• 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 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Blader

Member
Speaking of Pod Save America, highly recommend today's episode. Favreau and Lovett had a great (and what sounded like an unexpected) debate about Democratic messaging in the wake of that "67 percent of voters think the Democratic party is out of touch" poll. I generally like the show anyway, but their impromptu debate was really interesting and much better discussion than normal.
 
J

jtb

Banned
I honestly have no problem with electing pro-life Democrats as part of a 50 state strategy where you know with absolute certainty a pro-choice candidate has no chance (hell, go full Rahm and put every veteran you can find on the ballot), but the eagerness people have to call being anti-reproductive rights "progressive" fucking infuriates me.

It literally makes no sense on any grounds whatsoever, but when it comes to Bernie (and, you know, the fact that most people making this argument don't have a fucking vagina), we just throw all logic out the window and resort to kneejerk muscle memory.

I mean, Bernie likes reproductive rights! He's got a great voting record on it! It's an economic issue! You don't have to defend his slight misstep on this!
 
T

TumblingHippo

Member
How long before Democrats should start welcoming people who dislike gays into the party just for the sake of a 50-state strategy?

"Oh, he might believe homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as everyone else, but don't worry, he'd never vote against any gay rights!"

I still feel like the democrats aren't learning anything from the loss, and instead are latching onto the wrong messages. Am I ignorant here? Is there a hope that maybe it's not all this doom and gloom to accept bad, harmful viewpoints for the sake of winning?
 
B

Brawly Likes to Brawl

Member
TumblingHippo said:
How long before Democrats should start welcoming people who dislike gays into the party just for the sake of a 50-state strategy?

"Oh, he might believe homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as everyone else, but don't worry, he'd never vote against any gay rights!"

I still feel like the democrats aren't learning anything from the loss, and instead are latching onto the wrong messages. Am I ignorant here? Is there a hope that maybe it's not all this doom and gloom to accept bad, harmful viewpoints for the sake of winning?
Click to expand...

The way some people are willing to throw away actual aspects of progressivism over a perceived anti-progressive slight continues to amaze me.
 
B

Bam Bam Baklava

Member
TumblingHippo said:
How long before Democrats should start welcoming people who dislike gays into the party just for the sake of a 50-state strategy?

"Oh, he might believe homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as everyone else, but don't worry, he'd never vote against any gay rights!"

I still feel like the democrats aren't learning anything from the loss, and instead are latching onto the wrong messages. Am I ignorant here? Is there a hope that maybe it's not all this doom and gloom to accept bad, harmful viewpoints for the sake of winning?
Click to expand...

They already let in WHITE SUPREMACIST Joe Manchin according to this thread so I guess anything goes.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
TumblingHippo said:
How long before Democrats should start welcoming people who dislike gays into the party just for the sake of a 50-state strategy?

"Oh, he might believe homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as everyone else, but don't worry, he'd never vote against any gay rights!"

I still feel like the democrats aren't learning anything from the loss, and instead are latching onto the wrong messages. Am I ignorant here? Is there a hope that maybe it's not all this doom and gloom to accept bad, harmful viewpoints for the sake of winning?
Click to expand...

There are pro-choice Republicans and anti-abortion Democrats all over the country. More than half the Dems did not believe gays should have equal rights till a few years back.
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
TumblingHippo said:
How long before Democrats should start welcoming people who dislike gays into the party just for the sake of a 50-state strategy?

"Oh, he might believe homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as everyone else, but don't worry, he'd never vote against any gay rights!"

I still feel like the democrats aren't learning anything from the loss, and instead are latching onto the wrong messages. Am I ignorant here? Is there a hope that maybe it's not all this doom and gloom to accept bad, harmful viewpoints for the sake of winning?
Click to expand...

This is another point in favor of encouraging our candidates to lie tbh. Just make shit up. "Yeah sure I'm pro-choice, anti-gay, and pro-free shit!" Then when they get in the office pull of the mask like some kinda WWE heel turn bullcrap and improve everyone's quality of life before they have an opportunity to vote you out.
 
B

Blader

Member
TumblingHippo said:
How long before Democrats should start welcoming people who dislike gays into the party just for the sake of a 50-state strategy?

"Oh, he might believe homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as everyone else, but don't worry, he'd never vote against any gay rights!"

I still feel like the democrats aren't learning anything from the loss, and instead are latching onto the wrong messages. Am I ignorant here? Is there a hope that maybe it's not all this doom and gloom to accept bad, harmful viewpoints for the sake of winning?
Click to expand...

What harmful viewpoints on social issues did Democrats welcome into the party that caused their electoral losses last year?
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
Poodlestrike said:
This is another point in favor of encouraging our candidates to lie tbh. Just make shit up. "Yeah sure I'm pro-choice, anti-gay, and pro-free shit!" Then when they get in the office pull of the mask like some kinda WWE heel turn bullcrap and improve everyone's quality of life before they have an opportunity to vote you out.
Click to expand...

John Bel Edwards is essentially this. On LGBT issues, he ran on a "I don't like it either but we've got bigger fish to fry" platform which is basically required in the South. I know a few Dems in Mississippi (a friend of mine runs a GOTV organization) who run on guns, family, and Jesus but barely even consider themselves Christians and hate guns. Sometimes you need to deploy left wing dog whistles, which means you say bad shit while winking to minority groups that you don't mean it.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
Blader said:
What harmful viewpoints on social issues did Democrats welcome into the party that caused their electoral losses last year?
Click to expand...

I actually think BLM had a big effect on Hillary's loss last year. It is not a harmful movement, but it did cause harm to Hillary. Among both white and black voters for that matter.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Perriello was the most valuable House Democrat in 2009-2010.

Supported cap & trade, Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank despite coming from a historically Republican district.

He lost in a close race in 2010 while Glenn Nye from VA-2 (first elected in 2008, like Perriello) lost by double digits and Rick Boucher of VA-9 (who had been representative for like 30 years) lost by a larger margin than Perriello. Guess which way both of them voted on ACA?
 
H

Holmes

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Perriello was the most valuable House Democrat in 2009-2010.

Supported cap & trade, Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank despite coming from a historically Republican district.

He lost in a close race in 2010 while Glenn Nye from VA-2 (first elected in 2008, like Perriello) lost by double digits and Rick Boucher of VA-9 (who had been representative for like 30 years) lost by a larger margin than Perriello. Guess which way both of them voted on ACA?
Click to expand...
Man when Boucher was behind at the beginning of the night, I knew it would be a long night.
 
S

Slayven

Member
TumblingHippo said:
How long before Democrats should start welcoming people who dislike gays into the party just for the sake of a 50-state strategy?

"Oh, he might believe homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as everyone else, but don't worry, he'd never vote against any gay rights!"

I still feel like the democrats aren't learning anything from the loss, and instead are latching onto the wrong messages. Am I ignorant here? Is there a hope that maybe it's not all this doom and gloom to accept bad, harmful viewpoints for the sake of winning?
Click to expand...

Won't happen, not with white male gays.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
TumblingHippo said:
How long before Democrats should start welcoming people who dislike gays into the party just for the sake of a 50-state strategy?

"Oh, he might believe homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as everyone else, but don't worry, he'd never vote against any gay rights!"

I still feel like the democrats aren't learning anything from the loss, and instead are latching onto the wrong messages. Am I ignorant here? Is there a hope that maybe it's not all this doom and gloom to accept bad, harmful viewpoints for the sake of winning?
Click to expand...

To be fair, democrats clung to their viewpoints for the last ten years and eventually lost control of numerous state governments, the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. At some point, it makes perfect sense that they might want to take a step back and consider the fact that perhaps that message might not be connecting with as many people as they'd like.

I guess I'm kind of perplexed by the recurring viewpoint on this board that democrats can't ever make any changes other than what has been considered status quo.
 
D

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
Master negotiator.

IFDGeFG.png
 
P

pigeon

Banned
The Exploder said:
I feel like this already happened with Clinton. Bringing up her gay marriage record during the campaign was always a good way to get tarred and feathered.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton is literally the candidate you get by taking this "50-compromise strategy" to its logical extreme. Against welfare, against immigration, against people of color having equal rights, but at least he was an economic progressive! He wanted to pass single payer healthcare! Of course he failed to pass it by ignoring the political realities of the situation but he wanted to!
 
O

old manatee

Banned
pigeon said:
Bill Clinton is literally the candidate you get by taking this "50-compromise strategy" to its logical extreme. Against welfare, against immigration, against people of color having equal rights, but at least he was an economic progressive! He wanted to pass single payer healthcare! Of course he failed to pass it by ignoring the political realities of the situation but he wanted to!
Click to expand...

I meant Hillary Clinton, not Bill.
 
J

jtb

Banned
pigeon said:
Bill Clinton is literally the candidate you get by taking this "50-compromise strategy" to its logical extreme. Against welfare, against immigration, against people of color having equal rights, but at least he was an economic progressive! He wanted to pass single payer healthcare! Of course he failed to pass it by ignoring the political realities of the situation but he wanted to!
Click to expand...

Those were dark days.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Slayven said:
Won't happen, not with white male gays.
Click to expand...
Their congressional staffs would revolt.
The Exploder said:
I feel like this already happened with Clinton. Bringing up her gay marriage record during the campaign was always a good way to get tarred and feathered.
Click to expand...
Deservedly so, because gay people above a certain age understood why Clinton, Obama, Biden, et al had to be LTTP on the issue. It was a smear from kiddiots who couldn't understand context.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Mirand said:
Uh oh, a Fox News roundtable is recommending a pre-emptive nuclear strike in North Korea. Hold on to your butts.
Click to expand...

Not enough facepalms in the world. These have to be the dumbest people on TV.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Mirand said:
Uh oh, a Fox News roundtable is recommending a pre-emptive nuclear strike in North Korea. Hold on to your butts.
Click to expand...

An unprovoked nuclear strike on a foreign nation would make the US pretty much the most hated country on the planet.

It doesn't really matter what NC is doing. If we did that, we WOULD be the bad guys.
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
pigeon said:
Bill Clinton is literally the candidate you get by taking this "50-compromise strategy" to its logical extreme. Against welfare, against immigration, against people of color having equal rights, but at least he was an economic progressive! He wanted to pass single payer healthcare! Of course he failed to pass it by ignoring the political realities of the situation but he wanted to!
Click to expand...
huh I wouldn't really call Bill Clinton an economic progressive, he made taxes a little more progressive and made some small achievements but a big part of the whole idea of the Third Way was basically saying "Reagan and Thatcher were right in the broad sense but we can do it better than them."

That said I totally agree with the problems with just compromising to be a less bad thing, which is why I oppose Democrats running people like Heath Mello.
 
G

Good Job Bob

Member
pigeon said:
Bill Clinton is literally the candidate you get by taking this "50-compromise strategy" to its logical extreme. Against welfare, against immigration, against people of color having equal rights, but at least he was an economic progressive! He wanted to pass single payer healthcare! Of course he failed to pass it by ignoring the political realities of the situation but he wanted to!
Click to expand...
?

Bill Clinton is pretty much public enemy no. 1 amongst the economic left.
 
K

kirblar

Member
The Exploder said:
She advocated for civil unions long after every decent Democrat was on board with gay marriage. Civil unions are for second class citizens.
Click to expand...
It took Biden accidentally slipping up in an interview to get the Obama administration on board publicly!

Like, seriously- they were all behind the pack to varying degrees on this because the electorate skews old.
 
E

Ernest

Banned
Republicans appear to be sabotaging the Russia investigation being conducted by the Senate Intelligence Committee. The committee is understaffed and poorly staffed, and it is moving at a glacial pace. The chairman won't grant requests for documents from Team Trump.

Senate Russia probe flounders amid partisan bickering

The committee early on sent letters to key witnesses — such as Flynn, Page, former campaign manager Paul Manafort and longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone — to preserve all documents that might be relevant to the investigation. One such letter was also sent to White House counsel McGahn, who previously served as chief counsel to the Trump campaign and has authority over its records.

But the committee has still not sent any follow up letters even asking for their documents — much less issued a subpoena demanding they be turned over. Although letters requesting the material were drafted by Democratic staffers, Burr has so far declined to sign them, leaving the panel’s investigators powerless to review key material necessary to pursue the issues of possible collusion.

Moreover, the committee also hasn’t even approached potentially key witnesses to schedule interviews with them. Manafort, Stone and Page have all publicly volunteered to be questioned by the committee staff. But so far, the committee seems stuck in a version of Catch-22: It has yet to follow up on those offers, in large part because it doesn’t want to interview them until it has reviewed their documents and emails, which the committee hasn’t asked for. (Flynn, through his lawyer, also has offered to talk but only until he first receives immunity — a step the committee is in no rush to even consider.)
Click to expand...

They should just rename the probe to "Benghazi" and see how quickly things move then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
The Democrats are spineless and worthless in opposing Trump & the GOP
8 9 10 11 12
571
60K
sugarhigh4242 replied
  • Locked
This week in Trump’s America: Week 2 by ThinkProgress
8
3K
stuminus3 replied
  • Locked
Hillary Clinton retweets Slate voter guide calling her most corrupt candidate
3
3K
ModBot replied
  • Locked
Blacklist 2014 - Hollywood's most liked scripts of the year
30
6K
Sho_Nuff82 replied
Top Bottom