| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.
agreed. The "give the bad guys what they want and make them look bad by doing so" thing only works in fictionalized accounts. In real life, the bad guys will smile gleefully, high 5 each other and make plans to retain power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What madness is this? Freehold DM agrees with me on something? This cannot be! To arms! To arms! We are going to war!
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."
I'm not opposed to self-examination, but there are times when it's usefulness is limited.
I'm a Vikings fan. We almost went to the Superbowl in 1998 and 2009. Regardless of how much we analyze those two seasons, doing so isn't going to help us win in 2017-2018, because our own team is so different that any analysis would be irrelevant.
Doing a blow by blow of the 2016 presidential election on the democrat side is similar. Whoever wins the primary is going to have a completely different campaign style, different problems as a candidate and different strengths as well. Kerry, Obama and Clinton even organized their campaigns internally in different ways.
In addition, self-examination doesn't always reveal what was actually working and what wasn't. It can easily lead to "Well, if I did this differently, things would have been different." It's a hypothetical, which will always give you the answer you're looking for, but not necessarily an answer that is true.
If you played Lebron James in a 1v1 game of basketball, watching film of the game and looking only at yourself will lead to conclusions about "well, if I had gone left instead of right, I'd have scored." Which completely forgets about the fact that James would have just adjusted and still blocked your shot. I'm not saying that Trump is that good at politics, but any hypothetical adjustment of Clinton's campaign would have solicited a reaction from the Trump campaign and there's no guarantee either would have affected the outcome of the campaign.
Any future candidate is going to face off against Trump. Knowing and understanding why he won, what were his strengths and weaknesses, and different ways to beat him will be far more useful than hypotheticals that change the outcome of the previous election.
And yes, I am leaning heavily on the Republican post-mortem, because it's the most documented one on the internet. There are far fewer sources to look at involving the 2004 campaign and much harder to search for. I've been listening to some political insiders talk, a former Obama speech writer who also worked on the Kerry campaign and he's talked about what happened in 2005. Party insiders were talking about what the ideal candidate would be like to win the presidency. Basically they were all in agreement that John Edwards was probably the ideal candidate (or someone like him). No one predicted Barack Obama (or Edward's scandal).
Try as you might, you don't know what the next winning Democratic campaign is going to look like. If you predict 100 different scenarios, you might be close on one of them, but then you're just covering as many possibilities as you can. We do know what a Trump campaign looks like though and I highly doubt a 70+ y/o man is going to change his ways very much.
Honestly, you don't plan for the next election yet. You fight the fight in front of you. Oppose legislation and nominations. Call representatives. Call state legislators. Protest and organize. In 2018, make sure Republicans don't get a filibuster proof majority. In 2019, some democratic leaders will start emerging and we start the vetting process of who we think might be best.
For right now, Trump is president, Republicans hold the Senate and House. Be active and deal with that.
Also, realize that half the conversation in this thread is from people who aren't democrats, don't vote democrats and/or have zero interest in party politics and will continue to have no interest regardless of any changes made to the party.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I guess you missed the part about my suggestion being what should happen when the Democrats are in power? So... nothing to do with the current situtation.
Basically, I am saying that Democrats should stop 'bailing out' GOP voters. All they get as a result is the blame when GOP policies make things worse and Dem policies don't immediately fix everything.
The GWB admin wrecked the economy... and the health care industry. Under Obama, both improved steadily. Yet Republicans were still able to convince their voters that it was Dem policies causing the problems. We need to take that lie away from them. Let states that vote Republican continue to live under GOP economic and health care plans through both GOP and Dem control of the government. Give them what they want and they will either learn better or eventually die off from their own self-inflicted wounds. Personally, I think it would result in the Republican party either radically changing their policies for the better or ceasing to exist within a few election cycles.
Meanwhile, states that vote Dem could move forward unimpeded by trying to keep the GOP states afloat. In exchange for allowing GOP states to destroy themselves with Republican policies the other states get real progress... single payer instead of just Obamacare, livable minimum wage rates, et cetera. It would be better for states voting Dem in the short term, and better for everyone in the long term.
Republicans always lose votes when they make a mess of things (e.g. Bush 1 & 2)... they are only able to win when Dems have started to make conditions better again (e.g. Clinton & Obama). That's perverse and needs to stop. We can't keep voting in Republicans and wrecking the country all over again every time the Democrats manage to stem the bleeding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a big reason why Dems need to reconsider their strategies, while Republicans didn't after there loss in the prior election. Because, even with losing the election, Republicans still maintained control of the House and Senate. They didn't have complete control, but enough to easily undermine any democrat policy.
Dems...not only have they lost the presidency, they also have no control of the senate and house. Republicans can (and maybe had to) ignore their post election autopsy because what they were doing was still allowing them to keep control in other branches of power. Democrats have no real power at this point...pretending that nothing is wrong is simply not going to improve things.
So yeah, Trump being elected in many ways may have been a weird confluence of events not easily replicated in future elections. So sure, maybe without doing too much to change the party they could maybe get the presidency in 2020. But the presidency is kind of useless if you can't draft any laws or get them through House and Senate.
Also, giving GOP voters what they want doesn't help them learn. Kansas is a mess because the state government did exactly that, but you will notice that Kansas still voted in GOP.
There's always a convenient rationalization they can use to avoid admitting the failure of Republican policy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't realize the Bush administration tanked the economy on its own. Could have sworn there was bipartisan support for both the Financial Services Modernization Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act when Bill signed them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what are you saying, Kobold Cleaver? Are you saying that with free speech being a lie certain ideologies like Neo-Nazism should be made illegal?
In dissemination, yeah. Many countries in Europe have placed bans on stuff like Holocaust denial with great success.
As a European, I just wanted to chip in for a bit of clarity.
It is actually not that many counties that have laws that specifically outlaw Holocaust denial. Most of laws used in such cases are a mix of laws dealing with the denial of crimes against humanity, laws that forbid the vilification of certain groups, or laws against incitement of hatred against particular groups in society or laws that concern things such as hate-speech.
I didn't realize the Bush administration tanked the economy on its own. Could have sworn there was bipartisan support for both the Financial Services Modernization Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act when Bill signed them.
There was also bipartisan support for the huge shift of government power from Wall Street to terrorism. That lack of oversight that started in the early 2000's really didn't help out later that decade. However, following an attack like 9/11, it's somewhat understandable.
|
|
Except you basically can't do that. The federal government can't pass laws that only work in blue states. We can't have "Single payer for Democratic states" or "A federal minimum wage for blue states". That's not how the system works.
Isn't it?
The federal government can, and does, enact major programs that the states can choose to opt in or out of. Have you heard of Medicare? Medicaid?
Suppose that instead of just increasing the cap, the Medicaid expansion portion of the ACA had been to cover everyone without insurance from their employer (with the employer mandate requiring all large companies to provide coverage) or Medicare. That'd basically eliminate the exchanges and get us to universal coverage with just government and employer health care... one step from single payer.
What would have been illegal about that? It is just a larger Medicaid expansion... and just as with the actual expansion, states could have opted to accept the expansion or not. Indeed, according to John Roberts, the federal government was required to give the states that choice.
If you then, at the same time, had another program, let's call it 'DeathCare', where the states could choose to replace their Medicaid and Medicare programs with a voucher system favored by Republicans.
Each state gets to choose the federal program they want. Perfectly legal.
What you're proposing is actually what Republicans have been fighting for - weakening federal government and returning power to the states. It's not an answer. It doesn't work.
Except it isn't returning power to the states. It is still a federal program... they are just allowing the states to choose to participate or not.
I didn't realize the Bush administration tanked the economy on its own. Could have sworn there was bipartisan support for both the Financial Services Modernization Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act when Bill signed them.There was also bipartisan support for the huge shift of government power from Wall Street to terrorism. That lack of oversight that started in the early 2000's really didn't help out later that decade. However, following an attack like 9/11, it's somewhat understandable.
Compromise on politics isn't exactly Doodlebug's strong suit.
Don't know what you mean.
I compromise on politics all the time. For example, last night, at the Solidarity Lowell meeting where the liberal Democrats tried to water down the points of unity around abortion rights, white supremacy, and indigenous genocide.
Gotta say, can't really see how the "identity politics" Democrats are any better than the "class politics" Democrats.
|
|
Also, giving GOP voters what they want doesn't help them learn. Kansas is a mess because the state government did exactly that, but you will notice that Kansas still voted in GOP.
There's always a convenient rationalization they can use to avoid admitting the failure of Republican policy.
...and yet after Bush I, and then Bush II, blew up the economy plenty of people DID learn. At least long enough to vote for Democrats who put the country back together.
Yes, the GOP in Kansas is getting away with blaming the Democrats... which they can do because there were (barely) Democratic policies in place at the federal level. Had the federal government allowed Kansas to completely opt out of Obamacare and/or the stimulus then the state would be even worse off and even the most clueless voters would start to realize they were being played.
Instead, Democrats spent tremendous effort trying to help the citizens of Kansas and other GOP states with the ACA and stimulus... and got nothing but hatred and lost votes for it.
Don't know what you mean.
I compromise on politics all the time. For example, last night, at the Solidarity Lowell meeting where the liberal Democrats tried to water down the points of unity around abortion rights, white supremacy, and indigenous genocide.
Gotta say, can't really see how the "identity politics" Democrats are any better than the "class politics" Democrats.
I suppose one could be like Marx and completely neglect the former -- something his haters always seem to forget when bashing them there the cultural Marxists.
“Labor in the white skin can never free itself as long as labor in the black skin is branded.”--Marx
Also see Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, which posthumously completed Marx's thoughts on women's oppression.
Don't know what you mean.
I compromise on politics all the time. For example, last night, at the Solidarity Lowell meeting where the liberal Democrats tried to water down the points of unity around abortion rights, white supremacy, and indigenous genocide.
Gotta say, can't really see how the "identity politics" Democrats are any better than the "class politics" Democrats.
I don't want to spin off into a flame war, but describing it as "the liberal Democrats tried to water down the points of unity" doesn't exactly sound like you're speaking in the spirit of compromise.
I didn't even realize the Democrats had polarized into class and identity camps.
Well, that's what they tried to do, we had a conversation, some addenda were rejected, some were worked into the points of unity, then we all voted and I voted for them.
Actions, I feel, are more important than words or the spirit in which they are spoken.
Also, no? Well, you have some reading to catch up on about your party and the debate that has broken out.
Here are some articles to catch you up to speed:
EDIT: It was a pretty boring meeting, tbh. Best part was when the Rapid Response Team gave a presentation on "self-care" that included "don't read fake news" and then advised us to stick to the NYT, WaPo, Christian Science Monitor and WJ. Chaos then breaks out on the floor while people yell about how Judith Miller and the NYT's lies helped propel us into the Iraq War.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“Labor in the white skin can never free itself as long as labor in the black skin is branded.”--Marx
Also see Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, which posthumously completed Marx's thoughts on women's oppression.
From a letter to Engels during the Civil War:
Anxiety about keeping the ‘loyal’ slaveholders in the border states in good humor, fear of throwing them into the arms of Secession – in a word, tender regard for the interests, prejudices, and sensibilities of these dubious allies – has smitten the Union government with incurable weakness since the beginning of the war, driven it to half-measures, forced it to dissemble away the principle of the war and to spare the enemy’s most vulnerable spot, the root of the evil – slavery itself.
Somewhere in Capital he makes a good analysis of comparing slavery and wage labor. He doesn't use it to call wage labor slavery, but rather that the same arguments are made by factory owners as slave owners, for why they should get paid more money than the workers. The factory owners have a responsibility to ensure the workers are a benefit to society, and so should be paid more. The slave owners argued they had a responsibility to ensure the slaves were a benefit to society, therefore they should continue to own the slaves.
Just to add some more points to the "Marx knew and was concerned about race relations amongst workers."
I think we should run Lewis Black. He's the only one i've seen able to pull off the kind of outrage at the situation we should be feeling.
“Labor in the white skin can never free itself as long as labor in the black skin is branded.”--Marx
Also see Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, which posthumously completed Marx's thoughts on women's oppression.
From a letter to Engels during the Civil War:
Anxiety about keeping the ‘loyal’ slaveholders in the border states in good humor, fear of throwing them into the arms of Secession – in a word, tender regard for the interests, prejudices, and sensibilities of these dubious allies – has smitten the Union government with incurable weakness since the beginning of the war, driven it to half-measures, forced it to dissemble away the principle of the war and to spare the enemy’s most vulnerable spot, the root of the evil – slavery itself.Somewhere in Capital he makes a good analysis of comparing slavery and wage labor. He doesn't use it to call wage labor slavery, but rather that the same arguments are made by factory owners as slave owners, for why they should get paid more money than the workers. The factory owners have a responsibility to ensure the workers are a benefit to society, and so should be paid more. The slave owners argued they had a responsibility to ensure the slaves were a benefit to society, therefore they should continue to own the slaves.
Just to add some more points to the "Marx knew and was concerned about race relations amongst workers."
Their work on the Irish Question, too. I know, I know, not much of a burning question now (outside of Ulster), but it was in Victorian Britain.
|
Also, giving GOP voters what they want doesn't help them learn. Kansas is a mess because the state government did exactly that, but you will notice that Kansas still voted in GOP.
There's always a convenient rationalization they can use to avoid admitting the failure of Republican policy.
Kansas is still super Republican, but many of the most conservative lawmakers were defeated in primaries. I don't think the moderate block has allied with the Democrats to make changes yet, but the budget talks are just starting.
I just listened to the Statehouse Blend Kansas podcast where they interviewed a freshman Republican state representative who opposes the death penalty and is trying to raise taxes to fund our school and mental health institutions.
Perhaps I shouldnt have said Marx completely neglected identity politics because that's clearly not the case. The problem is that outside Marx's dualistic model of power, everything outside the economic is merely peripheral. Neo-Marxists like Wright really tried to address his economic oversights (like addressing the problem of the middle class) as economic structures changed, but contemporary feminists and race scholars have always criticized Marx for only mentioning these topics in a limited sense. He just doesn't mention gender or race enough when discussing inequality and focuses almost exclusively on economics. Nowadays, Marx and Engel's toe-dipping is a long ways away from the types of conversations modern inequalities scholars (and even feminists from around his time period) were having.
Now don't get me wrong. I think Marx is bae. I use conflict theory in almost every one of my studies. But the extent to which HE applied his theoretical concepts to marginalized subgroups is limited because of his dichotomous model.
Perhaps I shouldnt have said Marx completely neglected identity politics because that's clearly not the case.
Well, I agree with this part anyway.
I'd argue about almost everything between that and "Marx is bae," but it doesn't seem to have much to do with the thread or your original point.
I'll just link over to the Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism thread in case you'd like to discuss it more:
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps I shouldnt have said Marx completely neglected identity politics because that's clearly not the case.Well, I agree with this part anyway.
I'd argue about almost everything between that and "Marx is bae," but it doesn't seem to have much to do with the thread or your original point.
I'll just link over to the Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism thread in case you'd like to discuss it more:
Workers of the world, unite!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any future candidate is going to face off against Trump. Knowing and understanding why he won, what were his strengths and weaknesses, and different ways to beat him will be far more useful than hypotheticals that change the outcome of the previous election.And...
Trump won because Clinton was a bad candidate. That is why analyzing him will not work.
asterixes? (asteri?)
One asterisk; two asterisks.
Similarly, it's "espresso," not "expresso."| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is only one Asterix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump won because Clinton was a bad candidate. That is why analyzing him will not work.
Any future candidate is going to face off against Trump. Knowing and understanding why he won, what were his strengths and weaknesses, and different ways to beat him will be far more useful than hypotheticals that change the outcome of the previous election.And...
While it may be comforting to believe this, it is far from the full answer. Democrats need to accept that Trump offered a message that people needed to hear so badly they were able to vote for him despite his clear and obvious faults.
asterixes? (asteri?)One asterisk; two asterisks.
Similarly, it's "espresso," not "expresso."
clearly you've never seen how fast some cofee goes through you..
While it may be comforting to believe this, it is far from the full answer. Democrats need to accept that Trump offered a message that people needed to hear so badly they were able to vote for him despite his clear and obvious faults.Trump won because Clinton was a bad candidate. That is why analyzing him will not work.
Any future candidate is going to face off against Trump. Knowing and understanding why he won, what were his strengths and weaknesses, and different ways to beat him will be far more useful than hypotheticals that change the outcome of the previous election.And...
Maybe. But most Trump voters I know fall into two camps:
1. Blatant bigots, of the "Islam is evil" variety.
2. People who just really, really hated Clinton.
While it may be comforting to believe this, it is far from the full answer. Democrats need to accept that Trump offered a message that people needed to hear so badly they were able to vote for him despite his clear and obvious faults.Trump won because Clinton was a bad candidate. That is why analyzing him will not work.
Any future candidate is going to face off against Trump. Knowing and understanding why he won, what were his strengths and weaknesses, and different ways to beat him will be far more useful than hypotheticals that change the outcome of the previous election.And...
Maybe. But most Trump voters I know fall into two camps:
1. Blatant bigots, of the "Islam is evil" variety.
2. People who just really, really hated Clinton.
I would suggest that sampling and confirmation bias are strong in this response.
Trust me, it's not confirmation bias. I'd love it if there were lots of economic voters in the mix; it would support my "Bernie would have won" AU fanfic. Sampling, however, could be a problem. It's not like I have a huge quantity of friends. My extended family is super right-wing, and they voted for Trump out of a mixture of Islamophobia and general Clinton hate. That's the bulk of my right-wing "friends" right there.
