Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

551 to 600 of 4,260 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Ì would be genuinely surprised if there isn't even 2% of the Right that could be pulled away with the right arguments.


Samy wrote:
Ì would be genuinely surprised if there isn't even 2% of the Right that could be pulled away with the right arguments.

this election was decided by what margin?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Delightful wrote:


On paper that makes a lot of sense BigNorseWolf, but as it turns out a lot of white people aren't seemingly treated that way by the cops so its not a problem in their minds and obviously just whining and overgeneralization by African Americans and SJW's.

Cel phone camera's have done a great job of assisting the argument with evidence. Stop and frisk statistics show that it's not Frank Reagans bad guy radar it's random searches. there are good arguments you can make appealing to objective facts. They won't work with everyone but i have to think they do better than the sjw jargon which i have NEVER seen do anything but get hackles up.

Trust me, i know raised hackles.

Objective facts have been roundly rejected by a noticeable portion the segment of voters you're talking about appealing to. These types often believe facts are lies, or conspiracy meant to fool or confuse them. Using objective facts is as fast a road to failure as using the language of social justice. One of them is simply less circumspect.


Scythia wrote:

Objective facts have been roundly rejected by a noticeable portion the segment of voters you're talking about appealing to. These types often believe facts are lies, or conspiracy meant to fool or confuse them. Using objective facts is as fast a road to failure as using the language of social justice. One of them is simply less circumspect.

Definitely. you are not reaching those people no matter what. But you don't need them you do need a few more people in the middle. I know i;m a lot more skeptical of police claims than i was in the 90s and 00s.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Scythia wrote:

Objective facts have been roundly rejected by a noticeable portion the segment of voters you're talking about appealing to. These types often believe facts are lies, or conspiracy meant to fool or confuse them. Using objective facts is as fast a road to failure as using the language of social justice. One of them is simply less circumspect.

Definitely. you are not reaching those people no matter what. But you don't need them you do need a few more people in the middle. I know i;m a lot more skeptical of police claims than i was in the 90s and 00s.

"Those people" include the President of the United States of America. This isn't limited to a few extremists.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Scythia wrote:

Objective facts have been roundly rejected by a noticeable portion the segment of voters you're talking about appealing to. These types often believe facts are lies, or conspiracy meant to fool or confuse them. Using objective facts is as fast a road to failure as using the language of social justice. One of them is simply less circumspect.

Definitely. you are not reaching those people no matter what. But you don't need them you do need a few more people in the middle. I know i;m a lot more skeptical of police claims than i was in the 90s and 00s.

If these people in the middle care about social issues, they should be reachable through efforts to raise awareness. Consider how quickly new terms filter into public language, "tweet" used to be something birds did.

Those who can be reached by fact will be, thanks in no small part to things like the aforementioned improvements in recoding and information sharing tech.

If they don't want improvement on social issues, they're not coming along unless the Dems drop social issues regardless of language.

In my public life, I've been complemented for how polite and reasonable I am in discussions of political ideas. I do modulate my language depending on who I am speaking with. I'm careful to avoid certain words that upset people. What I've learned is that dancing around an issue leads to a lack of clarity, and the other person applying the false consensus effect (believing that you're agreeing with them). Without calling things what they are, you can't really have a meaningful discussion about them.


Man, I love social theory but I don't quite buy this whole "you're all increasingly living in our echo chamber" effect I see pop up in every discussion (usually to paint the other side as close minded). Sure, Web 2.0 lets you see and consume content that only you want to see/hear. But can we really say for sure that the past few years are anymore echoey than the ones before it? I would love to see a study showing this, but I wouldn't even know what methodology you would employ to prove that. You can speculate all you want, but without some sort of literature backing it up, it's just speculation.
People have always preferred to talk to people that agree with them. I don't think that will ever change. Furthermore, extremist positions at pushed even further into the spotlight, thanks to online social networking. We're bombarded with content and ideas. Just look at your Facebook feed and you'll no doubt stumble upon two Internet randoes futility yelling at each other from very different ideological sides.
The way I see it, technology has given us more control over our lives. Some individuals will use it to hide from opposing viewpoints but I would make the case that pre Web 2.0 they probably would have done that anyways. Individuals actually interested in seeing the other side now have unprecedented levels of access via the web to go and browse other opinions. Imagine trying to access groups of pro-self-harmers and gain insight into their perspectives in 1995. Good luck! Nowadays we can locate communities like that in seconds.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, I've been having issues with my craptastic desktop. So I'm having to use my phone. I see a lot of you justifying behavior on the left, that you don't or won't tolerate on the other. Only now that these same tactics are being used against the left, it's called being 'intellectually dishonest'.

