Autodidact
Banned
I level the same criticism at Ossoff that I level at every politician: he said nothing of substance. "Make your voice heard" offers cheap sentimentality without conveying the true importance of voting; "I'll cut wasteful spending" makes a nebulous promise without delineating any concrete plans or explaining how. Politicians seldom give specifics because they fear they'll be held to them later. I like policy. I want explanations, not Hallmark-card cliches that attempt sway my emotions and make me feel warm.
Before anyone "both sides" me: Democrats rarely speak substantively, but Republicans never speak intelligently.
I understand why politics operates this way, though. Anti-intellectualism pervades this country's history. Anytime someone uses a polysyllabic word, anytime someone addresses a policy in minute detail, anytime someone sounds remotely intellectual and not "genuine" (as though someone can't be genuinely intellectual), he or she loses. Anytime someone abandons hackneyed phrases and simple language, he or she loses. The rubes, resentful and insecure, punish anyone who displays even remote interest in book learnin'. Republicans naturally speak like morons, but if Democrats want to survive, they have to simplify their expression and their platforms.
Read about the elections of '52 and '56. Adlai Stevenson, dubbed an "egghead" intellectual unable to relate to the common man, lost twice. Since then we've never had an intellectual campaign. Even Obama, a smart man personally, ran a campaign on maudlin "hope and change" because he had to. I see people hyping Gillibrand and Harris not for their academic and intellectual achievements but for their youth, looks, attitude, and ability to hype the base. We continue to perpetuate a politics of theater and vapidity even if we have our hearts in the right place.
More of a generalized rant than about this election specifically.
Before anyone "both sides" me: Democrats rarely speak substantively, but Republicans never speak intelligently.
I understand why politics operates this way, though. Anti-intellectualism pervades this country's history. Anytime someone uses a polysyllabic word, anytime someone addresses a policy in minute detail, anytime someone sounds remotely intellectual and not "genuine" (as though someone can't be genuinely intellectual), he or she loses. Anytime someone abandons hackneyed phrases and simple language, he or she loses. The rubes, resentful and insecure, punish anyone who displays even remote interest in book learnin'. Republicans naturally speak like morons, but if Democrats want to survive, they have to simplify their expression and their platforms.
Read about the elections of '52 and '56. Adlai Stevenson, dubbed an "egghead" intellectual unable to relate to the common man, lost twice. Since then we've never had an intellectual campaign. Even Obama, a smart man personally, ran a campaign on maudlin "hope and change" because he had to. I see people hyping Gillibrand and Harris not for their academic and intellectual achievements but for their youth, looks, attitude, and ability to hype the base. We continue to perpetuate a politics of theater and vapidity even if we have our hearts in the right place.
More of a generalized rant than about this election specifically.
No Plinko, no! A badly Shopped Jane Fonda is not a deciding factor in a vote going one way.
How much impact does the amount of money poured into a race actually have?
I'm thinking that if we're seeing diminishing returns, or tipping points where pouring money into a race draws too much national attention, we probably should be spreading that money out to multiple races rather than stockpiling everything on one guy. While there's no guarantee that any of the other losers who ran in special elections would've won with more money, I'm questioning whether or not it's worth taking more chances anyway.
...Of course, if they all lose, then you get people whining that we should've just dumped all the money into the race that came closest. Nonetheless, I think VendettaRed has a point.
I'm thinking that if we're seeing diminishing returns, or tipping points where pouring money into a race draws too much national attention, we probably should be spreading that money out to multiple races rather than stockpiling everything on one guy. While there's no guarantee that any of the other losers who ran in special elections would've won with more money, I'm questioning whether or not it's worth taking more chances anyway.
...Of course, if they all lose, then you get people whining that we should've just dumped all the money into the race that came closest. Nonetheless, I think VendettaRed has a point.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
But Hanoi Jane!
Lol I do look forward to any polling after the fact to see why the numbers changed.
Will not pass Congress
Not economically feasible
Will kill economies outside of major cities
Bernie Sanders is not the future of anything. You know the woman who lost the last election? He lost to her. Every candidate that he's supported has lost.
The voters he attracts can't be counted on to show up, his policies aren't realistic in the slightest, and he's older than fuck.
Until Democratic voters unite under one tent and actually learn how to vote in lockstep, they're not going to win. You had that with Obama, you're not going to get that with Grandpa Socialism.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
1) People, not only Republicans, don't like paying more money for shit
2) Most people in America do have health insurance despite the abominable number of people who don't
3) Most people, not only Republicans, value their own wallets more than they value other people's health
You don't get single payer passed in this country without hitting a bottom first.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, were very unpopular among a lot of people who now support Trump, and on top of that the usual Republicans will keep voting Republican.
Really, there's no magic to this, you can't force things. All the Democrats can do is look at the policies, look at who is impacted, and go and tell them how it's impacting them. That's all they have to do, consistently, everywhere. They have to stop talking in generic terms about the country as a whole. Dems don't need a Bernie, they need people active on the ground who reach out and tell people how they are impacted, and a LOT of targeted adverts to do the same.
Finding some magical message that will suddenly unite large portions of the country is a waste of time and probably even outright lazy. Opportunities will come, as they did under Bush before, but when those happens they are easy to seize. To really have a strong victory, you need the other stuff, and that takes time and effort, local ones, about specific impacts on specific people.
Look at how successful cults capture people: not by just saying the end of the world is coming or join us to go to the promised land, they find what people are troubled about and give them a solution. Nothing wrong doing that in politics.
Really, there's no magic to this, you can't force things. All the Democrats can do is look at the policies, look at who is impacted, and go and tell them how it's impacting them. That's all they have to do, consistently, everywhere. They have to stop talking in generic terms about the country as a whole. Dems don't need a Bernie, they need people active on the ground who reach out and tell people how they are impacted, and a LOT of targeted adverts to do the same.
Finding some magical message that will suddenly unite large portions of the country is a waste of time and probably even outright lazy. Opportunities will come, as they did under Bush before, but when those happens they are easy to seize. To really have a strong victory, you need the other stuff, and that takes time and effort, local ones, about specific impacts on specific people.
Look at how successful cults capture people: not by just saying the end of the world is coming or join us to go to the promised land, they find what people are troubled about and give them a solution. Nothing wrong doing that in politics.
Haha I don't think you're going to get a column in there that points to an analysis of the Jane Fonda PhotoShop.
The South is more dependent on the government than any other region and is the only place in the country with a federally owned utility...
Poodlestrike
Banned
And they consistently vote to dismantle the only thing keeping them alive.
Thus the problem.
Large swaths of it are also incredibly racist and sexist. That might work in the urban centers (hell, it does work there), but in the wealthy suburbs and rural areas?
metalslimer
Member
I agree. There is no overarching message that some organization that like the DNC can do that is going to change much. Doing shit like canning Pelosi seems like doing something just for the sake of it.
Yeah! Barack Obama is only considered a once-in-a-lifetime candidate because so many of our politicians are 50-70 year old white dudes who don't want to offer voters anything concrete or novel.
There are millions of inspired and charismatic young progressives who can perform better than Ossoff. Democrats just need to get them to run.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...5fd8e0c288f_story.html?utm_term=.b34ff8f26f20
Echoes the feeling that we may need candidates that are harsher and play the game better.
I've been hesitant about her chances, but I think Harris can do this.
Echoes the feeling that we may need candidates that are harsher and play the game better.
I've been hesitant about her chances, but I think Harris can do this.
VendettaRed07
Member
It's a better idea than anyone else is currently proposing
Try something else to win people over. What we have been doing isn't working, and I haven't been hearing anyone else but the far left provide any sort of cohesive plan or ideas
whyamihere
Banned
Something they do in the U.K. that is interesting is that the party actually puts out a manifesto they run on. There's much more party discipline there, but having something to run ON to supplement Trump's numbers that we can use is a good thing.
metalslimer
Member
How? What is the evidence?
Aaron Strife
Banned
We need a new first 100 hours.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Any time poor whites and blacks, especially those in the South, are "united" white people turn on black people because they value white supremacy above all else.
This has always been true in America and I have no idea why you think it is different now.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Tbh, thinking about it more, there's two major things we need to change as a party: we need to open the doors to candidates from the left (jazz up and enthuse that voting block, we're looking at beating some pretty slim margins here), and we need to be for the things we're for. Our policy agenda is good. It's not perfect, but the Democratic platform would help a massive number of people. We need to stop being afraid to say that. We need to be willing to say "Yeah, I'm gonna raise taxes. It makes your life better." Then, when the Republicans turn it into a sound bite, don't back down. Authenticity is the coin of the realm. Being earnestly in favor of an unpopular thing is probably more popular than being disingenuously in favor of a popular thing*, because people are stupid but until we can seize control of the education system again there's not a ton we can do about that so we're going to have to play the hand we're dealt.
Democratic politicians tend to hugely overestimate how conservative their districts are, and it's time to stop. There's no secret pile of socialists just waiting to be activated, but there's room for movement and improvement nonetheless.
*And it's CERTAINLY more popular than being disingenuously in favor of an unpopular thing a la Republicans and the AHCA.
Also, this. Having a list of like... publically available and scored legislation sitting in the tank that we say that we'll pass immediately upon getting control of congress and damn the Republicans would be a winning move, I feel.
Democratic politicians tend to hugely overestimate how conservative their districts are, and it's time to stop. There's no secret pile of socialists just waiting to be activated, but there's room for movement and improvement nonetheless.
*And it's CERTAINLY more popular than being disingenuously in favor of an unpopular thing a la Republicans and the AHCA.
Also, this. Having a list of like... publically available and scored legislation sitting in the tank that we say that we'll pass immediately upon getting control of congress and damn the Republicans would be a winning move, I feel.
Tulsi Gabbard would be a good choice if she wasn't a fucking Islamophobic zealot
Explain Huey Long and Edwin Edwards. I don't think the Democrats should throw hundreds of million dollars at Southern progressives, but it's dangerous to write-off an entire region of the country an unreachable. Alternative strategies through new and regionally-tailored platforms can make a 2018 majority more plausible.
Explain Huey Long and Edwin Edwards. I don't think the Democrats should throw hundreds of million dollars at Southern progressives, but it's dangerous to write-off an entire region of the country an unreachable. Alternative strategies through new and regionally-tailored platforms can make a 2018 majority more plausible.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked