|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
If we're talking about the same incident (Seattle Social Security birthday party), he didn't give up the microphone; it was taken away from him and then he gave up on getting it back as the scene further degenerated.
I think it was later that same day that he unveiled the first draft of his racial justice program that Comrade Seas linked a couple of pages ago, so I assume his team was already working on it after the Netroots Nation disruption.
Still, though, imho, he handled it much better than the Clintons who alternately responded to BLM demonstrators with condescension ("Why don't you go run for something, then?") and abuse (Bill flipping out when Hillary's use of the "super predator" term came up).
thejeff wrote: The problem is, I'm afraid that approach leads to things like ignoring BLM, more "religious freedom" to discriminate, rollbacks of abortion rights, etc. Because those are "divisive" issues that turn off a lot of voters Democrats might reach on economic grounds. I don't know, it feels like republicans want to force democrats to run on these issues though, and we got to get to a point where democrats are framing the debate rather then the other way around.
thejeff wrote: But to do that, you'll have to convince the activists on those issues that they need to sit down and shut up, but still come out and vote enthusiastically, even though they're being ignored. And that's going to be a really hard sell. See I think this is the disconnect, I'm not suggesting that political movements like BLM sit down and shut up, but I am suggesting that the national message needs to be something that appeals to all voters. I'd prefer if assuming that people are for equality is a given rather then a campaign issue. At the state and municipal level it'd be great if movements like BLM had a chance to play kingmaker where some of this systemic racism is hardest felt. At the national level promote issues that effect everyone, like this war on drugs, the fact that minorities are hit by possession laws more often then white probably won't get mentioned by republicans unless democrats frame it that way. Rural American is being hit by an opioid epidemic at the moment. The Democrats could make things better for minority groups by making this better for everyone.
thejeff wrote: I think you're right in the sense that a backlash to activism on these kinds of issues did do a lot to help Republicans and hurt Democrats, especially in this election, but it was to a large extent driven by grassroots activism, not top-down party actions. I love grassroots activism. Quite frankly they're the ones effectively resisting Trump these days. The fact of the mater is we need activists to bring light to issues that we're not aware of. The democrats need to be the party that addresses these issues but, at least at the national level, not the party that driven by them.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: If we're talking about the same incident (Seattle Social Security birthday party), he didn't give up the microphone; it was taken away from him and then he gave up as the scene further degenerated.
I think it was later that same day that he unveiled the first draft of his racial justice program that Comrade Seas linked a couple of pages ago, so I assume his team was already working it after the Netroots Nation disruption.
Still, though, imho, he handled it much better than the Clintons who alternately responded to BLM demonstrators with condescension ("Why don't you go run for something, then?") and abuse (Bill flipping out when Hillary's use of the "super predator" term came up).
Yeah, that's the one. I lump giving up after having the mic taken away in with giving up the mic in general, but I get your point. Regarding the Clintons, while I only begrudgingly voted for Hillary, I will say that I don't really get all of the animosity towards the "Why don't you go run for something" comment. I guess it's mostly because I don't automatically assume that she was intending it to be condescending and (given that I share the philosophy) took it more as a, "be the change you want to see in the world" kind of thing.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: I would, of course, be the first to draw attention to the glaring racial shortcomings of the halcyon Keynesian days of yore, but all these debates about economic populism vs. "identity politics" always make me think of that scene in the biopic miniseries about The Jackson 5.
At one point, the father is defending his stern taskmaster schtick to Angela Bassett and says something like, "Do you want them to spend their lives in front of a blast furnace?!?"
Forty years later, I imagine that a lot of fathers, of all races, would jump at the chance to get their kids into life-long (well, until Carter and Reagan killed the steel industry, anyway) unionized steel jobs.
Don't have much else to say about the inter-Democratic debate, except that, of course, in the circles I run in, the two (economics and the fight against special oppression) are indissolubly linked and that I view said debate as yet another indication that American capitalism can't survive without pitting workers of different races against each other.
But the circles you run in don't win elections and aren't even really trying to. I'm certainly not saying they're not linked or that they should be addressed separately, but just that it's tricky because racism is really entrenched in this country.
Kirth Gersen wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: the natural gerrymander of the country along with the unnatural abomination gerryamdering the republicans pulled is responsible for most of that. Permit me to think that it's time to stop blaming Republicans for all of our own image problems. It doesn't work anymore. I do think that BigNorseWolf does have a point though, with gerrymandering you have a number of republican safe seats where they can be absolutely horrible without fear of consequence, but yes I very much think it's time for democrats to stop responding to the monsters and start worrying their own image.
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: But to do that, you'll have to convince the activists on those issues that they need to sit down and shut up, but still come out and vote enthusiastically, even though they're being ignored. And that's going to be a really hard sell. See I think this is the disconnect, I'm not suggesting that political movements like BLM sit down and shut up, but I am suggesting that the national message needs to be something that appeals to all voters. I'd prefer if assuming that people are for equality is a given rather then a campaign issue. At the state and municipal level it'd be great if movements like BLM had a chance to play kingmaker where some of this systemic racism is hardest felt. At the national level promote issues that effect everyone, like this war on drugs, the fact that minorities are hit by possession laws more often then white probably won't get mentioned by republicans unless democrats frame it that way. Rural American is being hit by an opioid epidemic at the moment. The Democrats could make things better for minority groups by making this better for everyone.
But what does that mean? Are you saying BLM needs to change there message to not scare white people ? (Not going to happen.)
That national Dems should try to take the message and try to reframe in some non-racial context? Or just ignore it, leave it to the local level? That's also not going to play well with the activists.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Captain Battletoad wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: If we're talking about the same incident (Seattle Social Security birthday party), he didn't give up the microphone; it was taken away from him and then he gave up as the scene further degenerated.
I think it was later that same day that he unveiled the first draft of his racial justice program that Comrade Seas linked a couple of pages ago, so I assume his team was already working it after the Netroots Nation disruption.
Still, though, imho, he handled it much better than the Clintons who alternately responded to BLM demonstrators with condescension ("Why don't you go run for something, then?") and abuse (Bill flipping out when Hillary's use of the "super predator" term came up).
Yeah, that's the one. I lump giving up after having the mic taken away in with giving up the mic in general, but I get your point. Regarding the Clintons, while I only begrudgingly voted for Hillary, I will say that I don't really get all of the animosity towards the "Why don't you go run for something" comment. I guess it's mostly because I don't automatically assume that she was intending it to be condescending and (given that I share the philosophy) took it more as a, "be the change you want to see in the world" kind of thing. Clinton Tells Young Black Voter Asking About Diversity, "Why Don't You Go Run for Something, Then?"
It, of course, turned out that the demonstrator already was working with the (successful, IIRC) Ilhan Omar campaign.
thejeff wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: I would, of course, be the first to draw attention to the glaring racial shortcomings of the halcyon Keynesian days of yore, but all these debates about economic populism vs. "identity politics" always make me think of that scene in the biopic miniseries about The Jackson 5.
At one point, the father is defending his stern taskmaster schtick to Angela Bassett and says something like, "Do you want them to spend their lives in front of a blast furnace?!?"
Forty years later, I imagine that a lot of fathers, of all races, would jump at the chance to get their kids into life-long (well, until Carter and Reagan killed the steel industry, anyway) unionized steel jobs.
Don't have much else to say about the inter-Democratic debate, except that, of course, in the circles I run in, the two (economics and the fight against special oppression) are indissolubly linked and that I view said debate as yet another indication that American capitalism can't survive without pitting workers of different races against each other.
But the circles you run in don't win elections and aren't even really trying to. I'm certainly not saying they're not linked or that they should be addressed separately, but just that it's tricky because racism is really entrenched in this country. Just wanted to indicate why I am not weighing in on the populism vs. identity politics debate.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: If we're talking about the same incident (Seattle Social Security birthday party), he didn't give up the microphone; it was taken away from him and then he gave up on getting it back as the scene further degenerated. He wasn't pushed off the stage, he stepped back on his own, he didn't cut the mic, his team would later let them speak, and most importantly, he didn't have security escort them off the stage before they were given a chance to speak. I think Bernie handled that as well as anyone could. Ideally a politician should listen to the activists as much as the lobbyists, but in the modern era I don't think either side, republican or democrat has much incentive to listen to the citizens. Thankfully a number of big business are pushing the progressive agenda.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Captain Battletoad wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: If we're talking about the same incident (Seattle Social Security birthday party), he didn't give up the microphone; it was taken away from him and then he gave up as the scene further degenerated.
I think it was later that same day that he unveiled the first draft of his racial justice program that Comrade Seas linked a couple of pages ago, so I assume his team was already working it after the Netroots Nation disruption.
Still, though, imho, he handled it much better than the Clintons who alternately responded to BLM demonstrators with condescension ("Why don't you go run for something, then?") and abuse (Bill flipping out when Hillary's use of the "super predator" term came up).
Yeah, that's the one. I lump giving up after having the mic taken away in with giving up the mic in general, but I get your point. Regarding the Clintons, while I only begrudgingly voted for Hillary, I will say that I don't really get all of the animosity towards the "Why don't you go run for something" comment. I guess it's mostly because I don't automatically assume that she was intending it to be condescending and (given that I share the philosophy) took it more as a, "be the change you want to see in the world" kind of thing. Clinton Tells Young Black Voter Asking About Diversity, "Why Don't You Go Run for Something, Then?"
It, of course, turned out that the demonstrator already was working with the (successful, IIRC) Ilhan Omar campaign.
I'm familiar with the incident, I'm just not seeing why that's instantly interpreted as condescending, particularly when in that article they even mention that in another case it would be an inspiring message to go out and change the world or some such, even if they don't think it applies here (I disagree with that last part, but that's no surprise considering it's a Jezebel piece).
Guy Humual wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: If we're talking about the same incident (Seattle Social Security birthday party), he didn't give up the microphone; it was taken away from him and then he gave up on getting it back as the scene further degenerated. He wasn't pushed off the stage, he stepped back on his own, he didn't cut the mic, his team would later let them speak, and most importantly, he didn't have security escort them off the stage before they were given a chance to speak. I think Bernie handled that as well as anyone could. Ideally a politician should listen to the activists as much as the lobbyists, but in the modern era I don't think either side, republican or democrat has much incentive to listen to the citizens. Thankfully a number of big business are pushing the progressive agenda. Absolutely they should listen to activists, but there's a distinct difference between listening to activists and giving up the floor just because someone demands it.
I agree that he handled it better than I would have expected.
However, I am going to draw attention to a piece by the protesters written in response to Killer Mike when he made the same claim about giving up the microphone:
"This, of course, was not my experience. Mara and I were met with constant resistance as we fought to gain control of the mic. Nearly every man on stage put their hands on me. Even Senator Sanders himself chest-bumped me in an effort to get back to the podium. And after we made it clear that he would not be able to address the audience before apologizing for silencing Black women when confronted at Netroots earlier in July, he insisted that he was not going to apologize and he left the event."
What Killer Mike Got Wrong About My Bernie Sanders Confrontation
I'm not necessarily taking sides; I wasn't there so what do I know? But I think it's worth mentioning the protester's objections to the sanitized retelling of the incident.
Captain Battletoad wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Captain Battletoad wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: If we're talking about the same incident (Seattle Social Security birthday party), he didn't give up the microphone; it was taken away from him and then he gave up as the scene further degenerated.
I think it was later that same day that he unveiled the first draft of his racial justice program that Comrade Seas linked a couple of pages ago, so I assume his team was already working it after the Netroots Nation disruption.
Still, though, imho, he handled it much better than the Clintons who alternately responded to BLM demonstrators with condescension ("Why don't you go run for something, then?") and abuse (Bill flipping out when Hillary's use of the "super predator" term came up).
Yeah, that's the one. I lump giving up after having the mic taken away in with giving up the mic in general, but I get your point. Regarding the Clintons, while I only begrudgingly voted for Hillary, I will say that I don't really get all of the animosity towards the "Why don't you go run for something" comment. I guess it's mostly because I don't automatically assume that she was intending it to be condescending and (given that I share the philosophy) took it more as a, "be the change you want to see in the world" kind of thing. Clinton Tells Young Black Voter Asking About Diversity, "Why Don't You Go Run for Something, Then?"
It, of course, turned out that the demonstrator already was working with the (successful, IIRC) Ilhan Omar campaign.
I'm familiar with the incident, I'm just not seeing why that's instantly interpreted as condescending, particularly when in that article they even mention that in another case it would be an inspiring message to go out and change the world or some such, even if they don't think it applies here (I disagree with that last part, but that's no surprise... Because it was meant to shut her up.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Captain Battletoad wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Captain Battletoad wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: If we're talking about the same incident (Seattle Social Security birthday party), he didn't give up the microphone; it was taken away from him and then he gave up as the scene further degenerated.
I think it was later that same day that he unveiled the first draft of his racial justice program that Comrade Seas linked a couple of pages ago, so I assume his team was already working it after the Netroots Nation disruption.
Still, though, imho, he handled it much better than the Clintons who alternately responded to BLM demonstrators with condescension ("Why don't you go run for something, then?") and abuse (Bill flipping out when Hillary's use of the "super predator" term came up).
Yeah, that's the one. I lump giving up after having the mic taken away in with giving up the mic in general, but I get your point. Regarding the Clintons, while I only begrudgingly voted for Hillary, I will say that I don't really get all of the animosity towards the "Why don't you go run for something" comment. I guess it's mostly because I don't automatically assume that she was intending it to be condescending and (given that I share the philosophy) took it more as a, "be the change you want to see in the world" kind of thing. Clinton Tells Young Black Voter Asking About Diversity, "Why Don't You Go Run for Something, Then?"
It, of course, turned out that the demonstrator already was working with the (successful, IIRC) Ilhan Omar campaign.
I'm familiar with the incident, I'm just not seeing why that's instantly interpreted as condescending, particularly when in that article they even mention that in another case it would be an inspiring message to go out and change the world or some such, even if they don't think it applies here (I disagree with that last ... That's an assumption (unless you have Detect Thoughts in your spellbook) but even if it is true (which again, is not my position), how exactly does that make it condescending? Coward-like maybe, but condescending?
thejeff wrote: But what does that mean? Are you saying BLM needs to change there message to not scare white people ? (Not going to happen.)
That national Dems should try to take the message and try to reframe in some non-racial context? Or just ignore it, leave it to the local level? That's also not going to play well with the activists.
We had a situation in Ferguson, in the subsequent election the BLM movement managed to get greater diversity on the city council, I know the problem isn't now fixed but I think that's a step in the right direction. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.
I think the democrats have to fame things that appeal to all voters at the national level, work with activist groups, but like the global warming debate, we have to stop letting conservatives suggest that there's a debate. You can't discriminate, period, end of discussion, now let's talk about the economy.
Guy Humual wrote: See I think this is the disconnect, I'm not suggesting that political movements like BLM sit down and shut up, but I am suggesting that the national message needs to be something that appeals to all voters. I'd prefer if assuming that people are for equality is a given rather then a campaign issue. At the state and municipal level it'd be great if movements like BLM had a chance to play kingmaker where some of this systemic racism is hardest felt. At the national level promote issues that effect everyone, like this war on drugs, the fact that minorities are hit by possession laws more often then white probably won't get mentioned by republicans unless democrats frame it that way. Rural American is being hit by an opioid epidemic at the moment. The Democrats could make things better for minority groups by making this better for everyone.
The problem here is that, by only pitching economic and sidelining those issues such as BLM and similar topics, you maybe will get some of those voters that didn't show up/voted for others, but then potentially loose other elements of the voter base, including minority voters or people who largely connect to the party over concerns your asking shouldn't be a priority.
At the local level...sure. Some of those issues might not be relevant, so campaign more strongly on other issues. At the national level? you need to gather as many people under your tent as possible. The assumption that left leaning voters will just naturally gravitate to your party because they historically did so was the same thing that blew up in the Democrat's face in the last election
Captain Battletoad wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Captain Battletoad wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Captain Battletoad wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: If we're talking about the same incident (Seattle Social Security birthday party), he didn't give up the microphone; it was taken away from him and then he gave up as the scene further degenerated.
I think it was later that same day that he unveiled the first draft of his racial justice program that Comrade Seas linked a couple of pages ago, so I assume his team was already working it after the Netroots Nation disruption.
Still, though, imho, he handled it much better than the Clintons who alternately responded to BLM demonstrators with condescension ("Why don't you go run for something, then?") and abuse (Bill flipping out when Hillary's use of the "super predator" term came up).
Yeah, that's the one. I lump giving up after having the mic taken away in with giving up the mic in general, but I get your point. Regarding the Clintons, while I only begrudgingly voted for Hillary, I will say that I don't really get all of the animosity towards the "Why don't you go run for something" comment. I guess it's mostly because I don't automatically assume that she was intending it to be condescending and (given that I share the philosophy) took it more as a, "be the change you want to see in the world" kind of thing. Clinton Tells Young Black Voter Asking About Diversity, "Why Don't You Go Run for Something, Then?"
It, of course, turned out that the demonstrator already was working with the (successful, IIRC) Ilhan Omar campaign.
I'm familiar with the incident, I'm just not seeing why that's instantly interpreted as condescending, particularly when in that article they even mention that in another case it would be an inspiring message to go out and change the world or some such, even if they don't think it ... I think assuming that a young black woman who asks BLM-esque questions isn't already involved in political campaigning and then lecturing her to do so reeks of condescension (dictionary definition: an air of patronizing superiority, disdain), particularly when it turns out that said woman was already doing so. Don't know how to put it any other way than that. If you don't, then we disagree. It happens.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: I agree that he handled it better than I would have expected.
However, I am going to draw attention to a piece by the protesters written in response to Killer Mike when he made the same claim about giving up the microphone:
"This, of course, was not my experience. Mara and I were met with constant resistance as we fought to gain control of the mic. Nearly every man on stage put their hands on me. Even Senator Sanders himself chest-bumped me in an effort to get back to the podium. And after we made it clear that he would not be able to address the audience before apologizing for silencing Black women when confronted at Netroots earlier in July, he insisted that he was not going to apologize and he left the event."
What Killer Mike Got Wrong About My Bernie Sanders Confrontation
I'm not necessarily taking sides; I wasn't there so what do I know? But I think it's worth mentioning the protester's objections to the sanitized retelling of the incident.
I just re-watched the video, I didn't see any direct contact with Sanders, though she may have bumped his arms as she approached the podium, unless Sanders got physical in a cut segment, he stepped back almost immediately and the confrontation was with, who I assume was the event organizer, or else a local politician. Sanders I think puts his hand on her shoulder to get her attention but that's about it. I suppose in the time between all the shouting on stage and when the young ladies were allowed to talk Sanders might have rushed from the back of the stage and started chest bumping, but I don't see it in the Raw video
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: But what does that mean? Are you saying BLM needs to change there message to not scare white people ? (Not going to happen.)
That national Dems should try to take the message and try to reframe in some non-racial context? Or just ignore it, leave it to the local level? That's also not going to play well with the activists.
We had a situation in Ferguson, in the subsequent election the BLM movement managed to get greater diversity on the city council, I know the problem isn't now fixed but I think that's a step in the right direction. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.
I think the democrats have to fame things that appeal to all voters at the national level, work with activist groups, but like the global warming debate, we have to stop letting conservatives suggest that there's a debate. You can't discriminate, period, end of discussion, now let's talk about the economy. Right. Just tell the activists they're on their own, work on the local level, it's too politically divisive for national politics to touch.
And the Civil Rights arm of the Justice Department shouldn't have gotten involved. Shouldn't have investigated the department. The various consent decrees they've gotten from civil rights cases against Ferguson and other departments with racist histories shouldn't have been done.
I mean, the local stuff is great, but you need broader reforms too.
And I don't have the faintest idea how we can stop conservatives from pretending there's a debate. Over climate change or discrimination. You can't simultaneously back away from the fight because it's too divisive and demand the other side concede. They'll just keep discriminating and making things worse on both the local and national level, while you avoid the fight.
MMCJawa wrote: Guy Humual wrote: See I think this is the disconnect, I'm not suggesting that political movements like BLM sit down and shut up, but I am suggesting that the national message needs to be something that appeals to all voters. I'd prefer if assuming that people are for equality is a given rather then a campaign issue. At the state and municipal level it'd be great if movements like BLM had a chance to play kingmaker where some of this systemic racism is hardest felt. At the national level promote issues that effect everyone, like this war on drugs, the fact that minorities are hit by possession laws more often then white probably won't get mentioned by republicans unless democrats frame it that way. Rural American is being hit by an opioid epidemic at the moment. The Democrats could make things better for minority groups by making this better for everyone.
The problem here is that, by only pitching economic and sidelining those issues such as BLM and similar topics, you maybe will get some of those voters that didn't show up/voted for others, but then potentially loose other elements of the voter base, including minority voters or people who largely connect to the party over concerns your asking shouldn't be a priority.
At the local level...sure. Some of those issues might not be relevant, so campaign more strongly on other issues. At the national level? you need to gather as many people under your tent as possible. The assumption that left leaning voters will just naturally gravitate to your party because they historically did so was the same thing that blew up in the Democrat's face in the last election Well that is possible, but if you're focusing on issues that affects the majority of voters minority groups will also feel positive effects from these policies. It won't fix things but it would be positive change.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Kirth Gersen wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: the natural gerrymander of the country along with the unnatural abomination gerryamdering the republicans pulled is responsible for most of that. Permit me to think that it's time to stop blaming Republicans for all of our own image problems. It doesn't work anymore. Its not a matter of what works or not, its reality. Democrats are winning the popular opinion by millions of votes, both in terms of the presidency and the legislature. They still lose the government seats. You can change peoples hearts and minds but that won't do anything if people aren't allowed to change the government.
Guy Humual wrote: Raw video Hee hee!
Re-watching that just made my day.
EDIT: Had forgotten that we helped organize that event.
SAWANT GIVES SOCIALIST WELCOME TO BERNIE SANDERS
MMCJawa wrote: Guy Humual wrote: See I think this is the disconnect, I'm not suggesting that political movements like BLM sit down and shut up, but I am suggesting that the national message needs to be something that appeals to all voters. I'd prefer if assuming that people are for equality is a given rather then a campaign issue. At the state and municipal level it'd be great if movements like BLM had a chance to play kingmaker where some of this systemic racism is hardest felt. At the national level promote issues that effect everyone, like this war on drugs, the fact that minorities are hit by possession laws more often then white probably won't get mentioned by republicans unless democrats frame it that way. Rural American is being hit by an opioid epidemic at the moment. The Democrats could make things better for minority groups by making this better for everyone. The problem here is that, by only pitching economic and sidelining those issues such as BLM and similar topics, you maybe will get some of those voters that didn't show up/voted for others, but then potentially loose other elements of the voter base, including minority voters or people who largely connect to the party over concerns your asking shouldn't be a priority.
At the local level...sure. Some of those issues might not be relevant, so campaign more strongly on other issues. At the national level? you need to gather as many people under your tent as possible. The assumption that left leaning voters will just naturally gravitate to your party because they historically did so was the same thing that blew up in the Democrat's face in the last election Yeah, but I think the Dems are caught in kind of a trap here. I think they gain and lose voters pretty much whichever way they move.
There's a lot of the WWC they can't get unless they back off on "social justice" stuff, no matter what they do economically. If they back off on "social justice", they start to lose that group of supporters.
Despite Bernie's fans, I do think moving to the populist left economically will scare off some as well as pickup others. There's an opening for more, which there really wasn't until recently, but there's still a lot of fear of anything that can be painted as socialism. If they could draw from the pool that are driven off by social justice, they could draw more voters here, but they still can't keep the rest of their base.
Part of the problem with the whole "big tent" thing is that some of the people you're trying to bring in really aren't happy being in the same tent as some of the others.
And with Republicans running more openly as on white identity politics than anytime since the 60s, it's hard to make that appeal.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: MMCJawa wrote: Guy Humual wrote: See I think this is the disconnect, I'm not suggesting that political movements like BLM sit down and shut up, but I am suggesting that the national message needs to be something that appeals to all voters. I'd prefer if assuming that people are for equality is a given rather then a campaign issue. At the state and municipal level it'd be great if movements like BLM had a chance to play kingmaker where some of this systemic racism is hardest felt. At the national level promote issues that effect everyone, like this war on drugs, the fact that minorities are hit by possession laws more often then white probably won't get mentioned by republicans unless democrats frame it that way. Rural American is being hit by an opioid epidemic at the moment. The Democrats could make things better for minority groups by making this better for everyone.
The problem here is that, by only pitching economic and sidelining those issues such as BLM and similar topics, you maybe will get some of those voters that didn't show up/voted for others, but then potentially loose other elements of the voter base, including minority voters or people who largely connect to the party over concerns your asking shouldn't be a priority.
At the local level...sure. Some of those issues might not be relevant, so campaign more strongly on other issues. At the national level? you need to gather as many people under your tent as possible. The assumption that left leaning voters will just naturally gravitate to your party because they historically did so was the same thing that blew up in the Democrat's face in the last election Well that is possible, but if you're focusing on issues that affects the majority of voters minority groups will also feel positive effects from these policies. It won't fix things but it would be positive change. The cops'll still beat on you guys and you'd better get back in the closet and women'll just get screwed, but wages are going to go up a bit. Mostly for the white men, since it's easier to discriminate against the rest of you.
Celebrate, damn it.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
I'm familiar with the incident, I'm just not seeing why that's instantly interpreted as condescending, particularly when in that article they even mention that in another case it would be an inspiring message to go out and change the world or some such, even if they don't think it applies here (I disagree with that last part, but that's no surprise...
I feel like the mainstream party "just not seeing" is a big part of why they've been on a pretty major downtrend on election victories. At some point answering "maybe i'm out of touch" with "no its the kids who are wrong" is going to have to go.
Ryan Freire wrote: Captain Battletoad wrote:
I'm familiar with the incident, I'm just not seeing why that's instantly interpreted as condescending, particularly when in that article they even mention that in another case it would be an inspiring message to go out and change the world or some such, even if they don't think it applies here (I disagree with that last part, but that's no surprise...
I feel like the mainstream party "just not seeing" is a big part of why they've been on a pretty major downtrend on election victories. At some point answering "maybe i'm out of touch" with "no its the kids who are wrong" is going to have to go. I'm not a Democrat, and even if I was, I'm not in a position of leadership within the party, so I don't really see a problem with forming my own conclusion from the evidence with which I've been presented, regardless of whether or not "the kids" (not sure who all that includes) agree.
Captain Battletoad wrote: Ryan Freire wrote: Captain Battletoad wrote:
I'm familiar with the incident, I'm just not seeing why that's instantly interpreted as condescending, particularly when in that article they even mention that in another case it would be an inspiring message to go out and change the world or some such, even if they don't think it applies here (I disagree with that last part, but that's no surprise...
I feel like the mainstream party "just not seeing" is a big part of why they've been on a pretty major downtrend on election victories. At some point answering "maybe i'm out of touch" with "no its the kids who are wrong" is going to have to go. I'm not a Democrat, and even if I was, I'm not in a position of leadership within the party, so I don't really see a problem with forming my own conclusion from the evidence with which I've been presented, regardless of whether or not "the kids" (not sure who all that includes) agree. Thats the thing, people in positions of leadership within the party take the same stance, i was referencing the attitude. Whether you're a Democrat or not is irrelevant, its the attitude im referencing (including those who post here like irontruth and KWSMeh) is murdering their support. No one is going to be excited to vote for someone who responds to their concerns with "if you want it so bad run for office yourself".
But i mean i get it, its easier for the establishment to blame others for being uninspiring and abrasive to the next generation of left wing voters and then hope things are bad enough by 2018 that they can win an occasional election without putting forth effort to change their positions and approach.
It may well (probably will) work too, but its only going to contribute to the wild swings where people get into office and spend the entire term undoing everything the people in there before them did, back and forth every 4-6 years.
thejeff wrote: Right. Just tell the activists they're on their own, work on the local level, it's too politically divisive for national politics to touch. Why would you tell them they're on their own? The majority of the country should theoretically be on their side. You fix things like health care, income inequality, the war on drugs, etc. and you make things better for all Americans. You can continue to give whatever aid you can to fight inequality and civil rights violations but you don't make that your campaign. You just make it your given position.
thejeff wrote: And the Civil Rights arm of the Justice Department shouldn't have gotten involved. Shouldn't have investigated the department. The various consent decrees they've gotten from civil rights cases against Ferguson and other departments with racist histories shouldn't have been done. I didn't say that. This is part and parcel with the behind the scenes stuff I was talking about earlier.
thejeff wrote: I mean, the local stuff is great, but you need broader reforms too. What national reforms would you suggest? I mean I'm not against fighting for civil rights, but I'm really not sure what more can be done at the national level. Seems like it's the states that are doing all these horrible anti-LGBTQ laws ATM. Course I may be missing something as I'm not American and might not fully understand the problems at hand.
thejeff wrote: And I don't have the faintest idea how we can stop conservatives from pretending there's a debate. Over climate change or discrimination. You can't simultaneously back away from the fight because it's too divisive and demand the other side concede. They'll just keep discriminating and making things worse on both the local and national level, while you avoid the fight. Right, but at some point you have to stop assuming there's a debate, climate change is real, it's man made, what we have to debate now is what we're going to do about it. That's the current debate. Equality is one of America's core principals, it's not a historical debate about intent, it's what America stands for now. If we're going to discuss civil rights we're going to discus how to make things better for all Americans rather then how to make things worse for a few Americans.
The problem here is that the news media is controlled by a handful of companies and it is in their best interests to keep things running the way they are now, not specifically with republicans in charge and Trump in the White House, but rather with these stupid debates over stuff that was sorted years ago. They like people fighting amongst themselves rather then focusing on issues that actually mater.
thejeff wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Well that is possible, but if you're focusing on issues that affects the majority of voters minority groups will also feel positive effects from these policies. It won't fix things but it would be positive change. The cops'll still beat on you guys and you'd better get back in the closet and women'll just get screwed, but wages are going to go up a bit. Mostly for the white men, since it's easier to discriminate against the rest of you.
Celebrate, damn it. Are you suggesting that if a Democrat doesn't run on civil rights that they'd abandon these issues when they got into office? Having values is all well and good, civil liberties are drastically important, but they don't win elections against swamp monsters. If they did Berlusconi wouldn't have had over a decade as Prime Minister of Italy.
I had a hypothesis, so I decided to do some digging.
(cw: race)
Hypothesis (just a guess): Historically, economic divisions in the U.S.A. have had a strong racial component - people of color have higher rates of poverty and unemployment. The modern shift toward automation has removed many stable jobs that were previously held by white-identity people, though, so there is a surge in displacement and resentment among this subgroup at their economic distress, which some political groups redirect as race hate. This would be indicative of a problem in which white-identity groups are voting for policies that they believe will relieve their economic distress based on the false notion that it's all the fault of immigrants and people of color, when the underlying problem is that there are fewer good jobs even for white-identity people due to the modern automated and outsourced economy.
Short version: "Middle-American white people are losing good jobs more now, so they are voting along race lines based on the belief that minorities' movements are impacting their ability to find employment."
What I looked up: If this hypothesis is correct, supporting data should indicate an increase in poverty and unemployment among white-identity persons and families concomitant with their sense of economic displacement.
Sources:
U.S. Census historical poverty tables here.
Bureau of Labor statistics here. Most of these require going back through individual years and assembling data comparisons.
Most of these tables go back to the '50s if you dig.
What I found: As expected, there's a large surge in unemployment across all demographics in 2009, after the market crash. Also, poverty overall has tended to decline since the '50s.
Specifically looking to see if the situation for white-identity people and families has gotten worse, it looks like based on these statistics that it hasn't - at least, not recently. There was a jump around '82 in unemployment, and there were some periods in the '90s where it was worse, but overall the trends are not changing by race.
What this data supports: This doesn't support my original hypothesis that there's a significant amount of "white distress" from lost jobs. There might be regions where this is the case but overall from national statistics it doesn't look like there's support for the notion that large amounts of white people are being displaced from employment.
What that means: It means that if people are saying "white folks are now losing their jobs and so they're being pushed into increasingly desperate situations economically, which means they are voting punitively," the data doesn't support this phenomenon actually happening. Note that this doesn't mean that white people aren't believing that to be the case and voting accordingly - that is, there may be people out there who believe that the job situation for white people has gotten really bad and are taking it out on minorities by voting to suppress them. But the numbers don't seem to support the idea that there's a huge amount of job displacement that didn't previously exist.
Note also: I didn't dig too deeply into overall wages and full-time vs. part-time employment; certainly wage stagnation or a shift from full-time to part-time jobs (and less job stability) could also have an impact.
I thought this was interesting from an economic perspective. It means that if the narrative is "white people have started losing jobs en masse due to automation, but they are taking it out on minorities at the polls," the data does not support this as the actual reason - but what gets people to vote a particular way is often divorced from actual reasons.
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Well that is possible, but if you're focusing on issues that affects the majority of voters minority groups will also feel positive effects from these policies. It won't fix things but it would be positive change. The cops'll still beat on you guys and you'd better get back in the closet and women'll just get screwed, but wages are going to go up a bit. Mostly for the white men, since it's easier to discriminate against the rest of you.
Celebrate, damn it. Are you suggesting that if a Democrat doesn't run on civil rights that they'd abandon these issues when they got into office? Having values is all well and good, civil liberties are drastically important, but they don't win elections against swamp monsters. If they did Berlusconi wouldn't have had over a decade as Prime Minister of Italy. I'm saying that we don't expect politicians to do great things for us that they refuse to talk about while running. I'm saying that if they don't run on them and then do them, they'll be attacked on that.
I really don't buy the "Shh, trust us. We have to be quiet about it and not let anyone know we're going to help you. But trust us."
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I must admit I'm baffled by this idea that Democrats can't have a good stance on the economy, AND support civil rights at the same time.
That is what Obama did campaigned on in 08, and he won easily.
Clinton had a history of being generally bad on the economy AND civil rights, and lost.
I think there is a huge, and RAPIDLY GROWING block of voters who are looking for economic populism, and progressive civil rights. The Democratic establishment should be appealing to it, not looking to subvert it to pick up suburban white republicans.
Reminds me of the Simpsons episode with Kang and Kodos running as politicians during the Clinton/ Dole election. "We must take the politics of failure, and make them work again!" The Democrats need to stop behaving badly to appeal to people who already hate them, and start appealing to people who want to vote for them.
Fergie wrote: I must admit I'm baffled by this idea that Democrats can't have a good stance on the economy, AND support civil rights at the same time.
That is what Obama did campaigned on in 08, and he won easily.
Clinton had a history of being generally bad on the economy AND civil rights, and lost.
I think there is a huge, and RAPIDLY GROWING block of voters who are looking for economic populism, and progressive civil rights. The Democratic establishment should be appealing to it, not looking to subvert it to pick up suburban white republicans.
Reminds me of the Simpsons episode with Kang and Kodos running as politicians during the Clinton/ Dole election. "We must take the politics of failure, and make them work again!" The Democrats need to stop behaving badly to appeal to people who already hate them, and start appealing to people who want to vote for them.
Hypothesis (sadly I don't have data for this one): Large political parties that are capable of winning national elections require massive infusions of capital that they have to get primarily from SuperPACs and corporations. Taking a position of economic populism and progressive civil rights will dry up that funding.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Fergie wrote: I must admit I'm baffled by this idea that Democrats can't have a good stance on the economy, AND support civil rights at the same time.
That is what Obama did campaigned on in 08, and he won easily.
Clinton had a history of being generally bad on the economy AND civil rights, and lost.
I think there is a huge, and RAPIDLY GROWING block of voters who are looking for economic populism, and progressive civil rights. The Democratic establishment should be appealing to it, not looking to subvert it to pick up suburban white republicans.
Reminds me of the Simpsons episode with Kang and Kodos running as politicians during the Clinton/ Dole election. "We must take the politics of failure, and make them work again!" The Democrats need to stop behaving badly to appeal to people who already hate them, and start appealing to people who want to vote for them.
Obama won in 2008 on "Ohmigod the Republicans were a disaster and made everything collapse." That and gobs of charisma and political talent were even able to overcome being black.
Clinton didn't have those advantages.
Social issues have also been much more front and center these last few years than even 2012. BLM & "religious freedom", etc are much higher profile than even 4 years ago - which was before Ferguson and before the SC decision on marriage.
I think they can and should run on both, don't get me wrong. I just don't think that won't cause backlash that loses voters they could gain on one. Nor do I think the "economic populism" block is nearly so strong as you think it is, but that's personal opinion and I'd love to be proven wrong. Down ticket wins by Democratic "populists" would have done a lot to persuade me.
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: Right. Just tell the activists they're on their own, work on the local level, it's too politically divisive for national politics to touch. Why would you tell them they're on their own? The majority of the country should theoretically be on their side. You fix things like health care, income inequality, the war on drugs, etc. and you make things better for all Americans. You can continue to give whatever aid you can to fight inequality and civil rights violations but you don't make that your campaign. You just make it your given position.
The thing is...even if it's not a major campaign platform, the person running DOES have to have some stance on the matter. Reporters, special interest groups, and voters are going to ask a candidate positions on a topic of interest. So what does the prospective candidate say? Even if the party doesn't want to make it an issue, he will eventually have to have a stance, and how he articulates the stance is going to impact the enthusiasm and decision of potential voters
I mean sure...locally a politician might not need to formulate a response. Plenty of counties across the USA are not necessarily going to be impacted by every issue of national interest. But at higher level of office? This stuff is going to come up.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Jesse Heinig wrote: Hypothesis (sadly I don't have data for this one): Large political parties that are capable of winning national elections require massive infusions of capital that they have to get primarily from SuperPACs and corporations. Taking a position of economic populism and progressive civil rights will dry up that funding. Five or ten years ago, I would have absolutely agreed. But several things have happened recently that have thrown a wrench into that idea.
Sanders did remarkably well despite little media coverage, and funding largely from small donors. [EDIT: Sanders is BY FAR the most popular politician in the US, and I don't think it is because of corporate donations] Trump beat Clinton despite being Trump, and getting outspent something like 2:1 by Clinton. While Trump got oddly generous media coverage (things like showing his campaign rallies) there was generally a dismissive and insulting tone to virtually all of the editorial content. News achaors would straight up laugh at the idea of Trump being president. It was a joke. It was only in the final days and weeks of the campaign did Trump get general RNC, and Fox support, and even then it was less then any candidate I can recall in my lifetime.
In other words Clinton had everything a candidate would have needed for a resounding victory ten years ago, and lost to the most disapproved of candidate in history! The rules of the game had changed.
MMCJawa wrote: Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: Right. Just tell the activists they're on their own, work on the local level, it's too politically divisive for national politics to touch. Why would you tell them they're on their own? The majority of the country should theoretically be on their side. You fix things like health care, income inequality, the war on drugs, etc. and you make things better for all Americans. You can continue to give whatever aid you can to fight inequality and civil rights violations but you don't make that your campaign. You just make it your given position.
The thing is...even if it's not a major campaign platform, the person running DOES have to have some stance on the matter. Reporters, special interest groups, and voters are going to ask a candidate positions on a topic of interest. So what does the prospective candidate say? Even if the party doesn't want to make it an issue, he will eventually have to have a stance, and how he articulates the stance is going to impact the enthusiasm and decision of potential voters
I mean sure...locally a politician might not need to formulate a response. Plenty of counties across the USA are not necessarily going to be impacted by every issue of national interest. But at higher level of office? This stuff is going to come up. This is true, and for some reason thejeff seems to think I'm claiming it's one or the other, but it's not. What I'm saying is you can have good positions on civil rights, be against discrimination, but run on issues that will be popular across the country. If Sanders gets the nomination and his main focus is income inequality, student debt, and health care does that mean he's throwing civil rights and gender equality under the bus? No, it means he focusing on what the majority of Americans are interested in to get elected. I don't think Sanders or most democrats are going to be horrible on these issues once elected if they don't run on those issues.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: Obama won in 2008 on "Ohmigod the Republicans were a disaster and made everything collapse." That and gobs of charisma and political talent were even able to overcome being black. True, but the "change" he was talking about was a clear rejection of neoliberalism, or rather it's even uglier cousin neoconservatism. Obama ran on upending NAFTA, putting people to work on government funded infrasturcture projects (and "clean coal"!), reigning in wall street and the big banks, etc. The disaster was neoliberalism/neoconservatism, and that is what everyone HOPEd to CHANGE!
Social issues have also been front and center. There were the LA riots, and shooting of unarmed black people has been happening since forever. Gay rights has been a big deal since at least Stonewall. There never was a time when those kinds of issues were really on the back burner with the possible exception of the 4 days of Desert Storm, and a few days after 9/11.
Like it or not, the Democrats are defined by who they run for president. Sure there are Warrens and Frankens, who show a better side, but your "brand" is who you put forward every four years. Maybe think about anointing a leader who isn't the second most disapproved candidate in history!
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Irontruth wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
As for the rest, if you're going to insist that neoliberalism is just doctrinaire regurgitation of Hayek, Von Mises and Friedman and ignore, for example, Peters' "A Neo-Liberal's Manifesto" and that circle of Democrat leaders, then I can understand your confusion.
The article you linked earlier as being what you considered a good definition of "neoliberalism" talked about Hayek and Von Mises, so I took it that you wanted to proceed forward with that definition of "neoliberalism". I was going off of what you linked... cause I think the term is silly and should be discarded (or replaced with a better defined term). Is there a different one you'd like to use? Also, if people continue using it poorly defined, can I still be annoyed at them and not you?
Because Hayek and Peters do not agree on multiple things. I can definitely see the influence Hayek has had on Peter's "Manifesto", but Peter's essay is not a shining example of what Hayek was talking about.
edit: to clarify, most of my problem with how people use the term "neoliberal" has nothing to do with ideology, it's purely an annoyance at unclear communication. I'd be just as annoyed if people replaced random words in their posts with the word "turtle" and made it super hard to understand what their complaint is. I'm annoyed at the buzzwordification of the term and people assuming if they include it in a paragraph that it proves their point. (Sorry for the delay, I was out May Daying.)
And I find the buzzwordification of a term that's been in the leftie lexicon for two decades now (I first came across it during teenage readings in Chomsky and Klein) to be long overdue.
I find the term useful in indicating the gap, not only between the New Deal Democrats and their later incarnations, but also between how capitalism was administered during the halcyon Keynesian days of yore and the world we live in now.
For example, even though Comrade Fergie didn't have the confidence... Hayek would hate the IMF, as it represents government control and manipulation of the markets. Just saying. I'm not fan of it either and agree that it's been used to do all the things you mention, but the person who originally coined the term "neoliberalism" would consider it to be the opposite of the term. It's governments from wealthy countries using their money to manipulate and control the governments of poorer countries. If anything, that's "neoimperialism". You don't have to get very far into The Road to Serfdom to see that Hayek would consider a central planning committee such as the IMF as antithetical to his own beliefs.
The IMF and other institutions don't just break down centralized control, rather they exercise it for their own ends. That's literally the opposite of Hayek's "neoliberalism".
Yes, I am in favor of globalization. I'm not interested in the current corporate-focused version we have now, but rather I am in favor of a more connected world with greater cultural and economic exchange. I think people as well as goods should be allowed to cross borders, live where they want, work where they want. Last year you mentioned a story about taking someone to a congressional office to plead their case for asylum (I don't remember the details). I'm fully in favor of breaking down the barriers that prevented them and their family from coming here. A person's place of birth shouldn't determine whether or not they are given safe harbor, or whether they can work.
I'm in favor of massive education reform. I think anyone who isn't has their head up their ass. I would actually like the teacher's union to take the lead on it. Bad teachers do exist. In some regions, the training requirements are to blame. In some states teachers literally receive zero feedback and/or training for their entire career after they get certified. They're required to know the subject, but they aren't required to know methods of teaching.
Here in Minnesota we have one of the strongest teachers unions in the country. I would love to see the union become a model of self-reform, building a support network to help teachers improve at their trade and thereby improve the results for students. Minnesota has something called the MEA, a 2-day conference where teachers can go and learn new things about their profession. As far as state-wide ongoing teacher education, this amounts to several order of magnitude more than some teachers get in other states.
Many teachers around the country are never evaluated (or evaluated so little as to be meaningless) and never receive ongoing professional education/training. Yet it's a field where new techniques and methods are constantly being devised, based on new research that is being done. I don't want to fire bad teachers, I just want to send them to more school.
We need to fix issues for students, like poverty and racism, but we aren't going to fix them over night. We aren't going to fix teachers overnight either, but better teachers is much faster and will help alleviate some of the impacts of poverty and racism. The countries where students outperform our students haven't solved poverty and racism, they have better teachers. Better teachers aren't born, they're trained.
I'm not sure what the public works program was that I pooh-pooh'd. You'd have to refresh my memory. In general, I'm opposed to straight-up "make work" programs. I'd define anything as "make work" if it doesn't provide a useful service or good, beyond the fact that it employs someone. For example, I consider most military spending "make work", because it doesn't actually produce anything useful to anyone. A tank isn't useful, because it doesn't provide anything to anyone. Conversely, a car is useful because people use it to get to work, conduct business, assist their family in their needs, etc. The job making the car is useful, but the product made is also useful. You get more bang for your buck.
I don't like austerity, but at the same time we sometimes have to make hard choices. I'd love to provide everyone with an unlimited amount of cash, but I also know that that isn't feasible and would have other effects. I don't like the fact that deals sometimes have to be made with Republicans, but we live in a country where a very significant portion of the country agrees with them and keeps putting them in office. If I'm faced with the choice of fully funding Social Security or reducing funding... I choose fully funding. If you limit my choices to reduced funding or no funding... I choose reduced funding. If you asked me my ideal though, I'd tell you it's to increase funding though.
If the retirement age were raised, I would fight for better provisions for workers who are disabled. I would also argue that people who suffer chronic pain because of their work qualify as disabled and would be entitled to those benefits. Part of the problem is cultural though, in an ableist society a lot of people don't want to be classified as disabled to any degree. Workers who fill physically taxing jobs who are no longer able to fill them should be given a disability classification and gain commensurate benefits from the government.
Don't confuse things I think are solutions within the current context of our society as being my ideal solutions. I look at that situation within the context of know that a majority of the country doesn't think like me, or you. I don't know how to drag the public consciousness further to the left, if I did, I'd propose doing that (actually, I have a theory, but it involves banning hate speech... which it seems other leftists don't actually want to do).
It is part of my personality that I see value in compromise and incremental change. I'm not a militant anything-ist. Can it prolong suffering? Maybe, but radical change can bring suffering too. Short of a violent revolution, we're not going to see socialists in control of the government any time soon. Seeing as I'm a firm believer in non-violence, that leaves compromise and incremental change.
If you hate indulging in pop psychology there's a pretty simple solution: don't do it.
Guy Humual wrote: MMCJawa wrote: Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: Right. Just tell the activists they're on their own, work on the local level, it's too politically divisive for national politics to touch. Why would you tell them they're on their own? The majority of the country should theoretically be on their side. You fix things like health care, income inequality, the war on drugs, etc. and you make things better for all Americans. You can continue to give whatever aid you can to fight inequality and civil rights violations but you don't make that your campaign. You just make it your given position.
The thing is...even if it's not a major campaign platform, the person running DOES have to have some stance on the matter. Reporters, special interest groups, and voters are going to ask a candidate positions on a topic of interest. So what does the prospective candidate say? Even if the party doesn't want to make it an issue, he will eventually have to have a stance, and how he articulates the stance is going to impact the enthusiasm and decision of potential voters
I mean sure...locally a politician might not need to formulate a response. Plenty of counties across the USA are not necessarily going to be impacted by every issue of national interest. But at higher level of office? This stuff is going to come up. This is true, and for some reason thejeff seems to think I'm claiming it's one or the other, but it's not. What I'm saying is you can have good positions on civil rights, be against discrimination, but run on issues that will be popular across the country. If Sanders gets the nomination and his main focus is income inequality, student debt, and health care does that mean he's throwing civil rights and gender equality under the bus? No, it means he focusing on what the majority of Americans are interested in to get elected. I don't think Sanders or most democrats are going to be horrible on these issues once elected if they don't run on those issues. I think in general candidates can put forward certain things as key priorities to emphasize in a campaign, but to some extent reality is always going to impact messaging and the hot news of the day is going to intervene. If your running for office, and a young black person is gunned down by the police in your region of interest, than odds are that is going to end up becoming a big deal for your campaign. If you use poor phrasing during a town hall, than expect to be grilled about it for several weeks afterwards until you can counter it with some policy.
To be fair, if your comparing this to the last presidential election, I think both of us are somewhat attacking strawman. I don't recall social activism as really being any sort of major messaging platform for the Democrat party. I think in general the message they got out was "We're not Trump!" and deflecting one million controversies, most of the which were blown out of proportion if not completely artificial. It was really a case of poor messaging in general and a candidate with a lot of baggage.
MMCJawa wrote: I think in general candidates can put forward certain things as key priorities to emphasize in a campaign, but to some extent reality is always going to impact messaging and the hot news of the day is going to intervene. If your running for office, and a young black person is gunned down by the police in your region of interest, than odds are that is going to end up becoming a big deal for your campaign. If you use poor phrasing during a town hall, than expect to be grilled about it for several weeks afterwards until you can counter it with some policy.
To be fair, if your comparing this to the last presidential election, I think both of us are somewhat attacking strawman. I don't recall social activism as really being any sort of major messaging platform for the Democrat party. I think in general the message they got out was "We're not Trump!" and deflecting one million controversies, most of the which were blown out of proportion if not completely artificial. It was really a case of poor messaging in general and a candidate with a lot of baggage.
That's basically it. I do think social activism (or rather the backlash to it) was a big force in the election, but I don't Clinton was focused on running on it.
That's the problem and why I've been pushing back on this. "Run on issues that will be popular across the country" doesn't work if events and activists and your opponents keep pushing you on the social issues you're trying to avoid. If you're a Democrat, you're tied to them by default, unless you push back strongly and if you push back strongly you're going to alienate those constituencies.
Every Democratic candidate for decades has tried to walk that fine line, to more or less success. Very few have come out as full-on social justice warriors, but they're still seen that way.
If it costs you votes in areas you can't lose to pick up areas you need to win then it's worth it.
So.. sorry. That sound you hear is the bus they're going to throw you under.
BigNorseWolf wrote: If it costs you votes in areas you can't lose to pick up areas you need to win then it's worth it.
So.. sorry. That sound you hear is the bus they're going to throw you under.
It's also a gamble that the new people who you want to show up at the polls for you are actually going to show up in enough numbers to cancel out folks who would otherwise vote for you but don't show, and in enough numbers to make a difference.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
BigNorseWolf wrote: If it costs you votes in areas you can't lose to pick up areas you need to win then it's worth it.
So.. sorry. That sound you hear is the bus they're going to throw you under.
I wonder how many years of throwing the blacks and gays and women under the bus it'll take before Democrats can shed the reputation of being the party of minorities. Long after the minorities have given up, I suspect.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Fergie wrote: Jesse Heinig wrote: Hypothesis (sadly I don't have data for this one): Large political parties that are capable of winning national elections require massive infusions of capital that they have to get primarily from SuperPACs and corporations. Taking a position of economic populism and progressive civil rights will dry up that funding. Five or ten years ago, I would have absolutely agreed. But several things have happened recently that have thrown a wrench into that idea.
Sanders did remarkably well despite little media coverage, and funding largely from small donors. [EDIT: Sanders is BY FAR the most popular politician in the US, and I don't think it is because of corporate donations] Trump beat Clinton despite being Trump, and getting outspent something like 2:1 by Clinton. While Trump got oddly generous media coverage (things like showing his campaign rallies) there was generally a dismissive and insulting tone to virtually all of the editorial content. News achaors would straight up laugh at the idea of Trump being president. It was a joke. It was only in the final days and weeks of the campaign did Trump get general RNC, and Fox support, and even then it was less then any candidate I can recall in my lifetime.
In other words Clinton had everything a candidate would have needed for a resounding victory ten years ago, and lost to the most disapproved of candidate in history! The rules of the game had changed. And now, the data!
Sanders
Individual Contributions Total $226,581,902 99.31%
Campaign Committee | Outside Groups | Combined
Total Raised | $228,164,501 | $934,993 | $229,099,494
Total Spent | $222,709,340 | $1,239,200 | $223,948,540
Clinton
Individual Contributions Total $399,670,200 70.89%
Campaign Committee | Outside Groups | Combined
Total Raised | $563,756,928 | $206,055,296 | $769,812,224
Total Spent | $563,433,611 | $205,076,573 | $768,510,184
Trump
Individual Contributions Total $132,232,784 39.69%
Campaign Committee | Outside Groups | Combined
Total Raised | $333,127,164 | $75,253,193 | $408,380,357
Total Spent | $325,515,461 | $72,118,919 | $397,634,380
This is important because it tells us:
* Sanders' money largely came from "grassroots" individual contributions - but it fell short of what other candidates were able to raise in total (Trump, for instance, may have had half of Sanders' total in individual contributions, but his overall total spend was much higher). This supports the hypothesis that though you can get money from individual contributions, to get the large amounts of money required to run a big campaign you have to get money from more than just that.
* Unsurprisingly, the more conservative you get, the more it's about getting your money from groups like PACs and corporations, not from individual donors.
You cannot run a national political organization without the cash necessary to do it, and getting that cash means making deals with people who will give you that cash.
Also notable, running a national party is a long-term game. While presidential elections are important, they are not the only battles that a party will undertake. This means that you must mollify donors not just about who's going to be president, but about what your policy for your party will be over the next X years. If you want money from big corporations and big PACs, you must convince them not just that your presidential candidate will be their pal, but that your party will cozy up and do what they want so that they keep giving your party off-cycle donations and soft support beyond just the election.
When you take a self-identified socialist stance like Bernie, you have just told all of the big corporate donors that you are their enemy and not only should they not donate to you, they should not donate to or support your party.
As far as "the game had changed," the election game changes almost every presidential election cycle. Comparing Hillary to other candidates is a mug's game because other main party, candidate-with-a-chance-of-actually-winning candidates have not been women, married to a former president, and with a twenty-year smear campaign levied against them.
I think that there is a fundamental functionality in the USA's election system that is simply this: Running a national election campaign with a chance of success is very expensive, and the only way to realistically get the constant revenue stream to do this requires you to get support from large, cash-rich organizations. Those organizations, unsurprisingly, tend to be the ones that have amassed large amounts of capital, so they tend to be capital-amassing-focused. (This seems obvious but it's basically saying that most big corporate donors to campaigns are gonna be the ones looking for the party to favor corporations in their legislation and regulation.)
While Sanders is undoubtedly super-popular with a big chunk of the electorate, half the election game is about who you're allowed to vote for and who's allowed to vote, and that's party-controlled. So if you aren't endorsed by the party - meaning able to play the corporate shill game - you can't win.
As Comrade Anklebiter might opine, this means that the only way that you can successfully run a national political operation that is not currying up to corporations for favors is if you are running a revolutionary operation that gets all its support by casting capital accumulation as an enemy position, and since you can't run a campaign to get votes by spending that way, your campaign position becomes about overthrowing the system that rewards capital accumulation. Basically, having a capitalist system means that the game is all about getting money, and the ones with the money will decide the rules, and if the rules are about getting all the money then anyone who refuses to play ball with the ones who have all the money will lose. And the only way around that is to refuse to play that game and since the ones who run the show have a vested interest in forcing everyone to play the game that's rigged so that they are the winners, you have a fight on your hands.
Moving away from the CP-ish-kinda-esque position, and getting back to the "what can Democrats do to win?" position, the Democrats are basically in the crummy bind that to run campaigns they have to continue to suck up to big corporations for money, but you can't do that and also promise to support labor at the same time. So they are trying to tell people "Welllll we are the party of... sorta kinda supporting civil liberties and minorities, but really we have to suck up to big corporations for donations, so mostly we talk in the abstract about 'rights' and 'social progress' but also about 'evolving our position over time' (read: no support for civil rights until it reaches a breaking point; if privileged people are uncomfortable about it, we don't push them outside of their comfort zone) and 'growing the economy for everyone' (read: let corporations continue to do their exploitative stuff because as long as they do they are giving us money and they are posting profits that we can point to as success)." And people are really kinda fed up with this two-faced garbage but people are also seeing that you can't play by the rules and run a national party AND also stand against corporate interests. Meanwhile the right is increasingly taking the position of "Yeah we only care about rich people and corporations, but you'll vote for us anyway because we will point at black people and immigrants and women and say that this is their fault, and since you are scared and angry you'll vote for us, and besides we've gerrymandered everything so we can't lose."
Basically the political game is currently in a state where Democrats are trying to build the impossible bridge of trying to satisfy both their ostensible base and their corporate donors.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ryan Freire wrote: Doubling down on blaming everything but her own campaign for the loss is sure to work in 2018 What is it about Clinton that causes you to so openly distort the facts about her? Do you know the reason? Are you even aware you are doing it?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Knight who says Meh wrote: Ryan Freire wrote: Doubling down on blaming everything but her own campaign for the loss is sure to work in 2018 What is it about Clinton that causes you to so openly distort the facts about her? Do you know the reason? Are you even aware you are doing it? What is it that causes you to reflexively defend someone who lost against the host of celebrity apprentice?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ryan Freire wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote: Ryan Freire wrote: Doubling down on blaming everything but her own campaign for the loss is sure to work in 2018 What is it about Clinton that causes you to so openly distort the facts about her? Do you know the reason? Are you even aware you are doing it? What is it that causes you to reflexively defend someone who lost against the host of celebrity apprentice? Because I prefer the truth to lies.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Knight who says Meh wrote: Ryan Freire wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote: Ryan Freire wrote: Doubling down on blaming everything but her own campaign for the loss is sure to work in 2018 What is it about Clinton that causes you to so openly distort the facts about her? Do you know the reason? Are you even aware you are doing it? What is it that causes you to reflexively defend someone who lost against the host of celebrity apprentice? Because I prefer the truth to lies. Mmhmm "Am I out of touch? No its the kids who are wrong!"
|