The right learned well from the left. Not that I personally agree with what's being done, mind you.

Because I don't. It's more justification of bad behavior by using other bad behavior. And it has escalated on both sides to the point where no side will listen to the other for fear of being shut down by the opposing side (or worse, their own side). The truth is that both sides have equally valid concerns and fears that are no longer considered by either side. No one wants to admit it, because its become far easier to ridicule and disparage opinions not like your own. Easier, and accepted as good behavior.

I personally find it to intellectually dishonest, regardless of which side engages in it. It's a symptom that's part of the larger problem on both sides: a lack of intellectual diversity. Which, in my opinion, is the greatest form of diversity there is.

I'm by no means perfect, but I have a far better understanding of left's faults than you give me credit. I was a Democrat up until twenty years ago. Do you know what it's like to be called 'self-loathing' by people just because you don't necessarily agree with how they go about doing things? I got that constantly, still do in fact, and that's a kind insult compared to the other things I've been called by the left (which, due to the forum policies of this site, I can't even write). I found acceptance on the right, but they too have fallen prey to this kind of behavior. So now I'm unaffiliated party-wise. I still hold conservative principles, but I chart my own course otherwise. Which allows me the freedom to call out both sides on their failings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spastic Puma wrote:

Man, I love social theory but I don't quite buy this whole "you're all increasingly living in our echo chamber" effect I see pop up in every discussion (usually to paint the other side as close minded). Sure, Web 2.0 lets you see and consume content that only you want to see/hear. But can we really say for sure that the past few years are anymore echoey than the ones before it? I would love to see a study showing this, but I wouldn't even know what methodology you would employ to prove that. You can speculate all you want, but without some sort of literature backing it up, it's just speculation.

People have always preferred to talk to people that agree with them. I don't think that will ever change. Furthermore, extremist positions at pushed even further into the spotlight, thanks to online social networking. We're bombarded with content and ideas. Just look at your Facebook feed and you'll no doubt stumble upon two Internet randoes futility yelling at each other from very different ideological sides.
The way I see it, technology has given us more control over our lives. Some individuals will use it to hide from opposing viewpoints but I would make the case that pre Web 2.0 they probably would have done that anyways. Individuals actually interested in seeing the other side now have unprecedented levels of access via the web to go and browse other opinions. Imagine trying to access groups of pro-self-harmers and gain insight into their perspectives in 1995. Good luck! Nowadays we can locate communities like that in seconds.

It's not so much ignoring things that you disagree with so much as being able to find people telling you you're right regardless of the facts of the matter. That's much easier now then it has ever been.


Why accept the truth when someone's willing to lie to you and make you feel better about yourself and the world.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm really tired of every explanation of how Trump won only talking about "the left".

Don't blame the people who didn't vote for him. Blame the people who did.

For example, conservative Christians who found him abhorrent in every way, shape and form, except.... that he promised to nominate a pro-life Supreme Court justice. A fairly massive block of voters who were willing to sell out any principle they had when determining who would be president, in favor of getting the SC nominee they wanted.

Uninformed, former manufacturing workers who believed his lie that he'd bring back their old jobs. It's ridiculous to even think that these jobs are coming back. They didn't go to another country, the work is still being done here, but now it's done by robots. Of all the manufacturing jobs lost since 1980, 88% have been lost to automation. There is no "there" for them to come back from. They don't exist any more.

Racist a@@@%+*s who think David Duke is a cool guy. It's a pretty small minority who are that blatant, but there are those who think he might not be all bad. There's another sizable group that would agree that the KKK is racist, but sometimes [insert preferred epithet here] get what they deserve.

This isn't the Left's fault. This is the fault of people who voted FOR Trump. If no one had voted for a reality TV-hack who was so deep in debt to Goldman-Sachs that they forced him to sell his name around the world, and promised everyone whatever they wanted to hear... we wouldn't be in this situation.

Stop blaming the side that lost. Look at the people who won.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Er, I don't think we're saying "wow, the opposition is awesome". But blaming the Right for letting Trump win is sort of...dumb? Imagine there's a racetrack. One racer—a huge a@*!#$! who punches old ladies and likes to start paladin threads for fun—beats the other to the finish line (we'll leave electoral college jokes out of this for now). Now, sure, you could say, "Dammit, if only that a&!&&*! racer hadn't run so fast, our guy would've won." But that's not really a logical complaint.

It's very weird and kind of pointless to go on blaming the opposition for winning. Sure, we can agree that they have lots of s*$+ty ideas, but so what? We already agree on that. We're not talking about which side had better ideas, we're talking about why the Left lost.

The reason we're talking about the Left is because we are part of the Left and can affect its strategy. We can't affect the Right's strategy to make it worse or whatever, so going on about that is just silly. And getting defensive about us "blaming" the Left doesn't help anyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:

Man, I love social theory but I don't quite buy this whole "you're all increasingly living in our echo chamber" effect I see pop up in every discussion (usually to paint the other side as close minded). Sure, Web 2.0 lets you see and consume content that only you want to see/hear. But can we really say for sure that the past few years are anymore echoey than the ones before it? I would love to see a study showing this, but I wouldn't even know what methodology you would employ to prove that. You can speculate all you want, but without some sort of literature backing it up, it's just speculation.

People have always preferred to talk to people that agree with them. I don't think that will ever change. Furthermore, extremist positions at pushed even further into the spotlight, thanks to online social networking. We're bombarded with content and ideas. Just look at your Facebook feed and you'll no doubt stumble upon two Internet randoes futility yelling at each other from very different ideological sides.
The way I see it, technology has given us more control over our lives. Some individuals will use it to hide from opposing viewpoints but I would make the case that pre Web 2.0 they probably would have done that anyways. Individuals actually interested in seeing the other side now have unprecedented levels of access via the web to go and browse other opinions. Imagine trying to access groups of pro-self-harmers and gain insight into their perspectives in 1995. Good luck! Nowadays we can locate communities like that in seconds.
It's not so much ignoring things that you disagree with so much as being able to find people telling you you're right regardless of the facts of the matter. That's much easier now then it has ever been.

I'm gonna have to cite the Online Disinhibition Effect here and say that's not quite the case. People are way more willing to tell you off and shove things down your throat in virtual space for a variety of reasons. Considering the Internet is a public forum, ideas are proliferated and spread at a rate we've never seen before.

Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 7(3), 321-326.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spastic Puma wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:

Man, I love social theory but I don't quite buy this whole "you're all increasingly living in our echo chamber" effect I see pop up in every discussion (usually to paint the other side as close minded). Sure, Web 2.0 lets you see and consume content that only you want to see/hear. But can we really say for sure that the past few years are anymore echoey than the ones before it? I would love to see a study showing this, but I wouldn't even know what methodology you would employ to prove that. You can speculate all you want, but without some sort of literature backing it up, it's just speculation.

People have always preferred to talk to people that agree with them. I don't think that will ever change. Furthermore, extremist positions at pushed even further into the spotlight, thanks to online social networking. We're bombarded with content and ideas. Just look at your Facebook feed and you'll no doubt stumble upon two Internet randoes futility yelling at each other from very different ideological sides.
The way I see it, technology has given us more control over our lives. Some individuals will use it to hide from opposing viewpoints but I would make the case that pre Web 2.0 they probably would have done that anyways. Individuals actually interested in seeing the other side now have unprecedented levels of access via the web to go and browse other opinions. Imagine trying to access groups of pro-self-harmers and gain insight into their perspectives in 1995. Good luck! Nowadays we can locate communities like that in seconds.
It's not so much ignoring things that you disagree with so much as being able to find people telling you you're right regardless of the facts of the matter. That's much easier now then it has ever been.
I'm gonna have to cite the Online Disinhibition Effect here and say that's not quite the case. People are way more willing to tell you off and shove things down your throat in virtual space for a variety of reasons....

Knight's point is that it is easier to find echo chambers than ever. Forums like Paizo, where most people lean progressive. Social media groups. Basically, it's easier to find like-minded folk and just hang out with them exclusively. It's why the alt-right's fake news is such a problem, though funny enough, it's conservatives who seem to accuse people of being in echo chambers most these days.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:

Man, I love social theory but I don't quite buy this whole "you're all increasingly living in our echo chamber" effect I see pop up in every discussion (usually to paint the other side as close minded). Sure, Web 2.0 lets you see and consume content that only you want to see/hear. But can we really say for sure that the past few years are anymore echoey than the ones before it? I would love to see a study showing this, but I wouldn't even know what methodology you would employ to prove that. You can speculate all you want, but without some sort of literature backing it up, it's just speculation.

People have always preferred to talk to people that agree with them. I don't think that will ever change. Furthermore, extremist positions at pushed even further into the spotlight, thanks to online social networking. We're bombarded with content and ideas. Just look at your Facebook feed and you'll no doubt stumble upon two Internet randoes futility yelling at each other from very different ideological sides.
The way I see it, technology has given us more control over our lives. Some individuals will use it to hide from opposing viewpoints but I would make the case that pre Web 2.0 they probably would have done that anyways. Individuals actually interested in seeing the other side now have unprecedented levels of access via the web to go and browse other opinions. Imagine trying to access groups of pro-self-harmers and gain insight into their perspectives in 1995. Good luck! Nowadays we can locate communities like that in seconds.
It's not so much ignoring things that you disagree with so much as being able to find people telling you you're right regardless of the facts of the matter. That's much easier now then it has ever been.
I'm gonna have to cite the Online Disinhibition Effect here and say that's not quite the case. People are way more willing to tell you off and shove things down your throat in virtual
...

But they never would have been exposed to such a variety of viewpoints to pick and choose from before Web 2.0. This is why I think this claim warrants actual research before it is made. Furthermore, they wouldn't be engaging their opposition on anywhere near the level they are now. Also, with so much data at your fingertips, you can develop your own understanding of an issue without having to physically search for it in libraries or in hidden subcultures. Like I said, those who don't want to hear another opinion would stick their head in the sand in any time period they existed in.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Er, I don't think we're saying "wow, the opposition is awesome". But blaming the Right for letting Trump win is sort of...dumb? Imagine there's a racetrack. One racer—a huge a&&%$!! who punches old ladies and likes to start paladin threads for fun—beats the other to the finish line (we'll leave electoral college jokes out of this for now). Now, sure, you could say, "Dammit, if only that a&+&$!# racer hadn't run so fast, our guy would've won." But that's not really a logical complaint.

It's very weird and kind of pointless to go on blaming the opposition for winning. Sure, we can agree that they have lots of s@+&ty ideas, but so what? We already agree on that. We're not talking about which side had better ideas, we're talking about why the Left lost.

The reason we're talking about the Left is because we are part of the Left and can affect its strategy. We can't affect the Right's strategy to make it worse or whatever, so going on about that is just silly. And getting defensive about us "blaming" the Left doesn't help anyone.

The problem with analyzing why we lost, is that we aren't going to have the same candidate ever again. With a different candidate, things change dramatically* and no one can with any confidence say who the Democratic nominee will be in 2020. It's like deciding what the game plan of the Pittsburgh Steelers should be in 2020. You don't even know who will be on the team in that year. But in this scenario, we do know exactly who they'll be playing in 2020.

Analyzing why Hillary lost is about as useful as looking at why Dukakis lost. Neither of them will be running in 2020.

We know that, barring impeachment, Trump will be running in 2020. If you want to beat him, you have to figure out how he won. That information is useful regardless of who the Dem nominee is.

*After the 2004 presidential loss a lot of Dem's sat around scratching their heads trying to think up how to win in 2008. A lot of plans were drawn up, ideal candidate qualities listed... basically none of them would have actually predicted what happened in 2008 though.

Go back and look at what was talked about in 2012 with the Republican party. The RNC did an "autopsy" report that basically said Romney's strategy was doomed to fail and if the party wanted to win they had to become more moderate in a few key areas (like immigration). Now that 2016 is over, how would you evaluate the Republican pivot towards a more moderate immigration policy?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

The problem with analyzing why we lost, is that we aren't going to have the same candidate ever again. With a different candidate, things change dramatically* and no one can with any confidence say who the Democratic nominee will be in 2020. It's like deciding what the game plan of the Pittsburgh Steelers should be in 2020. You don't even know who will be on the team in that year. But in this scenario, we do know exactly who they'll be playing in 2020.

Analyzing why Hillary lost is about as useful as looking at why Dukakis lost. Neither of them will be running in 2020.

We know that, barring impeachment, Trump will be running in 2020. If you want to beat him, you have to figure out how he won. That information is useful regardless of who the Dem nominee is.

Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. As such, it is (fairly obviously, I would think) important to recognize why Clinton and the rest of the Democrats lost so we can understand what not to do again.

And the real problem with focusing on "why'd Trump win" is...

Irontruth wrote:
Go back and look at what was talked about in 2012 with the Republican party. The RNC did an "autopsy" report that basically said Romney's strategy was doomed to fail and if the party wanted to win they had to become more moderate in a few key areas (like immigration). Now that 2016 is over, how would you evaluate the Republican pivot towards a more moderate immigration policy?

I actually think their postmortem was very important. They failed to heed it, though, because the base didn't care and wanted blood—establishment Republicans had created a monster they couldn't control. Republicans aren't fighting the long game anymore. They're fighting everything at once—reality, changing demographics, Donald Trump, everyone who opposes Donald Trump, their own ideals—and it's not going to be healthy for them long-term.

That said, I believe some Republicans are going to settle on a new strategy. "Well, we can't convince our base to help us win the long game. But we can change the game so our base is enough to win." It's what has kept Texas and Arizona red, and Wisconsin purple.

Watch out for voter suppression laws over the next two years. They're on their way.


You mean more are coming...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
We know that, barring impeachment, Trump will be running in 2020.

Do you think? My guess would be he'll run if he thinks he can win and if he thinks he can't win he'll sail off into the sunset declaring that he's fixed everything and didn't even need the second term (which he would have won easily, of course).


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
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???"

He treated "one woman badly"? Srsly? You believe that? That was the only time he used his charm/position/power to get sexual favors from a woman?

You're also overlooking (on purpose I can only assume) that HRC attacked Bill's accusers rather than hold her hubby accountable. That shows you just how addicted to power she is. She will give up anything, suffer any humiliation, to keep access to power.

After what she and her campaign did to Bernie with the collusion of the DNC I have no sympathy for her. None.

She played with fire and got burned badly. Hard lesson but thankfully we won't have to see her again in the political arena.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
HRC attacked Bill's accusers rather than hold her hubby accountable.

How do you know what happened at their home behind closed doors? I know *I* sure as hell wouldn't air my dirty laundry in public.


One thing I've noticed is the habit of bunching all dems or repub together as a single group. black and white when really its a sliding scale. Its really hard not to do. I see a video of a screaming racist threatening some poor ethnic woman and her child and receive an immediate knee jerk reaction against anyone that is on the same "team" as this person. When really I need to just isolate my outrage and desire to thrash to the particular individual. I suppose their is always the high road and forgiving but its hard not to feel that some people just need punched in the face. I'be had arguments where the other side immediately assumes i subscribe to every single belief and nuance that a general mass of the party subscribes too It really threw them off like they couldn't see the shades of grey. just black and white (or red and blue. no purple) Maybe more of a focus on individuals would help?


Samy wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
HRC attacked Bill's accusers rather than hold her hubby accountable.
How do you know what happened at their home behind closed doors? I know *I* sure as hell wouldn't air my dirty laundry in public.
The Washington Post
TWP wrote:

She discredited claims later revealed to be true and worked behind the scenes to help manage the allegations, according to former aides.

...

Blair said Hillary Clinton realized that the infidelities threatened more than their marriage. “Her idea, I think, was, if he’s going to be politically successful they have to become more conventional people who are more in tune with values of generations other than theirs,” Blair said.

When Bill Clinton launched a presidential run in 1991, his wife and senior staff considered how to deal with what came to be known as “bimbo eruptions.”

...

Hillary Clinton dismissed an accusation made by Gennifer Flowers, the singer who sold her story to a supermarket tabloid after having previously denied an affair. In an ABC News interview, she called Flowers “some failed cabaret singer who doesn’t even have much of a résumé to fall back on.” She told Esquire magazine in 1992 that if she had the chance to cross-examine Flowers, “I mean, I would crucify her.”

...

Former White House press secretary George Stephanopoulos recalled in his memoir discussing a woman’s allegation published in Penthouse Magazine. He said that after her husband dismissed it as untrue during a meeting, Hillary Clinton said, “We have to destroy her story.”
By July 1992, the campaign hired private detective Jack Palladino to investigate the accusers involved in two dozen allegations.

...

A chill fell over the White House as the truth about Lewinsky emerged, former staffers and friends said.

“She had to do what she had always done before: swallow her doubts, stand by her man and savage his enemies,” Stephanopoulos wrote, describing Hillary Clinton’s reaction.

Yep, she sounds like a real champion of women's lib.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
We know that, barring impeachment, Trump will be running in 2020.
Do you think? My guess would be he'll run if he thinks he can win and if he thinks he can't win he'll sail off into the sunset declaring that he's fixed everything and didn't even need the second term (which he would have won easily, of course).

What specific action has he taken that leads you to believe that he backs down in the face of public scrutiny?

He doesn't back down. He doubles down.

In however many years, he'll be on his death bed, telling us "Two more weeks, give me two more weeks and I'll build the wall. And Mexico will pay for it and it will be amazing, just absolutely tremendous. Best wall you've ever seen. Just like our brave men and women fighting ISIS, with the plan I came up with after my generals told me their plan, because my son Barron can do amazing things on the cyber that you wouldn't believe. Gyna."


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

The problem with analyzing why we lost, is that we aren't going to have the same candidate ever again. With a different candidate, things change dramatically* and no one can with any confidence say who the Democratic nominee will be in 2020. It's like deciding what the game plan of the Pittsburgh Steelers should be in 2020. You don't even know who will be on the team in that year. But in this scenario, we do know exactly who they'll be playing in 2020.

Analyzing why Hillary lost is about as useful as looking at why Dukakis lost. Neither of them will be running in 2020.

We know that, barring impeachment, Trump will be running in 2020. If you want to beat him, you have to figure out how he won. That information is useful regardless of who the Dem nominee is.

Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. As such, it is (fairly obviously, I would think) important to recognize why Clinton and the rest of the Democrats lost so we can understand what not to do again.

And the real problem with focusing on "why'd Trump win" is...

Irontruth wrote:
Go back and look at what was talked about in 2012 with the Republican party. The RNC did an "autopsy" report that basically said Romney's strategy was doomed to fail and if the party wanted to win they had to become more moderate in a few key areas (like immigration). Now that 2016 is over, how would you evaluate the Republican pivot towards a more moderate immigration policy?
I actually think their postmortem was very important. They failed to heed it, though, because the base didn't care and wanted blood—establishment Republicans had created a monster they couldn't control. Republicans aren't fighting the long game anymore. They're fighting everything at once—reality, changing demographics, Donald Trump, everyone who opposes Donald Trump, their own ideals—and it's not going to be healthy for them long-term....

I'm not the one advocating doing the same thing over and over. You are. Every presidential election people to try learn lessons about the party that lost and see how it should move forward. Yet those lessons rarely turn out to be either useful, or followed. They're usually ridiculously wrong in hindsight.

Your method requires accurate prognostication of who the next nominee will be. My method requires accurate prediction of who the opponent will be.

Which is more likely to be true?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
We know that, barring impeachment, Trump will be running in 2020.
Do you think? My guess would be he'll run if he thinks he can win and if he thinks he can't win he'll sail off into the sunset declaring that he's fixed everything and didn't even need the second term (which he would have won easily, of course).
What specific action has he taken that leads you to believe that he backs down in the face of public scrutiny?

I'm not suggesting he's going to back down in the face of scrutiny, I think he's going to run away from a fight if it looks like he's going to lose and then claim he won. (Similar to publicly declaring a lawsuit against him totally without merit and then confidentially settling).


Irontruth wrote:
I'm not the one advocating doing the same thing over and over. You are. Every presidential election people to try learn lessons about the party that lost and see how it should move forward. Yet those lessons rarely turn out to be either useful, or followed. They're usually ridiculously wrong in hindsight.

I'm gonna need actual examples here. You seem to be leaning very heavily on the Republicans' postmortem as your key font of "evidence". It also didn't turn out to be particularly wrong, and it was very useful for just about everyone—even if it was disregarded by the Republican base.

You also choose a line of argument I find curiously akin to: "Parties have been examining their own weaknesses for years, and they still sometimes lose. Ergo, we should not examine our weaknesses."

Irontruth wrote:
Your method requires accurate prognostication of who the next nominee will be. My method requires accurate prediction of who the opponent will be.

Yeah, true, my method is harder. My method (the popular method that has been employed by political parties for centuries) is to study potential weak points in the party campaigning strategy when considering what we should be campaigning for in the future—whether it is wise to fight for someone like Sanders, or whether we'd be better off looking for a charismatic persona like Biden, or whether we need new blood. Whether we should be fighting for Keith Ellison or Howard Dean for DNC Chair. Whether we should be focusing more on protests and writing our congressmen, whether we should aim to primary Blue Dogs and New Democrats. Whether or not the old "top-down" strategy has failed, and what should be done to change it.

Your method is to be mad at Trump supporters. It is indeed very, very easy. Let me know when it wins you an election.

EDIT: Also, you misrepresent me. Those who say the Left needs to be self-analytical don't aim to "prognosticate" who the next nominee will be. They aim to affect who the next nominee will be. I thought that was obvious.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

My solution to GOP voters continues to be to give them what they want... on economics and health care.

They keep voting in GOP politicians who wreck the national economy and drag our health care system down to the worst in the developed world... and then we put in Dem politicians to slowly push the boulder back up the hill. It should be obvious by now which party has the right ideas on economics and health care, but most GOP voters don't have more than a tenuous grasp on reality... so when they're told that their suffering is all the fault of those people who want to give them a decent minimum wage, basic health care, and/or any chance of improving their situation they somehow buy it and vote for the guys promising to take all those things away.

So... we should give them what they want. Instead of Democrats working to fix the whole country every time they are in power they should instead allow GOP controlled areas to continue following GOP health and economic policies. Make it like the Medicaid expansion... each state can choose what they want to do. Maybe even GOP voters will realize that it can't be Dem policies causing their suffering when they aren't living under Dem policies.

Yes, this means that innocent people living in GOP controlled areas will suffer too... but right now that's the whole country. At least if we contain the damage we shine a spotlight on the cause and people may stop voting for the policies that are killing them. We can't go on with this back and forth nonsense... we need people to start facing reality or we'll continue spiraling downwards.

Give the people what they want.


CBDunkerson wrote:

My solution to GOP voters continues to be to give them what they want... on economics and health care.

They keep voting in GOP politicians who wreck the national economy and drag our health care system down to the worst in the developed world... and then we put in Dem politicians to slowly push the boulder back up the hill. It should be obvious by now which party has the right ideas on economics and health care, but most GOP voters don't have more than a tenuous grasp on reality... so when they're told that their suffering is all the fault of those people who want to give them a decent minimum wage, basic health care, and/or any chance of improving their situation they somehow buy it and vote for the guys promising to take all those things away.

So... we should give them what they want. Instead of Democrats working to fix the whole country every time they are in power they should instead allow GOP controlled areas to continue following GOP health and economic policies. Make it like the Medicaid expansion... each state can choose what they want to do. Maybe even GOP voters will realize that it can't be Dem policies causing their suffering when they aren't living under Dem policies.

Yes, this means that innocent people living in GOP controlled areas will suffer too... but right now that's the whole country. At least if we contain the damage we shine a spotlight on the cause and people may stop voting for the policies that are killing them. We can't go on with this back and forth nonsense... we need people to start facing reality or we'll continue spiraling downwards.

Give the people what they want.

Ok. So that means that all states that voted for Trump get to do what they want to do? Really? Did you think for a few minutes before writing that? Please. That is how the Republicans are winning. We may have two years, if that. Try to be constructive or you will be in one of those states. That is what the Republicans are aiming for. I for one do not want that.


It's typical sour grapes liberal Democrat bullshiznit, I run into it all the time in Solidarity Lowell.

"Oh, look at all these poor people in Republican states getting our Democratic state tax money, boo hoo hoo."

Fantasies of schadenfreude.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If I may say something, as someone who is not american.

(The following being purely my opinion, of course).

You Americans are living in a plutocracy. Your politicians are bought and paid for - and that's not a figure of speech - by a minority of your total population (the 10th of the 1 percent who own the most capital), acting through the mega-corporations they control.

Many of your woes - impoverishment, lousy healthcare, crushing debt, etc. - are due to the fact that the interests of the minority controling your political system are not the interests of the huge majority of your population.

The task of the leaders of the Democratic and of the Republican parties are to deliver the consent of their electorates to a national leader - the POTUS - who will then act, for the most part, according to the wishes of your ruling class, the tenth of the 1 % .

There's no doubt in my mind that some blue and red politicians deplore that you're living in a plutocracy, but that's the way the system is working, and they have to deal with it during the course of their political life.

551 to 600 of 4,260 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards