Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

951 to 1,000 of 4,260 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
But only because I'm a democrat, right?

There's this thing you can do, when arguing in good faith, where you try to actually rephrase a person's stance back to them -- not to caricature it or score points, but to actually see if you're getting it right.

If I understand yours correctly, you view criticism of HRD, and of the current Democratic party, as somehow excusing the Repblicans' much more egregious behavior. Is that accurate? If not, please correct me.

And, if you're actually trying to have a discussion, rather than just blowing off steam, you might try the same.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
... that would also require being honest with yourself

This. Unfortunately this is something main stream Democrats have had a very difficult time with over the last 18 months. Particularly WRT HRC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
But only because I'm a democrat, right?

There's this thing you can do, when arguing in good faith, where you try to actually rephrase a person's stance back to them -- not to caricature it or score points, but to actually see if you're getting it right.

If I understand yours correctly, you view criticism of HRD, and of the current Democratic party, as somehow excusing the Repblicans' much more egregious behavior. Is that accurate? If not, please correct me.

And, if you're actually trying to have a discussion, rather than just blowing off steam, you might try the same.

No I view criticism of HRC, in order to refute the charge that republicans and the right wing create their own false reality , as trying to excuse the republicans' much more egregious behavior.

Once again, the conversation I was having was whether the republicans and the right wing actively promote a false reality to which you responded...

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So you don't believe...
... that Saint Hillary would have continued to expand our already unconscionable incarceration rates (expansion begun under a Democratic president she happened to be married to), continued to wage overseas wars to disastrous effect on our young people and economy (as did the last Democratic president), and continued to abet Wall Street's destruction of the middle class (as every president, Democrat and Republican like, in recent memory)?

So, yet again, I ask you; were you trying to refute my point with the counterpoint that republicans don't create their own reality because HRC is bad, or was quoting me simply a non sequitur (I have never used that so often in one day before) so you could attack Hillary Clinton?


BigDTBone wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
... that would also require being honest with yourself
This. Unfortunately this is something main stream Democrats have had a very difficult time with over the last 18 months. Particularly WRT HRC.

This is especially true once you buy into the republican narrative...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
That she's be appointing a supreme court justice that wouldn't be in favor of citizens united, which is what keeps the people from having any say in their government
I'm all in favor of overturning CU, but I'm not sure this follows from electing HRC. Justices are still (hopefully) beholden to precedent and other jurisprudence, not to the person appointing them. Also, at this point it would require a Constitutional amendment. Still absolutely necessary to fight for, though.

This is why, after the precedent set by Plessy vs. Ferguson the matter of school segregation was settled law, requiring a constitutional amendment to change.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So, yet again, I ask you; were you trying to refute my point with the counterpoint that republicans don't create their own reality because HRC is bad

In no way.

Knight who says Meh wrote:
or was quoting me simply a non sequitur (I have never used that so often in one day before) so you could attack Hillary Clinton?

It was an attempt to steer back to what the Dems can do to get the country out of the downward economic spiral it's in. Not so much a non-sequitor as an attempt to get back on topic (just like the title of the thread says).

As I mentioned to the jeff, Democrats cannot fix the Republican party. (In fact, I think at this point the Repubs are actually so far gone they're past their own ability to fix.) The Democrats aren't anywhere near that badly off, and they could (and, in my opinion should) be the party we turn to. But if they keep using "we're not as bad as the other guys" as an excuse to continue to cater to the 0.1%, they're not really helping the middle class out of the jam it's in.

I'm exhorting the Democrats to stop griping about how bad the opposition is -- I think everyone in the thread knows how abysmal they are -- and instead start focusing on where the Dems can shore up their strengths. Again, I'm not exhorting the Republicans because (a) they're too far gone to be reached, and (b) there seem to be none in the thread, and (c) that would call for a separate thread ("The Future of the Republican Party") anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
That she wouldn't have an attorney general that actively suppressed the black vote by having community activists arrested
Yes. Don't get me wrong -- she has some stances that I very much approve of.

We have a two party system. That isn't going to change. While its not baked into our constitution per say, it is the inevitable result of game theory as applied to the rules as they've been laid out.

Quote:
I'm all in favor of overturning CU, but I'm not sure this follows from electing HRC. Justices are still (hopefully) beholden to precedent and other jurisprudence, not to the person appointing them. Also, at this point it would require a Constitutional amendment. Still absolutely necessary to fight for, though.

It's the supreme court. They can and have overturned previous rulings before. Or they could find a legal work around... such as corporations technically exist entirely at the governments leisure. The government has to let them "speak" with buckets of money but not exist.

Quote:
Syria maybe. Staying in Afghanistan and Iraq, almost certainly. But, I agree, not Elbonia.

You are not getting elected on a platform of not bombing the people sending terrorists after us.

Of course, no one there is taking power on a platform of not sending terrorists after the people bombing them.

Quote:
That's my issue -- as long as we keep comparing sand to ground glass, of course we'll keep eating sand. But I'd like more nutrient value in my diet than that -- this way we just starve instead of dying faster and in more agony. I'm not even asking for filet mignon or anything -- just something to keep us (the middle class) from wasting away.

Except starving isn't an option. If you don't get the sand on the menu, we're all force fed ground glass.

Then the sand people look at what the ground glass chefs did, see that it worked, and then make their sand a little bigger and pointier and see if that works.

If you keep ordering the sand , the glass people may look at what the sand chefs did and make the particles a little smaller and smoother (which is why prohibiting interracial marriage isn't on anyone's ticket anymore)

Maybe the sand people try adding a little bit of sugar. If that goes over well, they add more sugar and less sand.

But there is no mechanism where shouting Fillet mignon now or bust! gets you to fillet minion, or anything but glass and sand... and usually glass.

Quote:
I agree. Let's get to it, then!

That would be electing a democrat. Get drunk at the polls if you have to, I'll get you an IPA , but there's no way towards anything good that doesn't go through the democratic party.


Still unsure why you directly quoted me in if your intent was to change topics but whatever.
I will simply, once the Democratic Party improves itself, how do you show that change to people who live in their own reality without discussing the problem?
Let's say the democrats adopt all your favorite economic policies, how do you sell that to someone who thinks refugees are poisonous skittles bent on destroying our way of life?
Because that's a problem. I don't know how to do that. And I don't know how to fix a problem and ignore it at the same time.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
'm exhorting the Democrats to stop griping about how bad the opposition is -- I think everyone in the thread knows how abysmal they are -- and instead start focusing on where the Dems can shore up their strengths.

Because everything they need to work on to make them better at governing makes them worse candidates?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So, yet again, I ask you; were you trying to refute my point with the counterpoint that republicans don't create their own reality because HRC is bad

In no way.

Knight who says Meh wrote:
or was quoting me simply a non sequitur (I have never used that so often in one day before) so you could attack Hillary Clinton?

It was an attempt to steer back to what the Dems can do to get the country out of the downward economic spiral it's in. Not a non-sequitor at all; a veering back on track.

As I mentioned to the Jeff, Democrats cannot fix the Republican party. (In fact, I think at this point they're actually so far gone they're past their own ability to fix.) The Democrats aren't anywhere near that badly off, and they could (and, in my opinion should) be the party we turn to. But if they keep using "we're not as bad as them" as an excuse to continue to cater to the 0.1%, they're not really helping the middle class out of the jam it's in.

I'm exhorting the Democrats to stop griping about how bad the opposition is, and start focusing on where they can shore up their strengths. I'm not exhorting the Republican's because they're too far gone to be reached.

The problem with that is that all the screaming about how bad the Democrats are and how horrible Clinton is in particular have helped put us in the place where the whole focus has to be damage control - first trying to limit the damage Republicans can do and then, assuming Democrats manage to get control again, trying to patch things back together. We're likely to have a court that'll strike down any major changes you'd like, if it hasn't reversed half the twentieth century by then.

If we spend a couple seasons in the wilderness fighting to improve the party, we're not going to have a country we recognize when we're done. I'm all for improving the party. Primary challenges, take over from inside, etc, but the time for that was during Obama's term and would have been pushing it farther during Clinton's. As I said back during the campaign, 8 years of Bush got us Obama. 8 years of Obama, got us a serious leftish challenge from Sanders. We could have pushed that farther under Clinton, had a real chance for improvement, but instead infighting helped tear her and the whole party down. Sure, the insiders bear blame for that as well, no denying it.
Still, now all the energy and momentum is going to be on stopping Trump and getting Democrats, any Democrats, back into power. And it really has to be.
The chance is done now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:


Let's say the democrats adopt all your favorite economic policies, how do you sell that to someone who thinks refugees are poisonous skittles bent on destroying our way of life?
Because that's a problem. I don't know how to do that. And I don't know how to fix a problem and ignore it at the same time.

You don't make refugees a major pitching point when you are speaking to folks in red counties. As much a of boogeyman as terrorists and inner city crime is, it's not something most of them are daily impacted by. So pitch policies that improve their lot directly.


I mean....the debate we have been having here for 20 pages now? all of this is stuff that people in the party are also arguing about with no actual clear strategy. Right now it seems to be OBSTRUCTION TIME, because the folks who voted the existing democrats in really want that. Don't get me wrong, I like to see the folks on the left worked up and protesting this. I am just not convinced the Obstruction angle is going to actually do anything to improve the current democrat situation in 2018. If anything, especially given that more dems than Republicans are up for election, stuff is only going to get worst.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
... that would also require being honest with yourself
This. Unfortunately this is something main stream Democrats have had a very difficult time with over the last 18 months. Particularly WRT HRC.
This is especially true once you buy into the republican narrative...

Yeah, I have no need to engage with you on your fantasies about what I have or haven't bought into.

Let's just do real stuff. I, for example, was completely dismissed on these very boards when last September I said that we (as Democrats) should really address the possibility that there was a polling bias in favor of Clinton.


BigDTBone wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
... that would also require being honest with yourself
This. Unfortunately this is something main stream Democrats have had a very difficult time with over the last 18 months. Particularly WRT HRC.
This is especially true once you buy into the republican narrative...

Yeah, I have no need to engage with you on your fantasies about what I have or haven't bought into.

Let's just do real stuff. I, for example, was completely dismissed on these very boards when last September I said that we (as Democrats) should really address the possibility that there was a polling bias in favor of Clinton.

Guilty.


MMCJawa wrote:
I mean....the debate we have been having here for 20 pages now? all of this is stuff that people in the party are also arguing about with no actual clear strategy. Right now it seems to be OBSTRUCTION TIME, because the folks who voted the existing democrats in really want that. Don't get me wrong, I like to see the folks on the left worked up and protesting this. I am just not convinced the Obstruction angle is going to actually do anything to improve the current democrat situation in 2018. If anything, especially given that more dems than Republicans are up for election, stuff is only going to get worst.

Well, I'm pretty sure that cooperating won't help in 2018 either. And most of the obstruction isn't just strategy, but stuff that really needs to be obstructed.

I'm also not sure the protesters are just "the folks who voted the existing democrats in". Still, this is already the biggest movement we've seen in a long time. More than the Bernie crowds. Bigger and with more support than the Tea Party ever had. If it's focused on opposing Trump, oppose Trump. And start raising longer term ideas within those protesters.

If not obstruction, what do you think Democrats should be doing?

As you say, the Senate's in trouble in 2018. The House and the states are where the focus needs to be. Holding Senate seats is important, but the states are key to localized damage control and to redistricting after the 2020 census.


thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I mean....the debate we have been having here for 20 pages now? all of this is stuff that people in the party are also arguing about with no actual clear strategy. Right now it seems to be OBSTRUCTION TIME, because the folks who voted the existing democrats in really want that. Don't get me wrong, I like to see the folks on the left worked up and protesting this. I am just not convinced the Obstruction angle is going to actually do anything to improve the current democrat situation in 2018. If anything, especially given that more dems than Republicans are up for election, stuff is only going to get worst.

Well, I'm pretty sure that cooperating won't help in 2018 either. And most of the obstruction isn't just strategy, but stuff that really needs to be obstructed.

I'm also not sure the protesters are just "the folks who voted the existing democrats in". Still, this is already the biggest movement we've seen in a long time. More than the Bernie crowds. Bigger and with more support than the Tea Party ever had. If it's focused on opposing Trump, oppose Trump. And start raising longer term ideas within those protesters.

If not obstruction, what do you think Democrats should be doing?

As you say, the Senate's in trouble in 2018. The House and the states are where the focus needs to be. Holding Senate seats is important, but the states are key to localized damage control and to redistricting after the 2020 census.

We are pretty much going to have to suffer what ever is thrown with us given the current state of Congress. Washington is write-off for the Democratic Party until they get their state and local acts together.

All of the House seats are in play between now and 2018 and that's where the Party focus needs to be. The Party needs to play offense in the House and holding action in the Senate. Democrats also need to start working at the state level as well.


Spastic Puma wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
... that would also require being honest with yourself
This. Unfortunately this is something main stream Democrats have had a very difficult time with over the last 18 months. Particularly WRT HRC.
This is especially true once you buy into the republican narrative...

Yeah, I have no need to engage with you on your fantasies about what I have or haven't bought into.

Let's just do real stuff. I, for example, was completely dismissed on these very boards when last September I said that we (as Democrats) should really address the possibility that there was a polling bias in favor of Clinton.

Guilty.

"hangs head in shame as well..."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:


Let's say the democrats adopt all your favorite economic policies, how do you sell that to someone who thinks refugees are poisonous skittles bent on destroying our way of life?
Because that's a problem. I don't know how to do that. And I don't know how to fix a problem and ignore it at the same time.
You don't make refugees a major pitching point when you are speaking to folks in red counties. As much a of boogeyman as terrorists and inner city crime is, it's not something most of them are daily impacted by. So pitch policies that improve their lot directly.

So ignore the problem and let them dictate their own reality? Now the people who fear refugees are convinced you don't have an answer to terrorism and people who support refugees feel abandoned by you. How many votes did this win you? Now repeat the scenario racism, sexism, sexual assault, birth control, abortion, gun rights, religious rights, civil rights, police brutality, global warming, science in general, etc. How many votes do you have now? And none of that addresses how you convince someone that your policies are better or even what your policies actually are when facts are irrelevant and the truth is subjective?

And before anyone purposely misconstrues my meaning, this is not to say the Democratic Party is perfect and has no room for improvement. If even "neutral" parties believe your current economic policies are openly and explicitly designed to destroy the middle class and bring about a feudal serfdom, without addressing selective reality, how do you convince them you've not only changed, but changed for the better?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Let's just do real stuff. I, for example, was completely dismissed on these very boards when last September I said that we (as Democrats) should really address the possibility that there was a polling bias in favor of Clinton.

There wasn't really a large polling bias, though. There was a disastrous reporting bias about the polling.

(HRC won the national vote, and lost hard in late-deciding voters. Lead-up polls were basically right.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:


Let's say the democrats adopt all your favorite economic policies, how do you sell that to someone who thinks refugees are poisonous skittles bent on destroying our way of life?
Because that's a problem. I don't know how to do that. And I don't know how to fix a problem and ignore it at the same time.
You don't make refugees a major pitching point when you are speaking to folks in red counties. As much a of boogeyman as terrorists and inner city crime is, it's not something most of them are daily impacted by. So pitch policies that improve their lot directly.

So ignore the problem and let them dictate their own reality? Now the people who fear refugees are convinced you don't have an answer to terrorism and people who support refugees feel abandoned by you. How many votes did this win you? Now repeat the scenario racism, sexism, sexual assault, birth control, abortion, gun rights, religious rights, civil rights, police brutality, global warming, science in general, etc. How many votes do you have now? And none of that addresses how you convince someone that your policies are better or even what your policies actually are when facts are irrelevant and the truth is subjective?

And before anyone purposely misconstrues my meaning, this is not to say the Democratic Party is perfect and has no room for improvement. If even "neutral" parties believe your current economic policies are openly and explicitly designed to destroy the middle class and bring about a feudal serfdom, without addressing selective reality, how do you convince them you've not only changed, but changed for the better?

The electorate will dictate their own reality, no matter what you do. Internet and Social Media as the driving source of news, guarantee that.

I don't think there is an answer. American Culture has simply evolved to the point where rational arguments simply don't work. The Trump Election has pretty much pointed out the shape of the American Electorate for all time to come. The Democrats allowed the Republicans to play them until the latter have gotten things to the point where they hold all the cards, all the gates, and have locked up the Electoral College. They have a President in play who has mastered how to make the best use of the short attention span of the modern American. I think that things will change eventually, but I doubt that anyone here will be alive to see it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I mean....the debate we have been having here for 20 pages now? all of this is stuff that people in the party are also arguing about with no actual clear strategy. Right now it seems to be OBSTRUCTION TIME, because the folks who voted the existing democrats in really want that. Don't get me wrong, I like to see the folks on the left worked up and protesting this. I am just not convinced the Obstruction angle is going to actually do anything to improve the current democrat situation in 2018. If anything, especially given that more dems than Republicans are up for election, stuff is only going to get worst.

Well, I'm pretty sure that cooperating won't help in 2018 either. And most of the obstruction isn't just strategy, but stuff that really needs to be obstructed.

I'm also not sure the protesters are just "the folks who voted the existing democrats in". Still, this is already the biggest movement we've seen in a long time. More than the Bernie crowds. Bigger and with more support than the Tea Party ever had. If it's focused on opposing Trump, oppose Trump. And start raising longer term ideas within those protesters.

If not obstruction, what do you think Democrats should be doing?

As you say, the Senate's in trouble in 2018. The House and the states are where the focus needs to be. Holding Senate seats is important, but the states are key to localized damage control and to redistricting after the 2020 census.

Well let me rephrase that...the protesters are not necessarily the same folks who voted the dems in, but I expect the anger associated the protests is far far stronger in blue and perhaps quasi-blue states. I don't think those folks, other than maybe a few battleground states, have the numbers to actually suggest the Republican party should be at all worried in the next elections. Polls show approval is pretty much directly related to party. If you vote Republican you think Trump is doing good, if you vote democrat you think he is horrible. The Protests show we are deeply divided as a nation, but pretty evenly divided as far as allocation in power the next election.

As far as obstructionism, I don't think we can look at the recent example of success that the Republicans had with it. For starters...the whole Republican party line is that government is big and unwieldy and broken. Making it more unwieldy and broken plays to their strengths. They also of course had enough power the last few years that they could actually obstruct things.

Democrats run on the platform of government is great and hear to help you. Obstructionism gone too far hampers that. Not to mention they don't actually have the numbers anywhere to do anything more than bog down.

As far as the nominations, I would save the obstructionism to the "horrifically bad even by republican standards" nominees and not bother with the "not great but standard for republicans". Go after Tillerson, Pruit, DeVos etc (which they have), but not bother with Zinke or Chao.

As far as everything else? I have no strategic advice to give at the moment. I am not a politician and I am honestly at a loss for what they can do other than focus on lower government levels. And hope the Trump presidency is a large enough disaster that it does to Republicans in 4 years what it took 8 years of Bush to do to them.


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

So ignore the problem and let them dictate their own reality? Now the people who fear refugees are convinced you don't have an answer to terrorism and people who support refugees feel abandoned by you. How many votes did this win you? Now repeat the scenario racism, sexism, sexual assault, birth control, abortion, gun rights, religious rights, civil rights, police brutality, global warming, science in general, etc. How many votes do you have now? And none of that addresses how you convince someone that your policies are better or even what your policies actually are when facts are irrelevant and the truth is subjective?

See here's the thing. If the majority of voters have made up their own reality and refuse to listen to reason, than this thread is basically done. Democrats will never win any significant control of government again and we should all move to Canada or back state secession initiatives if we live in a blue state.

You don't need to win die hard republican voters. You need to win the apathetic, the folks with no party loyalty, and the folks disgruntled with current republican politicians in there area. And put forward candidates that can bring out both the progressives and the democrat loyalists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Let's just do real stuff. I, for example, was completely dismissed on these very boards when last September I said that we (as Democrats) should really address the possibility that there was a polling bias in favor of Clinton.

There wasn't really a large polling bias, though. There was a disastrous reporting bias about the polling.

(HRC won the national vote, and lost hard in late-deciding voters. Lead-up polls were basically right.)

This is exactly what I mean when I say that main stream Democrats have a hard time being honest with themselves.

Late deciding voters? Or unwilling to self-report voters? When someone makes a prediction and turns out to be correct, they get the benefit of the doubt. In this case, Trump predicted the rust belt + Pennsylvania was in the bag for him when the polls made that statement laughable. He said because of a "silent majority." Or essentially, people unwilling to say outloud they would vote for him.

Look at the polls (the actual polls, not the aggregate estimators) 2 weeks, 1 month, and 6 weeks out from the election, then look at the results Election Day. The polls were wrong.

The evidence that the polls were wrong was staring us right in the face. How many times did Bernie "upset" a Clinton lead? How many times by MORE than 8 points? How many times did the polling error favor Bernie? You can't look at the primary season honestly and NOT see systemic polling bias in favor of Clinton, and nothing changed as far as polling between primaries and the general.

If you look back now, with the benefit of hindsight, and still can't see the polls were wrong (i.e., blaming it on reporting or saying that the nation-wide poll was close-ish) then you are having a problem accepting reality. AKA having a difficult time being honest with yourself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
See here's the thing. If the majority of voters have made up their own reality and refuse to listen to reason, than this thread is basically done.

Agreed. That was pretty much my point.

Quote:
You don't need to win die hard republican voters.

50+ million people voted for Trump. This problem is not limited to "die hard republicans."


MMCJawa wrote:

As far as obstructionism, I don't think we can look at the recent example of success that the Republicans had with it. For starters...the whole Republican party line is that government is big and unwieldy and broken. Making it more unwieldy and broken plays to their strengths. They also of course had enough power the last few years that they could actually obstruct things.

Democrats run on the platform of government is great and hear to help you. Obstructionism gone too far hampers that. Not to mention they don't actually have the numbers anywhere to do anything more than bog down.

As far as the nominations, I would save the obstructionism to the "horrifically bad even by republican standards" nominees and not bother with the "not great but standard for republicans". Go after Tillerson, Pruit, DeVos etc (which they have), but not bother with Zinke or Chao.

That's pretty much my take on obstructionism as well. With the caveat that it's all going to be so disastrous that Democratic obstruction will look worse than Republican, from the proper point of view. Even with only going after the worst cabinet nominees, they've still delayed more than Republicans did to Obama in 2008.

With one huge red line: when Trump tries to drum up a war, in response to some terror attack or just to boost his popularity, that gets opposed no matter how it might hurt at the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know what the answers are.
I have little hope that there are answers.
I don't think even letting the country go to hell will change things.
Republicans will simply blame Democrats for the negative consequences of their actions.
Honestly, I'm not even sure Americans care if bad things happen.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'm exhorting the Democrats to stop griping about how bad the opposition is -- I think everyone in the thread knows how abysmal they are -- and instead start focusing on where the Dems can shore up their strengths. Again, I'm not exhorting the Republicans because (a) they're too far gone to be reached, and (b) there seem to be none in the thread, and (c) that would call for a separate thread ("The Future of the Republican Party") anyway.

And yet when a Democrat changes to suit one of the problems you keep complaining about, you dismiss it as being irrelevant and not true, like many others have done.

Edit: not directly related, just avoiding a double post...

Pelosi has got to go. I was never a big fan to begin with, but her leadership seems more and more outdated with every press release. If her district wants her, fine. But as leadership of the party, they've got to move on.

Schumer isn't great, but he's okay as a transition leader. He's not going to lead Dem's to anything great, but hopefully he can be disruptive for the Republicans until a more unifying figure emerges.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Let's just do real stuff. I, for example, was completely dismissed on these very boards when last September I said that we (as Democrats) should really address the possibility that there was a polling bias in favor of Clinton.

There wasn't really a large polling bias, though. There was a disastrous reporting bias about the polling.

(HRC won the national vote, and lost hard in late-deciding voters. Lead-up polls were basically right.)

This is exactly what I mean when I say that main stream Democrats have a hard time being honest with themselves.

Late deciding voters? Or unwilling to self-report voters? When someone makes a prediction and turns out to be correct, they get the benefit of the doubt.

We have exit polls. They ask people when they decided. You don't need to give anyone the "benefit of the doubt" when we have data.

Quote:
Look at the polls (the actual polls, not the aggregate estimators) 2 weeks, 1 month, and 6 weeks out from the election, then look at the results Election Day. The polls were wrong.

Why would you look at all those? Opinions change over time. Looking at the last week of polling, which would be most predictive, HRC is up 2-4% in a majority of the national polls. She ended up in the popular vote by 2%.

As for states, Wisconsin had the worst polling error. Trump won late deciders by 30%. You can't poll for opinions that don't exist.

Quote:

The evidence that the polls were wrong was staring us right in the face. How many times did Bernie "upset" a Clinton lead? How many times by MORE than 8 points? How many times did the polling error favor Bernie? You can't look at the primary season honestly and NOT see systemic polling bias in favor of Clinton, and nothing changed as far as polling between primaries and the general.

If you look back now, with the benefit of hindsight, and still can't see the polls were wrong (i.e., blaming it on reporting or saying that the nation-wide poll was close-ish) then you are having a problem accepting reality. AKA having a difficult time being honest with yourself.

I think you are exaggerating and misrepresenting the facts. Yes, polls were wrong. But, that is not clear evidence of systemic bias (as you claim). On the other hand, there is evidence of a late break, and normal polling errors.

The polls told us that Trump winning was a distinct possibility. That's what margins of error are there for. We'd all be better off if people (especially journalists) were more data literate. Don't go throwing your hands up and throwing out polls without some numbers.


BigDTBone wrote:


The evidence that the polls were wrong was staring us right in the face. How many times did Bernie "upset" a Clinton lead?

None in the states that were not caucus primaries. Sanders lost badly in the states that held general primaries, If I remember, outside of Hawaii, he did not take a single state unless it was a caucus state, which are about as closed a primary as you can get.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
Even with only going after the worst cabinet nominees, they've still delayed more than Republicans did to Obama in 2008.

Yes and no. The primary reason Trump is so far behind where Obama was in filling positions is that he has been much slower in nominating people. Sure, the Democrats have also been obstructing (especially as they've been hearing it from their voters for not doing ENOUGH), but the slow pace of nominations has been the bigger factor.

Knight who says Meh wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
See here's the thing. If the majority of voters have made up their own reality and refuse to listen to reason, than this thread is basically done.

Agreed. That was pretty much my point.

Quote:
You don't need to win die hard republican voters.
50+ million people voted for Trump. This problem is not limited to "die hard republicans."

That's like saying 'global warming denial' or 'belief that Obama is a Muslim from Kenya' is not limited to Republicans... technically true, but serving only to obfuscate the vast disparity.

Recent polls have shown ~90% of "Republican voters" saying that Donald Trump is a truthful person, that his inauguration was the most heavily attended ever, that the Bowling Green massacre happened, and so forth. However, those same polls show only ~50% of "people who voted for Trump" drinking the Cool-Aid on these issues.

That drops the 'living in a fantasy world' portion of the voting public down to a 'mere' ~25 million... and leaves the other ~25 million Trump voters (mostly 'independents') still within potential reach of reason.

Meanwhile, Trump's EC victory was due to ~100,000 votes spread over three states that Democrats usually win. It is amazing that he managed to pull off an EC win despite losing the popular vote by ~3 million. His victory was razor thin and there are more than enough partially sane people who voted for him to swing future elections another way if they become disillusioned.

Heck, there are more than enough Democrats and Democrat leaning voters who sat the last election out to obliterate Trump's margin of victory in half a dozen states.

Barring some 'rally around the flag' incident, I don't see the GOP getting good news in 2018 or 2020. The Senate map is very heavily weighted in their favor in 2018... and I still think they could lose it.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


The evidence that the polls were wrong was staring us right in the face. How many times did Bernie "upset" a Clinton lead?

None in the states that were not caucus primaries. Sanders lost badly in the states that held general primaries, If I remember, outside of Hawaii, he did not take a single state unless it was a caucus state, which are about as closed a primary as you can get.

Michigan was the big Sanders upset and that wasn't a caucus.

He did tend to do better in caucuses, but he did win a number of normal, mostly open, primaries.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:


(HRC won the national vote, and lost hard in late-deciding voters. Lead-up polls were basically right.)

This is exactly what I mean when I say that main stream Democrats have a hard time being honest with themselves.

Late deciding voters? Or unwilling to self-report voters? When someone makes a prediction and turns out to be correct, they get the benefit of the doubt.

We have exit polls. They ask people when they decided. You don't need to give anyone the "benefit of the doubt" when we have data.

Quote:
Look at the polls (the actual polls, not the aggregate estimators) 2 weeks, 1 month, and 6 weeks out from the election, then look at the results Election Day. The polls were wrong.

Why would you look at all those? Opinions change over time. Looking at the last week of polling, which would be most predictive, HRC is up 2-4% in a majority of the national polls. She ended up in the popular vote by 2%.

As for states, Wisconsin had the worst polling error. Trump won late deciders by 30%. You can't poll for opinions that don't exist.

I think you are exaggerating and misrepresenting the facts. Yes, polls were wrong. But, that is not clear evidence of systemic bias (as you claim). On the other hand, there is evidence of a late break, and normal polling errors.

Hmmm, was there anything that happened in those last weeks that might have affected those late decisions?


BigDTBone wrote:


The evidence that the polls were wrong was staring us right in the face. How many times did Bernie "upset" a Clinton lead? How many times by MORE than 8 points? How many times did the polling error favor Bernie? You can't look at the primary season honestly and NOT see systemic polling bias in favor of Clinton, and nothing changed as far as polling between primaries and the general.

How many times did he? You tell me. The only big one I remember was Michigan.


MMCJawa wrote:
IMHO, the "But both parties suck!" analogy just leads to people not voting or becoming involved, or protest voting. The two parties are very different on a variety of issues. Sure they could be more progressive in some areas...but if folks want that they need to go and get more progressive folks elected.

agreed.


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


The evidence that the polls were wrong was staring us right in the face. How many times did Bernie "upset" a Clinton lead? How many times by MORE than 8 points? How many times did the polling error favor Bernie? You can't look at the primary season honestly and NOT see systemic polling bias in favor of Clinton, and nothing changed as far as polling between primaries and the general.
How many times did he? You tell me. The only big one I remember was Michigan.

Right off the top of my head, there was a 20 point difference between polls and results for Sanders in Indiana. He was down by 10 and won by 10. There was a 10 point difference in Oregon where he was down by 5 and won by 5. Both of which were primaries, not caucuses.

That's 3 10+ point polling errors in favor of Clinton. If it isn't bias (i.e., just poor methodology) where are the reverse upsets against a supposed Sanders lead?

Those are just the big ones. That doesn't include where Sanders won in an upset with <5 point variance, or were Sanders out performed by >5 points but still lost. If I get time over the weekend I'll dig them up but they are there for you to find.

And if you really think Comey cost Clinton the election then you are one of the Democrats I'm talking about who is having a hard time being honest with themselves.


If you're going to complain about polling, you're going to need to come with extremely detailed data. Specifically dates and methodology.

If the last poll in Oregon was done a month before the primary, than your complaining about it being 10 points off is pretty much meaningless. We don't know that though, because all you provided were two numbers, but there's a mountain of information you're missing. If you're not looking at that information, you're making assumptions and most likely wrong.

Who did the poll? When was it done? How did it compare to other polls? Did something happen between the poll and the primary, like a debate or major news story? How was the poll done? How did they weigh certain demographics? Was all this early or late in the nomination process?

I'd bet $ you formed your opinion before you could answer even one of these questions.

Edit: yeah, you didn't even get the margin of victory right for Oregon. Also, there's scant polling data on the state, so from what I can tell you're basically making it up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
And if you really think Comey cost Clinton the election then you are one of the Democrats I'm talking about who is having a hard time being honest with themselves.

And if you really think that it didn't make a difference in those late deciders, you're fooling yourself.

Was it the only thing? Certainly not. Might not even have been enough to make the difference, but it sure didn't help.


Irontruth wrote:

If you're going to complain about polling, you're going to need to come with extremely detailed data. Specifically dates and methodology.

If the last poll in Oregon was done a month before the primary, than your complaining about it being 10 points off is pretty much meaningless. We don't know that though, because all you provided were two numbers, but there's a mountain of information you're missing. If you're not looking at that information, you're making assumptions and most likely wrong.

Who did the poll? When was it done? How did it compare to other polls? Did something happen between the poll and the primary, like a debate or major news story? How was the poll done? How did they weigh certain demographics? Was all this early or late in the nomination process?

I'd bet $ you formed your opinion before you could answer even one of these questions.

Edit: yeah, you didn't even get the margin of victory right for Oregon. Also, there's scant polling data on the state, so from what I can tell you're basically making it up.

Sanders wins by 10.2 points, local news station poll 7-10 days before the vote shows Clinton in lead by 15

But, yeah, I made it up. Tell yourself whatever you need to keep the fantasy alive.

Edit, it does look like RCP flubbed a button on that page which I admit I didn't double check before posting earlier. Sanders actually won by 12 points. So yeah, I guess I was totally wrong about my point...


6 people marked this as a favorite.

If I were in charge of the Democratic party, I'd look for job-creating opportunities in every state, then find people to run for congress who would plug those projects. "Martha Gersen wants to bring 50,000 new jobs to Pennsylvania." Republicans sarcastically ask how to pay for it -- raise taxes? No, by "closing tax loopholes for Wall Street." Want to get us out of Afghanistan? Hammer the job aspect again. "We've spent 17 years rebuilding Afghanistan. Now it's time to start rebuilding America -- building our future!"

By branding themselves the "put Americans to work again" party, the party of small businesses vs. Wall Street, you tap into all the disaffected people who put Trump in office, but you do it state by state in 2018. Then look at approval ratings, and plan 2020 accordingly.

People with their brains in alt-right parallel universes are never going to vote Democrat. But they're not what ultimately gave Trump the win.

Finally, never underestimate the power of catchy slogans. Just saying "Hope and change!" was enough to elect Obama. The Trump voters I know kept repeating "Make America Great Again!" like it was a litany.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Who Will Be President?

Anyone that followed votes like Brexit was not surprised that the polls were wrong about Trump's chances to win. People don't answer honestly about their views if those views are being labeled *-ist. That doesn't mean they reject their views, because their views are often formed by their own experiences and philosophies.


pres man wrote:

Who Will Be President?

Anyone that followed votes like Brexit was not surprised that the polls were wrong about Trump's chances to win. People don't answer honestly about their views if those views are being labeled *-ist. That doesn't mean they reject their views, because their views are often formed by their own experiences and philosophies.

... and a metric done of horsefeathers that they've been fed , loudly and angrily, specifically to make them vote against their own interests.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
pres man wrote:

Who Will Be President?

Anyone that followed votes like Brexit was not surprised that the polls were wrong about Trump's chances to win. People don't answer honestly about their views if those views are being labeled *-ist. That doesn't mean they reject their views, because their views are often formed by their own experiences and philosophies.

... and a metric done of horsefeathers that they've been fed , loudly and angrily, specifically to make them vote against their own interests.

Well, individuals often have competing interests. It may that one candidate/party only has one issue that the individual agrees with and agrees with multiple issues with the other candidate/party. Yet, it may be that one issue is the most important to them at the time of voting and out weighs the others.


pres man wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
pres man wrote:

Who Will Be President?

Anyone that followed votes like Brexit was not surprised that the polls were wrong about Trump's chances to win. People don't answer honestly about their views if those views are being labeled *-ist. That doesn't mean they reject their views, because their views are often formed by their own experiences and philosophies.

... and a metric done of horsefeathers that they've been fed , loudly and angrily, specifically to make them vote against their own interests.
Well, individuals often have competing interests. It may that one candidate/party only has one issue that the individual agrees with and agrees with multiple issues with the other candidate/party. Yet, it may be that one issue is the most important to them at the time of voting and out weighs the others.

I agree, I think we get into a dangerous place when we start deciding that we know other people's best interests better than they do.


pres man wrote:


Well, individuals often have competing interests. It may that one candidate/party only has one issue that the individual agrees with and agrees with multiple issues with the other candidate/party. Yet, it may be that one issue is the most important to them at the time of voting and out weighs the others.

There are one and a half issues where that's the case. On everything else it's manufactured grarg.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
pres man wrote:

Who Will Be President?

Anyone that followed votes like Brexit was not surprised that the polls were wrong about Trump's chances to win. People don't answer honestly about their views if those views are being labeled *-ist. That doesn't mean they reject their views, because their views are often formed by their own experiences and philosophies.

... and a metric done of horsefeathers that they've been fed , loudly and angrily, specifically to make them vote against their own interests.
Well, individuals often have competing interests. It may that one candidate/party only has one issue that the individual agrees with and agrees with multiple issues with the other candidate/party. Yet, it may be that one issue is the most important to them at the time of voting and out weighs the others.
I agree, I think we get into a dangerous place when we start deciding that we know other people's best interests better than they do.

When we get to those who want Obamacare destroyed but think they'll be okay because they get their health insurance through the ACA, we can be pretty sure about it. Or those who think they'll actually get coal jobs back.


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
pres man wrote:

Who Will Be President?

Anyone that followed votes like Brexit was not surprised that the polls were wrong about Trump's chances to win. People don't answer honestly about their views if those views are being labeled *-ist. That doesn't mean they reject their views, because their views are often formed by their own experiences and philosophies.

... and a metric done of horsefeathers that they've been fed , loudly and angrily, specifically to make them vote against their own interests.
Well, individuals often have competing interests. It may that one candidate/party only has one issue that the individual agrees with and agrees with multiple issues with the other candidate/party. Yet, it may be that one issue is the most important to them at the time of voting and out weighs the others.
I agree, I think we get into a dangerous place when we start deciding that we know other people's best interests better than they do.
When we get to those who want Obamacare destroyed but think they'll be okay because they get their health insurance through the ACA, we can be pretty sure about it. Or those who think they'll actually get coal jobs back.

I don't disagree with you about that. But it is still a dangerous place to be.


CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Even with only going after the worst cabinet nominees, they've still delayed more than Republicans did to Obama in 2008.

Yes and no. The primary reason Trump is so far behind where Obama was in filling positions is that he has been much slower in nominating people. Sure, the Democrats have also been obstructing (especially as they've been hearing it from their voters for not doing ENOUGH), but the slow pace of nominations has been the bigger factor.

Knight who says Meh wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
See here's the thing. If the majority of voters have made up their own reality and refuse to listen to reason, than this thread is basically done.

Agreed. That was pretty much my point.

Quote:
You don't need to win die hard republican voters.
50+ million people voted for Trump. This problem is not limited to "die hard republicans."

That's like saying 'global warming denial' or 'belief that Obama is a Muslim from Kenya' is not limited to Republicans... technically true, but serving only to obfuscate the vast disparity.

Recent polls have shown ~90% of "Republican voters" saying that Donald Trump is a truthful person, that his inauguration was the most heavily attended ever, that the Bowling Green massacre happened, and so forth. However, those same polls show only ~50% of "people who voted for Trump" drinking the Cool-Aid on these issues.

That drops the 'living in a fantasy world' portion of the voting public down to a 'mere' ~25 million... and leaves the other ~25 million Trump voters (mostly 'independents') still within potential reach of reason.

Meanwhile, Trump's EC victory was due to ~100,000 votes spread over three states that Democrats usually win. It is amazing that he managed to pull off an EC win despite losing the popular vote by ~3 million. His victory was razor thin and there are more than enough partially sane people who voted for him to swing future elections another way if they become disillusioned.

Heck,...

One example out of so, so many lies. I could provide plenty more if you actually need further evidence. Anyone voting for Trump had little concern for the truth.

Edit: Just to clarify, my original point was that the President of the United States, the de facto leader of the Republican Party, believes in a false reality. It would be fairly difficult to convince me that the holder of the highest office in the land only represented the extreme fringe of a political party.


BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

If you're going to complain about polling, you're going to need to come with extremely detailed data. Specifically dates and methodology.

If the last poll in Oregon was done a month before the primary, than your complaining about it being 10 points off is pretty much meaningless. We don't know that though, because all you provided were two numbers, but there's a mountain of information you're missing. If you're not looking at that information, you're making assumptions and most likely wrong.

Who did the poll? When was it done? How did it compare to other polls? Did something happen between the poll and the primary, like a debate or major news story? How was the poll done? How did they weigh certain demographics? Was all this early or late in the nomination process?

I'd bet $ you formed your opinion before you could answer even one of these questions.

Edit: yeah, you didn't even get the margin of victory right for Oregon. Also, there's scant polling data on the state, so from what I can tell you're basically making it up.

Sanders wins by 10.2 points, local news station poll 7-10 days before the vote shows Clinton in lead by 15

But, yeah, I made it up. Tell yourself whatever you need to keep the fantasy alive.

Edit, it does look like RCP flubbed a button on that page which I admit I didn't double check before posting earlier. Sanders actually won by 12 points. So yeah, I guess I was totally wrong about my point...

Let me get this straight, you cited verifiably incorrect information and you're acting smug about it?

I literally just caught you forming opinions on invalid data. Maybe... just maybe, instead of acting like a know-it-all, do some research and actually think critically about some things.


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

If you're going to complain about polling, you're going to need to come with extremely detailed data. Specifically dates and methodology.

If the last poll in Oregon was done a month before the primary, than your complaining about it being 10 points off is pretty much meaningless. We don't know that though, because all you provided were two numbers, but there's a mountain of information you're missing. If you're not looking at that information, you're making assumptions and most likely wrong.

Who did the poll? When was it done? How did it compare to other polls? Did something happen between the poll and the primary, like a debate or major news story? How was the poll done? How did they weigh certain demographics? Was all this early or late in the nomination process?

I'd bet $ you formed your opinion before you could answer even one of these questions.

Edit: yeah, you didn't even get the margin of victory right for Oregon. Also, there's scant polling data on the state, so from what I can tell you're basically making it up.

Sanders wins by 10.2 points, local news station poll 7-10 days before the vote shows Clinton in lead by 15

But, yeah, I made it up. Tell yourself whatever you need to keep the fantasy alive.

Edit, it does look like RCP flubbed a button on that page which I admit I didn't double check before posting earlier. Sanders actually won by 12 points. So yeah, I guess I was totally wrong about my point...

Let me get this straight, you cited verifiably incorrect information and you're acting smug about it?

I literally just caught you forming opinions on invalid data. Maybe... just maybe, instead of acting like a know-it-all, do some research and actually think critically about some things.

Actually, I formed my opinions live as it unfolded over the course of the last 18 months. I pulled up some information because I don't have eidetic memory. The information I pulled up was incorrect against my position. As in, the correct information supports my statement even more than the original information I presented.

So would you care to present some information that counters my argument or are you just going to blow smoke about how Sanders was under polled by 27% instead of 20% which makes my point somehow invalid?


Irontruth wrote:

Who did the poll? When was it done? How did it compare to other polls? Did something happen between the poll and the primary, like a debate or major news story? How was the poll done? How did they weigh certain demographics? Was all this early or late in the nomination process?

I'd bet $ you formed your opinion before you could answer even one of these questions.

Also, pay up. I accept Paizo gift cards

951 to 1,000 of 4,260 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards