Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

451 to 500 of 4,260 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OTOH, justified or not, regardless of who's worse, it does look like a significant section of the Republican vote does come from the anti-political correctness camp. It's worth considering how to change that. Some are unreachable, of course - the deplorables, if you will. Unrepentant racists, homophobes, neo-Nazis, etc.
Maybe some could be reached with an approach designed to counter the idea that whiteness (or maleness, straightness, Christianity, etc) is being attacked? Without actually giving up on trying to make society more just.
Because that notion gives a lot of cover for the serious racists and excuses people who at least don't want to think of themselves that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

OTOH, justified or not, regardless of who's worse, it does look like a significant section of the Republican vote does come from the anti-political correctness camp. It's worth considering how to change that. Some are unreachable, of course - the deplorables, if you will. Unrepentant racists, homophobes, neo-Nazis, etc.

Maybe some could be reached with an approach designed to counter the idea that whiteness (or maleness, straightness, Christianity, etc) is being attacked? Without actually giving up on trying to make society more just.
Because that notion gives a lot of cover for the serious racists and excuses people who at least don't want to think of themselves that way.

Yeah like I have been saying...yes there is a core of voters that will never ever ever vote democrat. But there are a lot of people who voted Trump (or third party...or just stayed at home) who can be reached.

If you focus on economic policy, infrastructure, education, and healthcare, you can reach those folks. People are selfish, and quite a bit of Democrat talking points seem to focus around esoteric ideas that someone who has lived all there life in a rural area just never thinks about.

Dems, especially in the last decade or so, have focused so much on the urban/suburban population of voters that they forgot to package a message that plays well outside that arena.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
thejeff wrote:

OTOH, justified or not, regardless of who's worse, it does look like a significant section of the Republican vote does come from the anti-political correctness camp. It's worth considering how to change that. Some are unreachable, of course - the deplorables, if you will. Unrepentant racists, homophobes, neo-Nazis, etc.

Maybe some could be reached with an approach designed to counter the idea that whiteness (or maleness, straightness, Christianity, etc) is being attacked? Without actually giving up on trying to make society more just.
Because that notion gives a lot of cover for the serious racists and excuses people who at least don't want to think of themselves that way.

Yeah like I have been saying...yes there is a core of voters that will never ever ever vote democrat. But there are a lot of people who voted Trump (or third party...or just stayed at home) who can be reached.

If you focus on economic policy, infrastructure, education, and healthcare, you can reach those folks. People are selfish, and quite a bit of Democrat talking points seem to focus around esoteric ideas that someone who has lived all there life in a rural area just never thinks about.

Dems, especially in the last decade or so, have focused so much on the urban/suburban population of voters that they forgot to package a message that plays well outside that arena.

I think that's missing the point though. Sure, improving the economy is always good. Or basic things like healthcare & education, though their latest attempt at improving healthcare certainly didn't help Democrats in the short run. And education's all tied up in the culture wars.

Which brings us back around - attempts to deal with any of this will run aground on white identity politics, as they've been doing since the 60s. Everything ran into trouble when "they" started getting the same benefits as "us". From welfare to school desegregation to current fights over LGBTQ inclusion.

If you leave the inclusion out, then these types can accept it, but minorities get screwed even harder. If you make it inclusive then it becomes part of the war on Real (white) Americans.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The Democrats are seriously going to have to start talking to their progressive wing soon and admitting that Clinton just wasn't that good a candidate. It wasn't all her fault—sexism, biased media and a long campaign to paint her as unlikable and deceitful did a lot to screw her over—but at the core she was an uncharismatic career politician who campaigned on "America Is Already Great" and was way too moderate on issues progressives cared about.

Trump didn't beat Hillary Clinton. With that wretched turnout, he couldn't beat McGovern*. Secretary Clinton beat herself. She was carried through the primary debates by her party's blatant endorsement and half-won just by virtue of the media narrative saying she would win. People complained that Bernie Sanders was hampering her and weakening her prior to the general, forgetting that the point of a primary is to weed out easily-weakened candidates.

I just wanted to start off with the initial thing your party should change is the entire premise of this argument. Hillary didn't lose because of sexism, (or if it was at all a cause, it's so extremely marginal it's irrelevant). And lets face facts, the "biased media" AND the smear campaign to paint someone as "unlikable" absolutely favored her and affected the opponent. AND SHE STILL LOST.

I want to be absolutely clear here, because I am so sick of hearing this sort of rational. Hillary had all of the advantages and she still lost. And trying to paint anyone that contributed to that as wrong, evil, "ist", etc. . . is very disingenuous. Hillary lost and Trump won on their own merits and flaws. Pretending that Hillary was somehow unfairly robbed very much smacks of excuses. Not reason. "I wasn't ready, and the sun was in my eye, and I was distracted. In a "real" fight, I would have won."

So, let's start there. Hillary lost based on her own faults, largely her unescapable past history, her campaigns own treatment of her peers, (who realistically stood a chance), her lack of charisma, her lack of ability to take the spotlight off of her past, the fact that she has on record swapped stances so frequently, and many other factors.

The fact she had a vagina is not among those. Period. People, either willfully or not, insisting that it is, essentially telling other people what they think, is not helping your cause at all. It's actually making anyone that voted for anyone else (which does not include me, by the way), besides Hillary feel justified because there is such a vocal minority being such terrible, infantile losers about it.

Trump DID absolutely beat Hillary. Both because so many people underestimated his appeal, cunning, wisdom, and tactics, and also because Hillary displayed a fairly large degree of incompetence, (and let be honest, you (in the general sense) where a lot more willing to forgive or outright ignore a lot of her stuff when obviously, in retrospect, not a lot of other folks where.)

Secondly, after moving away from that, what the Democratic Party should do, agree with it or not, is support their opponent outright. If you are so certain he will fail, the world will end, or already has and this is indeed Hell, then the Dem party should go out of their way to help the opposition, so that when they so horribly fail, they would have done so WITH your aid and guidance, and still failed. Allowing things to swing back to you and you can then justifiably fix the universe. Bes case scenario, you are right, Trump will destroy the country/world/universe/higher planes of existence, and you are now in a position to at least mitigate some of that fallout. Worst case, you<r party> is wrong, and Trump does amazing things to fix the country. And you could be there to learn and evolve and even take it the next step for the good of the country as a whole, introducing Dem. ideas and initiatives. Most likely very little actually changes, and your party has another shot in a few years. Either way, it's all on them, and not because the Dems undermined it or acted sneaky. <After the Clintons, you really, really need to be seen for this>

Next step is to heavily screen your candidates. Hillary shot herself in the foot, repeatedly, but the absolute worst offense was vampirizing her own party, which your party allowed to happen, and absolutely ignored who devastating it was to the voters. I have no doubt other Dems would have won if it had not been for Hillary's actions within the party itself some months back. Even another woman very likely would have won. But, instead, so many of the more vocal of your party just want to label everyone else as sexist, racist, or a variety of other "ists", thinking it will shame others and vindicate themselves. It doesn't. It just shows a high degree of lack of accepting responsibility.

Move away from those things and stop pretending that the various issues you hold important are universally more important than anyone else's issues, or essentially "your one true way".


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I think that's missing the point though. Sure, improving the economy is always good. Or basic things like healthcare & education, though their latest attempt at improving healthcare certainly didn't help Democrats in the short run. And education's all tied up in the culture wars.

Which brings us back around - attempts to deal with any of this will run aground on white identity politics, as they've been doing since the 60s. Everything ran into trouble when "they" started getting the same benefits as "us". From welfare to school desegregation to current fights over LGBTQ inclusion.

If you leave the inclusion...

I think we are talking past each other here.

What I am saying isn't that Democrats need to abandon inclusivity. These are all key planks of the party and should remain so. What I am saying is that these, in and of themselves, are not going to be important selling points for democrats trying to get into office in more rural areas. Areas where there may indeed be no muslims or where people know personally known any LGBTQ folks or much of anything about minorities.

I don't think the majority of rural voters actually give a crap about white identity politics. They want good roads, good schools, stable jobs, and not to go bankrupt in the face of a medical emergency. The democrats do have proposals to address at least some of these concerns. They just need to sell them and not allow Republicans to dominate the field with fear mongering. Tailoring your proposals to fit a specific audience is what I do every day as a scientist, whether its applying for job, teaching students, or working on a grant. I don't feel it is some sort of impossible task.

I just feel like too much of the conversation going back and forth in this thread really won't ever resolve anything. It puts the onus of the recent debate on the voters. At which point why even talk about Democrat Strategy? If Rural voters are only concerned with white identity...well than Dems can just wipe there hands of the recent losses and call everyone else racists, and we should just accept that Dems will never control the Senate or House, and will only on occasion control the presidency. At which point everyone concerned about progressive issues should just work to get there state to secede (if in a blue dominant state) or move to Canada. There just is no way forward in our lifetimes.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know Beckett; this was a race where there was a recording of one candidate describing how he used his position to sexually assault women and the other was a woman. I'm not saying your guy didn't win, but it's tough for me to believe sexism was was so extremely marginal that it was irrelevant.

Shadow Lodge

Not really my guy.


DM Beckett wrote:
Not really my guy.

Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, it's just an easy assumption to make when someone describes Democrats as "your party."


MMCJawa wrote:
thejeff wrote:

always good. Or basic things like healthcare & education, though their latest attempt at improving healthcare certainly didn't help Democrats in the short run. And education's all tied up in the culture wars.

Which brings us back around - attempts to deal with any of this will run aground on white identity politics, as they've been doing since the 60s. Everything ran into trouble when "they" started getting the same benefits as "us". From welfare to school desegregation to current fights over LGBTQ inclusion.

If you leave the inclusion...

I think we are talking past each other here.

What I am saying isn't that Democrats need to abandon inclusivity. These are all key planks of the party and should remain so. What I am saying is that these, in and of themselves, are not going to be important selling points for democrats trying to get into office in more rural areas. Areas where there may indeed be no muslims or where people know personally known any LGBTQ folks or much of anything about minorities.

I don't think the majority of rural voters actually give a crap about white identity politics. They want good roads, good schools, stable jobs, and not to go bankrupt in the face of a medical emergency. The democrats do have proposals to address at least some of these concerns. They just need to sell them and not allow Republicans to dominate the field with fear mongering. Tailoring your proposals to fit a specific audience is what I do every day as a scientist, whether its applying for job, teaching students, or working on a grant. I don't feel it is some sort of impossible task.

I just feel like too much of the conversation going back and forth in this thread really won't ever resolve anything. It puts the onus of the recent debate on the voters. At which point why even talk about Democrat Strategy? If Rural voters are only concerned with white identity...well than Dems can just wipe there hands of the recent losses and call everyone else racists, and we should just accept that Dems will never control the Senate or House, and will only on occasion control the presidency. At which point everyone concerned about progressive issues should just work to get there state to secede (if in a blue dominant state) or move to Canada. There just is no way forward in our lifetimes.

I think we are talking past each other. Probably because I'm not being clear enough about what I was asking. And the prior response kind of went off in the wrong direction. Let me try again:

How do we talk about inclusiveness and institutional prejudice without provoking those negative reactions? Is it possible?
Because I really do believe it hurts Democrats with a lot of voters - even if they're not thinking of it as prejudice, just as "liberals focus on all that other stuff, they don't do anything for me". The whole "political correctness gone mad" thing hurts us. We can't just ignore it. We also can't stop fighting for inclusiveness, but are there ways we can change tactics.

For your last point: I don't think rural voters are explicitly thinking in terms of white identity - nor is that quite the same as racism. It's more just a default mode. Thinking in terms of themselves and those they know, ignoring the differences that others struggle with. We shouldn't just write them off as racists, but just pretending race (and other prejudices) aren't a factor is just blinding ourselves.


Hitdice wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Not really my guy.
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, it's just an easy assumption to make when someone describes Democrats as "your party."
DM Beckett wrote:
anyone that voted for anyone else (which does not include me, by the way), besides Hillary

Except he says otherwise specifically.

EDIT: Also, I'm sorry for piling on after you apologized. I just know that it is frustrating to be accused of supporting the other guy just because you practice introspection and give a good faith attempt at academic honesty. Particularly when you go out of your way to state your affiliation.

Shadow Lodge

Hitdice wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Not really my guy.
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, it's just an easy assumption to make when someone describes Democrats as "your party."

I was trying to find a reasonable way to not use "you", as I wasn't intending to specify any specific person, but also didn't want to have to call that out each time. I simply felt "your party" was less accusatory.

:P


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Donald Trump regularly used language to imply that Clinton was weak, lacked stamina, didn't look the part, etc... basically, that because she was a woman, she shouldn't have the job.

Trump blamed tough questions from a reporter on her menstruation.

Sexism was all over this campaign. I don't think it decided the election alone, but it was one of many, many factors. The fact that one candidate was a woman and the other is a raging sexist guarantees that gender issues will play a role in the campaign. If you blithely dismiss this issue as being irrelevant to the outcome, either you weren't paying attention, or you've got an agenda.

DM Beckett wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Not really my guy.
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, it's just an easy assumption to make when someone describes Democrats as "your party."

I was trying to find a reasonable way to not use "you", as I wasn't intending to specify any specific person, but also didn't want to have to call that out each time. I simply felt "your party" was less accusatory.

:P

Writing tip: avoid the vague "you" and "your" by just naming the thing you're talking about. So, instead of "your party", just say "democrats". It actually saves 2 characters of typing as well.

Shadow Lodge

BigDTBone wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Not really my guy.
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, it's just an easy assumption to make when someone describes Democrats as "your party."
DM Beckett wrote:
anyone that voted for anyone else (which does not include me, by the way), besides Hillary
Except he says otherwise specifically.

I did not vote for anyone else. If it helps, what I'm trying to say is I am not included in the group of folks being dismisses/shamed for voting for anyone else but Hillary. Or, I didn't vote for Trump, so I don't consider myself in the group being talked about.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

Donald Trump regularly used language to imply that Clinton was weak, lacked stamina, didn't look the part, etc... basically, that because she was a woman, she shouldn't have the job.

Trump blamed tough questions from a reporter on her menstruation.

Sexism was all over this campaign. I don't think it decided the election alone, but it was one of many, many factors. The fact that one candidate was a woman and the other is a raging sexist guarantees that gender issues will play a role in the campaign. If you blithely dismiss this issue as being irrelevant to the outcome, either you weren't paying attention, or you've got an agenda.

I suspect there weren't a lot of people thinking "I won't vote for her because she's a woman." At least not who she could have ever won. If that's what someone thinks of as sexism, then sexism wasn't a major factor.

OTOH, sexism definitely affected the portrayal of Clinton and has ever since she was First Lady. It has certainly colored many people's impressions, often in ways they don't even realize.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trinam wrote:

I'll agree about the substantive talks thing being good? But you realize you said that when you're talking to a person for whom the e-flak lost the 'e,' meaning that this is literally a thing that happened, to me.

It's not being used as a tool to foster debate. In the hollow echo chamber of our current political discourse, its primarily used either to preach to the already converted, or weaponized in order to attack people that the speaker doesn't like and show others that they can get their good person points by attacking them.

Give me reasoned discussion any day, but the minute some 'misguided kid' tries sending my work a letter claiming that I am a transphobic abuser who caused someone a mental breakdown from stress because 'a trans person was an ass to me and my wife and I called her out on it-plus-also being a s#+!ty roleplayer,' and that I should be fired because of my horrible anti-trans beliefs (because I guess believing that a trans person was an ass means hating all of them, to this kid), it ceases to have ever been a discussion.

In my view, that's just straight up attacking with rhetoric to try and ruin lives. And that's not helping substantive talks exist, that's actively making people avoid the topic because people tend to want to avoid those rabid... would alt-leftist be a good term for that sort of extremist thought? Whatever, you get what I'm getting at here. Those kids hurt the discussion immensely by making it a weapon, and saying it's worth it is misreading the effects of what their actions do to the climate in which people would be having these conversations because literally anyone could be that crazy person.

I don't know the details of your situation, so it's hard for me to comment on them.

I occasionally hear anecdotal stories like this, but I'm curious... did your employer take it seriously? Were you fired? Reprimanded or any consequences at all?

A friend of mine has tried to convince me that he routinely hears stories about college professors who are fired from their jobs because of being "politically incorrect". So I decided to start investigating the issue. I didn't find a lot of evidence of this going on. I did find a professor who had a blog, which dedicated a lot of time and energy to complaining about this very thing. The blogger/professors personal story went like this:

A conservative student complained to administration that the teacher had been pushing Marxist views and refused to acknowledge their own views as relevant. Administration called the professor in to talk about the complaint. The administrator told the professor this wasn't a big deal, no action would be taken. The meeting was purely pro forma, as it was part of the required process when a complaint was made. It would have no affect on anything otherwise.

Truly a damning story about how political correctness is costing professors their jobs.

So, if you're willing to share, what were the consequences of this letter?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

Donald Trump regularly used language to imply that Clinton was weak, lacked stamina, didn't look the part, etc... basically, that because she was a woman, she shouldn't have the job.

Trump blamed tough questions from a reporter on her menstruation.

Sexism was all over this campaign. I don't think it decided the election alone, but it was one of many, many factors. The fact that one candidate was a woman and the other is a raging sexist guarantees that gender issues will play a role in the campaign. If you blithely dismiss this issue as being irrelevant to the outcome, either you weren't paying attention, or you've got an agenda.

Or I disagree with you, the same way that people blasted the internet of Black Widow's "revelation". Yourself and some might see it as "sexist" while I and others see it as attacking the opponents character. Not saying they look weak, because they are female, but because they do not seem, obviously, very confident. Refusing to answer direct questions.

Her not looking the part, I interpreted as a comment on demeanor, not gender, and I agree. I could give a crap what parts he or she has. And I think that's the problem that a lot of Democrats are having. They wanted to rely on sexism (or reverse sexism) being a larger factor, but it turns out a lot of voting folks, of both genders just didn't care.

However, lets also look at this. What was Hillary's main opposition on his character? That he was a spoiled, rich man that didn't earn anything. Sounds a lot like the whole "white/male privilege" argument. Or commenting on his appearance, most notably his hair or weight. That he had no relevant experience, was stupid, ugly, etc. . . Or that he was a male, so just lead around by his penis, because that's what did the thinking. But, I guess that's ok, right because she is a she, so that doesn't count.

Again, she and her campaign went out of their way to paint him as as unlikable as they could, and it just didn't stick. Sure, it's easy to say "yah, because he is a guy", but the truth is more likely that he just didn't let it bother him, kept his head up, and it showed.

She on the other hand, avoided these sorts of things like the plague, refused to confront them, and showed she couldn't deal with them, and just wanted to hide her head in the sand.

That's my perspective of it. Maybe I'm wrong, and you are right. But, even if that is the case, to the country at large, trying to blame it on this "ist" or that "ist" is just making it worse. It's a lose/lose for Dems.

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:
OTOH, sexism definitely affected the portrayal of Clinton and has ever since she was First Lady. It has certainly colored many people's impressions, often in ways they don't even realize.

That is possible. Not saying it is not. However, what I am saying, for myself, and also for a lot of folks I know, it was more like 99.9% her history, her past choices, her untrustworthiness, her lack of personal responsibility, HER ACTIONS, her attitude, and her skirting the consequences. If she had been a he and absolutely nothing else had changed, they would be in the exact same boat as they are.


Beckett, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but if none of the candidates/parties were compelling enough to win your vote, how was Clinton any weaker a candidate that Johnson, Stein or Trump? Or are you just speaking hypothetically about a specific party from a perspective of complete disaffection?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
How do we talk about inclusiveness and institutional prejudice without provoking those negative reactions?

Most people want to believe that they aren't prejudiced. Only a tiny core of the most extreme will openly admit that they are hostile to 'those others'.

Therefor, I think Clinton could have done much better by spelling out exactly where Trump had crossed the line and making the election a referendum on bigotry.

For example, there was a big hubbub when Trump said, 'look at that face, there is no way she can win the presidency' about Carly Fiorina during one of the GOP debates. However, most of the coverage focused on the insulting / boorish nature of the statement. Clinton could have said, 'think about what he said... she is not pretty enough to be president. What does that tell us about his mindset? Intelligence or hard work do not count... women can only succeed if they are pretty?' Walk people through the blatant misogyny of it and then ask, 'Is this what we want to be? A country that embraces the worst kind of gender biases?'

Ditto for Trump's many slurs against different ethnic and religious groups. Spell it out and make it a choice between bigotry and progress.

If you can clearly make the case, and with Trump it should be child's play (especially after he spends four more years in the public eye), then even most people who ARE biased will not want to VOTE for bias. They need to be able to tell themselves that they are good people who treat everyone fairly... and that just isn't compatible with voting for Trump if you have closely looked at who he really is.

Shadow Lodge

Hitdice wrote:
Beckett, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but if none of the candidates/parties were compelling enough to win your vote, how was Clinton any weaker a candidate that Johnson, Stein or Trump? Or are you just speaking hypothetically about a specific party from a perspective of complete disaffection?

More the latter, but not precisely. I was still fairly undecided at the time, but I wasn't able to vote due to work. I'd likely have gone with Jill, despite disagreeing with some of her stances on things.

I'm mostly just arguing from a neutral perspective, wanting to call out specific things I disagree with in the overall view presented, under the impression the goal was to find a way to improve the party.


DM Beckett wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Not really my guy.
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, it's just an easy assumption to make when someone describes Democrats as "your party."
DM Beckett wrote:
anyone that voted for anyone else (which does not include me, by the way), besides Hillary
Except he says otherwise specifically.
I did not vote for anyone else. If it helps, what I'm trying to say is I am not included in the group of folks being dismisses/shamed for voting for anyone else but Hillary. Or, I didn't vote for Trump, so I don't consider myself in the group being talked about.

Sorry, I seem to have stepped into my own miscommunication trap. I meant to say, "It looks like DM Beckett probably voted for HIllary (or abstained from voting) based on this quote."

I apparently flubbed that, so you know... carry on and stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Miscommunication traps? On the internet?! I'll never forgive you!!!11! ;)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

What's the future of the Democratic Party? It has no future unless it enacts immediate radical reforms.

To me the #1 reason why Clinton lost the election is she should NEVER have been the party's candidate in the first place! Why was she? Because she used backroom deals and party cronyism (the good ole boy system) to lock up the superdelegate vote.

Now ostensibly the whole point of a primary election is to make sure your party has the strongest candidate going into the general election. But when Clinton locked up the superdelegates it became mathematically extremely unlikely that anyone other than Clinton could win the nomination.

I'm not just talking in absolute terms, as each superdelegate vote is worth about 10,000 votes of rank-and-file Democrats. I'm also talking of the blatant voter suppression effect of locking up the superdelegates, as any rank-and-file Democrat considering voting for say, Bernie Sanders would have to do so knowing full well that the vote was HEAVILY stacked against them before the first rank-and-file Democrats had cast even a single ballot. This point was driven home time and time again in reporting by the largely pro-Clinton media in the run up to the actual balloting.

And so what was even the point of holding a primary at all, if a handful of out-of-touch party elites are determined to swing the results to the weakest candidate, damn constituent representation or democracy in the process!

To me the most shocking thing about the Democrat defeat was how little real introspection has been done on why it happened. We've all heard various vague platitudes from Democrat leaders and even in this thread about how the party needs to get more organized or reach out to people who have been alienated from the party, but very little specifics about how any of this could be accomplished.

Strikingly, not a single major Democrat leader is currently calling for the immediate and total abolition of the party's superdelegate system (although there has been some progress in increasing the number of pledged delegates, it's not enough). Until this is done, discussing any other reforms is rather pointless, as party elites can and will continue to lock up the primary vote and nominate weak candidates. These weak candidates WILL lose in general elections, and all the other talk of reforms in the world isn't going to change that.


CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
How do we talk about inclusiveness and institutional prejudice without provoking those negative reactions?

Most people want to believe that they aren't prejudiced. Only a tiny core of the most extreme will openly admit that they are hostile to 'those others'.

Therefor, I think Clinton could have done much better by spelling out exactly where Trump had crossed the line and making the election a referendum on bigotry.

For example, there was a big hubbub when Trump said, 'look at that face, there is no way she can win the presidency' about Carly Fiorina during one of the GOP debates. However, most of the coverage focused on the insulting / boorish nature of the statement. Clinton could have said, 'think about what he said... she is not pretty enough to be president. What does that tell us about his mindset? Intelligence or hard work do not count... women can only succeed if they are pretty?' Walk people through the blatant misogyny of it and then ask, 'Is this what we want to be? A country that embraces the worst kind of gender biases?'

Ditto for Trump's many slurs against different ethnic and religious groups. Spell it out and make it a choice between bigotry and progress.

If you can clearly make the case, and with Trump it should be child's play (especially after he spends four more years in the public eye), then even most people who ARE biased will not want to VOTE for bias. They need to be able to tell themselves that they are good people who treat everyone fairly... and that just isn't compatible with voting for Trump if you have closely looked at who he really is.

Hillary I think did try to do this, but I don't think it really helped all that much, since it made the election into one about personality than about policy.

A more charismatic candidate who didn't have decades of political attacks against her could have made that strategy work, but that wasn't Hillary.


Can someone name a previous president of the united states that has not been "sexist" and/or "racist"? According to most SJW I have seen, all of them have been to one extent or another. So how would being one "disqualify" someone to be president, if we are to accept SJWs view of all previous presidents?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think dropping an all-sizes-fit label of "the racist" or "the sexist" is not reqlly getting at the heart at what the push for equality is about. Like I was mentioning before, it's not a conversation at that point. Furthermore, the new racist rhetoric is shrouded behind code words with nice little principle back doors that make calling someone a racist really just not that effective.

As for the president, Donald J. Trump is far from your garden-variety old white dude who has some bigoted positions. He's high-octane, and the stuff he's said is unprecedented for any president to say.

Essentially, if you treat this as a black/white, racist/non-racist thing, you're gonna get some weird categorizations going where Trump of all people is now just AS bigoted as any other person who's made a discriminatory commen or microaggressiont. There's definitely degrees to this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJAWA wrote:
I don't think the majority of rural voters actually give a crap about white identity politics.

True. But I know when i hear the term "white privilege" I need to take a second and resist punching someone in the face. Privilege and discrimination have the same net effect, but it's a lot easier to convince people that minorities are being discriminated against than that their possibly craptastic life is somehow privileged because it's a privilege not to be beaten by the police.

Quote:
Tailoring your proposals to fit a specific audience is what I do every day as a scientist, whether its applying for job, teaching students, or working on a grant. I don't feel it is some sort of impossible task.

Since the democrats are the reality based party (sadly, by default) what would an honest conversation look like?

"I'm sorry obamacare sucks for you. It really does suck for you. It's effectively a tax where the poor and middle class pay exactly the same amount to help cover the poor and elderly as the rich do. I don't burn through 400 dollars a month worth of healthcare, most of you don't either. That money's being taken and put to a good cause keeping someone's grandmother on dialysis or treating people's cancer but that doesn't make it fair to you.

"What i would like to do is fund it out of a general income tax that charges people more the more they make, instead of charging people the more they work. For that to happen I don't just need you to vote for democrat. I need people all over the country to vote democrat. Then i need to get the bill through an obstructionist congress that's been bought and paid for precisely to stop that from happening because bribing congress is cheaper than pitching in their fair share. I think an act of god is more likely than that act of congress, and I'm an atheist"

"This system works because it's easier and cheaper to make you angry than it is to make you google something "look, that welfare mother has lobster!" gets an instant, visceral reaction but capital gains tax rates are half that of earned income' gets blank stares. There is absolutely nothing in the republican policy that helps you, but you keep falling for it anyway.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
"What i would like to do is fund it out of a general income tax that charges people more the more they make, instead of charging people the more they work. For that to happen I don't just need you to vote for democrat. I need people all over the country to vote democrat. Then i need to get the bill through an obstructionist congress that's been bought and paid for precisely to stop that from happening because bribing congress is cheaper than pitching in their fair share. I think an act of god is more likely than that act of congress, and I'm an atheist"

At which point you're dismissed as godless communist.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
Can someone name a previous president of the united states that has not been "sexist" and/or "racist"? According to most SJW I have seen, all of them have been to one extent or another. So how would being one "disqualify" someone to be president, if we are to accept SJWs view of all previous presidents?

You're right. No one is sufficiently pure. Might as well elect a Nazi KKK groper. Doesn't really make any difference.

That's not really a helpful argument. No one, but the most extreme caricature of a SJW argues that the "to one extent or another" doesn't matter.

There's also the point that standards have changed. What was acceptable in the 1800s isn't even vaguely acceptable now. Comparing all presidents on the same scale doesn't really make any sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Murg7 wrote:

What's the future of the Democratic Party? It has no future unless it enacts immediate radical reforms.

To me the #1 reason why Clinton lost the election is she should NEVER have been the party's candidate in the first place! Why was she? Because she used backroom deals and party cronyism (the good ole boy system) to lock up the superdelegate vote.

Now ostensibly the whole point of a primary election is to make sure your party has the strongest candidate going into the general election. But when Clinton locked up the superdelegates it became mathematically extremely unlikely that anyone other than Clinton could win the nomination.

I'm not just talking in absolute terms, as each superdelegate vote is worth about 10,000 votes of rank-and-file Democrats. I'm also talking of the blatant voter suppression effect of locking up the superdelegates, as any rank-and-file Democrat considering voting for say, Bernie Sanders would have to do so knowing full well that the vote was HEAVILY stacked against them before the first rank-and-file Democrats had cast even a single ballot. This point was driven home time and time again in reporting by the largely pro-Clinton media in the run up to the actual balloting.

And so what was even the point of holding a primary at all, if a handful of out-of-touch party elites are determined to swing the results to the weakest candidate, damn constituent representation or democracy in the process!

To me the most shocking thing about the Democrat defeat was how little real introspection has been done on why it happened. We've all heard various vague platitudes from Democrat leaders and even in this thread about how the party needs to get more organized or reach out to people who have been alienated from the party, but very little specifics about how any of this could be accomplished.

Strikingly, not a single major Democrat leader is currently calling for the immediate and total abolition of the party's superdelegate system (although there has been some progress in...

The thing about the superdelegates is that they're never actually locked up, until the final vote. Had Sanders actually been winning in the primaries - getting significantly ahead in pledged delegate count, the superdelegates would have moved to him. At least that's the assumption - superdelegates have never actually overridden the primary voters.

They do likely influence the vote, but they don't make anything mathematically impossible or even very unlikely. Hell, by the end Sanders seemed to be pursuing a "get the superdelegates to switch so I can win despite being behind in pledged delegates" strategy.


thejeff wrote:


That's not really a helpful argument. No one, but the most extreme caricature of a SJW argues that the "to one extent or another" doesn't matter.

I think i have to give presman that one. The concepts of levels and shades of gray doesn't come across very well. You are either the pinnacle of social justice or a sexist bigot. Neither the concept of a little bit of racism or even "dumbass" seem to come across.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

The thing about the superdelegates is that they're never actually locked up, until the final vote. Had Sanders actually been winning in the primaries - getting significantly ahead in pledged delegate count, the superdelegates would have moved to him. At least that's the assumption - superdelegates have never actually overridden the primary voters.

They do likely influence the vote, but they don't make anything mathematically impossible or even very unlikely.

Then they shouldn't be telling media sources who they are planning to vote for. There should be a culture of silence about it. It should be an official rule of the Democratic Party that superdelegates are verboten to discuss their pick until 48 hours after the last primary. They should hold each other accountable by removing their superdelegate status if they indicate to anyone who they intend to vote for before that time.

I'm OK with superdelegate (not really, more like, I am prepared to accept the reality of them) but I'm not OK with one candidate being "behind" by 400+ delegates before the first vote is cast.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:


That's not really a helpful argument. No one, but the most extreme caricature of a SJW argues that the "to one extent or another" doesn't matter.

I think i have to give presman that one. The concepts of levels and shades of gray doesn't come across very well. You are either the pinnacle of social justice or a sexist bigot. Neither the concept of a little bit of racism or even "dumbass" seem to come across.

Yeah, I think this is why focusing on attacking IDEAS rather than individual people is much more effective. Not only does it disarm some of the defensiveness from the conversation, but it makes it more of a conversation. If the goal is to get people to really stop and think about gender roles, assumptions, race, etc., then calling them a name is a poor way to accomplish that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
That's not really a helpful argument. No one, but the most extreme caricature of a SJW argues that the "to one extent or another" doesn't matter.
I think i have to give presman that one. The concepts of levels and shades of gray doesn't come across very well. You are either the pinnacle of social justice or a sexist bigot. Neither the concept of a little bit of racism or even "dumbass" seem to come across.

And I think that's b+@~%~@#, but we apparently have different perspectives and experiences.

But this goes back to my previous question: How do we talk about this stuff without alienating people?

Sovereign Court

Sexism was only a single factor in a very complex equation of why hilary lost. To say Trump voters are sexist is a gross generalization. To say Trump isnt sexist and thats just "sour grapes by the losers" is absurd. I dont think I need to repeat the decades of on air public comments to establish a history. However, since taking office Trump has enacted a "dress" code for women. "If they are going to work for me they are going to look like women."

All past presidents have probably made a comment or enacted a policy that could be labeled sexist. Trump has decades and decades of instances that point to it being an intentional mindset which separates him into a class of his own.

Also, to say assist Trump and the right with their policies of failure to make a point means you dont have anything on the line. If you had to personally pay for all those failures would y'all still want to push those failures forward?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


But this goes back to my previous question: How do we talk about this stuff without alienating people?

It's hard, in no small part because the right's relies entirely on a public relations campaign of deliberately pounding a wedge in between people to advance the "all money to the rich" sop of social engineering.

Ditch the ad homs, or at least save them for a tac nuke. As it is godwin has pretty much lost all effectiveness.

It's not social justice. It's actual justice or its not the governments problem. All government power eventually comes out of a gun, and that is NOT the kind of power you turn on hurt feelings. Show actual, concrete harm or don't pick the fight.

Ditch the social sciences terminology, or at the very least be aware that no one outside the choir understands it the way those inside it do. (and the language is going to change in 5 years anyway)
Using it as the benchmark for how aligned someone is with what legislation you want to pass is iffy at best. Look at the intent of what someone is trying to say.

Fight for a specific law or policy. "Kumbaya everyone love each other or else" is not an actionable goal by the government. Bathroom laws are.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
That's not really a helpful argument. No one, but the most extreme caricature of a SJW argues that the "to one extent or another" doesn't matter.
I think i have to give presman that one. The concepts of levels and shades of gray doesn't come across very well. You are either the pinnacle of social justice or a sexist bigot. Neither the concept of a little bit of racism or even "dumbass" seem to come across.

And I think that's b&*@~&$@, but we apparently have different perspectives and experiences.

But this goes back to my previous question: How do we talk about this stuff without alienating people?

By talking about something they actually care about.

Look, let's be honest here and admit that some people are selfish and quite frequently don't give a damn about marginalized groups that don't include them. I know I certainty didn't (and kind of still do) when I was younger. You can rightfully say that's deplorable and not what the US is about, but at the end of day shaming those people isn't going to get many to start caring. Bribery is. Which is why you need to loudly give those who aren't involved in identity politics (aka white rural or middle class voters) a reason to support the Democrats. If all they talk about is inclusion this and feminism that they won't care because they aren't being pandered too. That's why a lot Bernie supporters (aka BernieBros) were so glum when their messiah lost the primary. Yes, he talked about inclusion, but he also spent a lot of time about making the corporations* pay and giving back to the poorest Americans. Democrats don't have to abandon identity politics by any means, they just have to give more than a wink and nod to the white boys who want to know they can pay off their mortgage, get a second car, not be in debt after college, and in general feel like they've succeeded in life. Trumpism rises when demagogues tell them they can get all those things by screwing over their fellow man.

*A brilliant play by the way. Tribalism and hatred are always going to play into politics so why not change the narrative from black vs white and Christian vs Muslim too Rich vs Poor and Middle Class. Why bother pretending your above that when many voters certainly aren't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Donald Trump regularly used language to imply that Clinton was weak, lacked stamina, didn't look the part, etc... basically, that because she was a woman, she shouldn't have the job.

Trump blamed tough questions from a reporter on her menstruation.

Sexism was all over this campaign. I don't think it decided the election alone, but it was one of many, many factors. The fact that one candidate was a woman and the other is a raging sexist guarantees that gender issues will play a role in the campaign. If you blithely dismiss this issue as being irrelevant to the outcome, either you weren't paying attention, or you've got an agenda.

I suspect there weren't a lot of people thinking "I won't vote for her because she's a woman." At least not who she could have ever won. If that's what someone thinks of as sexism, then sexism wasn't a major factor.

OTOH, sexism definitely affected the portrayal of Clinton and has ever since she was First Lady. It has certainly colored many people's impressions, often in ways they don't even realize.

The Right has been demonizing her ever since she refused to just sit in the White House and bake brownies. Many of her disadvantages are from her gender, and it's important to recognize that while talking about her flaws.

Hillary Clinton wrote:
“I’m not Barack Obama. I’m not Bill Clinton. Both of them carry themselves with a naturalness that is very appealing to audiences. But I’m married to one and I’ve worked for the other, so I know how hard they work at being natural. It’s not something they just dial in. They work and they practice what they’re going to say. It’s not that they’re trying to be somebody else. But it’s hard work to present yourself in the best possible way. You have to communicate in a way that people say: ‘OK, I get her.’ And that can be more difficult for a woman. Because who are your models? If you want to run for the Senate, or run for the Presidency, most of your role models are going to be men. And what works for them won’t work for you. Women are seen through a different lens. It’s not bad. It’s just a fact. It’s really quite funny. I’ll go to these events and there will be men speaking before me, and they’ll be pounding the message, and screaming about how we need to win the election. And people will love it. And I want to do the same thing. Because I care about this stuff. But I’ve learned that I can’t be quite so passionate in my presentation. I love to wave my arms, but apparently that’s a little bit scary to people. And I can’t yell too much. It comes across as ‘too loud’ or ‘too shrill’ or ‘too this’ or ‘too that.’ Which is funny, because I’m always convinced that the people in the front row are loving it.”
BNW wrote:
I think i have to give presman that one. The concepts of levels and shades of gray doesn't come across very well. You are either the pinnacle of social justice or a sexist bigot. Neither the concept of a little bit of racism or even "dumbass" seem to come across.

While the Left does struggle at times with dimensions (it's hard for The Masses to remember that the mansplaining male feminist is not as bad as the clueless dudebro is not as bad as the edgelord Golden Meaner is not as bad as the homophobic grandpa is not as bad as the actual neonazi), I think pres man has significantly exaggerated the breadth of the problem.


HRC wrote:
I’m always convinced that the people in the front row are loving it.

Spoken like a true politician. :D


Irontruth wrote:

First you gotta say the Steve-Tweet had no impact on the election. Clear and simple.

Because if you can't agree on the basic concepts of cause-and-effect, there's really no point in talking about this.

Did you not read the part of my post (which you quote in whole) where I said,
Quote:
The Steve-Tweet clearly came after the election but the attitude that excoriated him for his completely innocent and healthy homage to the late Princess existed well before.
Irontruth wrote:

Plus, your argument still boils down to:

Democrats weren't racist enough to win.

And No my argument does not boild down to that.

The Dems couldn't win because they couldn't pull it together. Remember they lost to Trump.*

They lost because of the same attitude that excoriated Steve Martin for crushing on Princess Leia and daring to Tweet about it in homage to her.

They made him take the Tweet down!

They made him make a public apology!

What the ####?!?!??

That so many cannot see how poisonousness that attitude is makes me think next election will look a lot like this latest one.

* I remember a political cartoon from way early on showing HRC smiling as she announces her candidacy. The next frame is her smiling BIGGER when it is announced that Trump is running. The third frame has her smiling HUGELY when it is announced that Trump is leading the polls in the Republican primaries. They need to rerun that cartoon with a fourth frame of a slack-jawed HRC and maybe a header that says, "Huh... guess the "Deplorables" were listening."


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Sadly the lesson is that american politics have no more depth than a high school election. Who people like and their popularity is at least as important as their ideas.

This.

Only I would include politics anywhere.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
thejeff wrote:
OTOH, sexism definitely affected the portrayal of Clinton and has ever since she was First Lady. It has certainly colored many people's impressions, often in ways they don't even realize.
That is possible. Not saying it is not. However, what I am saying, for myself, and also for a lot of folks I know, it was more like 99.9% her history, her past choices, her untrustworthiness, her lack of personal responsibility, HER ACTIONS, her attitude, and her skirting the consequences. If she had been a he and absolutely nothing else had changed, they would be in the exact same boat as they are.

For me it was the fact that she and the DNC totally ###### Bernie over. No way I'm going to support someone who does something like that. Ever.

It wasn't a one-off thing, a gaff, or momentary oversight. It was planned, a conspiracy. No room for actions like that in a democracy. Not if they want my support.


Pan wrote:
All past presidents have probably made a comment or enacted a policy that could be labeled sexist. Trump has decades and decades of instances that point to it being an intentional mindset which separates him into a class of his own.

I agree that it is easy enough to see the sexism of Trump for a fact. To me it's as clear as the sexism of former president Clinton.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Ah, but see, white male identity politics already does exist. The problem is white males are almost always being pandered to already because they are (still) usually the default demographic. It normally isn't discussed or even brought up, because it's so ubiquitous it's practically invisible until you look for it. It's taken for granted, like air or water, until something is perceived as a possible threat (aka the "zero-sum equality" bullsh!t).

So, I see it more as once again the Democrats keep letting the Conservatives and Republicans control the narrative. And the media consistently proves they aren't interested in covering anything other than the same old fear and uncertainty horserace.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Given the choice between the two; I'd much rather have someone send a letter to my boss asking that I be fired then a group of people tying me to a fence and beating me to death. Both are bad; one is clearly worse.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Pan wrote:
All past presidents have probably made a comment or enacted a policy that could be labeled sexist. Trump has decades and decades of instances that point to it being an intentional mindset which separates him into a class of his own.
I agree that it is easy enough to see the sexism of Trump for a fact. To me it's as clear as the sexism of former president Clinton.

So, um, who cares? Bill Clinton is an a#~+@@~. He treated his wife like s!##. The thing is, Slick Willy wasn't running for president. I would happily vote for Hillary Clinton over Bill Clinton every step of the way. She's got better positions and seems like a better human being. Why do people always fall back on, "Yes, Trump is a confessed rapist who regularly employs misogyny to silence women he doesn't like, but Bill Clinton treated this one woman badly! Therefore, Hillary Clinton???"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The Democrats are seriously going to have to start talking to their progressive wing soon and admitting that Clinton just wasn't that good a candidate. It wasn't all her fault—sexism, biased media and a long campaign to paint her as unlikable and deceitful did a lot to screw her over—but at the core she was an uncharismatic career politician who campaigned on "America Is Already Great" and was way too moderate on issues progressives cared about.

Trump didn't beat Hillary Clinton. With that wretched turnout, he couldn't beat McGovern*. Secretary Clinton beat herself. She was carried through the primary debates by her party's blatant endorsement and half-won just by virtue of the media narrative saying she would win. People complained that Bernie Sanders was hampering her and weakening her prior to the general, forgetting that the point of a primary is to weed out easily-weakened candidates.

I just wanted to start off with the initial thing your party should change is the entire premise of this argument. Hillary didn't lose because of sexism, (or if it was at all a cause, it's so extremely marginal it's irrelevant). And lets face facts, the "biased media" AND the smear campaign to paint someone as "unlikable" absolutely favored her and affected the opponent. AND SHE STILL LOST.

I want to be absolutely clear here, because I am so sick of hearing this sort of rational. Hillary had all of the advantages and she still lost. And trying to paint anyone that contributed to that as wrong, evil, "ist", etc. . . is very disingenuous. Hillary lost and Trump won on their own merits and flaws. Pretending that Hillary was somehow unfairly robbed very much smacks of excuses. Not reason. "I wasn't ready, and the sun was in my eye, and I was distracted. In a "real" fight, I would have won."

So, let's start there. Hillary lost based on her own faults, largely her unescapable past history, her campaigns own treatment of her peers, (who realistically stood a chance), her lack of charisma,...

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

451 to 500 of 4,260 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards