Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Is the Lord and Savior of People Who Refuse to Explain Who They Mean By "Neoliberal" joining the Democrats, the Greens or does he want people to build bedside altars to him? Or getting off Twitter and growing a spine?
How long before TYT gets an instant ban from them?
edited 11th Mar '17 2:22:59 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
(6X) I think the main reason that the Democrats is failing is that they take governing as a serious business as opposed to the Republicans that take governing as a bad reality show.
I don't know about Bernie, though. It's not like his idea on governing and what he want to achieve are actually better or even possible to be done in the first place. Hearing his campaign promises is like reading a dubious kickstarter campaign. He should stick to criticizing democrats and be democrat's devil advocate. It's not like he could actually fulfill his campaign promises if he gets into office.
Only an experienced editor who has a name possesses the ability to truly understand my work - What 90% of writers I'm in charge of said.No one here hates Sanders.
But he's absolutely wrong. Clinton did win most of people who viewed the economy as their primary concern.
The working, white class will never vote Dem. The "neglect" they were feeling was racially charged. But his more idiot supporters think that throwing the minorities under the bus will win over the wwc.
Also, you can't just expect a political party to take your advice when you left them as soon as soon as possible.
edited 11th Mar '17 4:37:18 AM by NoName999
Bernie plans to go back to the Democratic Party. He just went back to Independent after he lost because that's what the voters of Vermont voted him as.
You also realize that many of the same working class voters that handed Trump the win are the same people that voted for Obama, right?
On top of that, college educated white people voted for Trump by greater numbers than the white working class.
In fact the average Trump voter is a college educated white guy according to the data. I think these are the real ones who are unlikely to be reached.
The WWC just wants a coal/factory job to live on no matter what even it might hurt minorities. If you could offer them that while selling benefits for minorities, I'm sure they'd still somewhat receptive to your message.
Trump at least promised them something. Hillary apparently didn't do a good job of advertising herself at all.
In fact, Hillary's tv ads talked less on policy than even Trump's:
Beyond overall ad spending, the study also breaks down the content of the attack ads aired on behalf of each candidate. It says about 70 percent of Trump’s ads “contained at least some discussion of policy.” About 90 percent of Clinton’s attack ads went after Trump as an individual — compared with just 10 percent that went after his policies, the study found.
The study concludes that Clinton’s strategy may have backfired badly. Here’s what they have to say:
"Evidence suggests that negativity in advertising can have a backlash effect on the sponsor (Pinkleton 1997) and that personally-focused, trait-based negative messages (especially those that are uncivil) tend to be seen as less fair, less informative and less important than more substantive, policy-based messaging (Fridkin and Geer 1994; Brooks and Geer 2007).
In stark contrast to any prior presidential cycle for which we have Kantar Media/CMAG data, the Clinton campaign overwhelmingly chose to focus on Trump’s personality and fitness for office (in a sense, doubling down on the news media’s focus), leaving very little room for discussion in advertising of the reasons why Clinton herself was the better choice.
Trump, on the other hand, provided explicit policy-based contrasts, highlighting his strengths and Clinton’s weaknesses, a strategy that research suggests voters find helpful in decision-making. These strategic differences may have meant that Clinton was more prone to voter backlash and did nothing to overcome the media’s lack of focus on Clinton’s policy knowledge, especially for residents of Michigan and Wisconsin, in particular, who were receiving policy-based (and specifically economically-focused) messaging from Trump".
But the new report also confirms what multiple outlets have already reported: that the Clinton campaign did not appear to realize its vulnerability in the Rust Belt until the final days of the election and, as a result, blew millions that could have been spent elsewhere. Clinton’s team spent virtually nothing advertising in Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania until the final week — when they then decided to exponentially increase their resources there.
The blown money on TV advertising in Arizona was exacerbated by a ground strategy that local Rust Belt Democrats have heavily criticized. As Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) told Vox in December 2016, the Clinton campaign appeared to do little to relate to Midwest union workers in the runup to the vote:
"As far as I know, she didn’t stop at any UAW halls. I probably would have been invited to be with her if she was going to one, and I never got that invitation. She didn't do any labor-specific events that I'm aware of. It's pretty rare that you aren't working closely with labor in a campaign, especially for statewide office. I'm sitting right here now, talking to you in the parking lot of the sheet metal workers before their holiday party. I'm going to be with my friends, with the sheet metal workers, to convey that they are important to me by showing up at their events. Labor simply cannot be taken for granted in Michigan. Not doing that sort of event certainly was a major oversight."
So saying that the WWC shouldn't even appealed to is why Hillary lost in the first place when they went to Trump.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hillary-clinton-tv-ads
edited 11th Mar '17 5:11:08 AM by MadSkillz
Uh, so pretty successful?
https://ourrevolution.com/election-2016/
https://ivn.us/2016/11/10/despite-losses-sanders-backed-group-revolution-scores-major-victories/
Neoliberals = The Democrats and Republicans that believe in laissez-faire policies that is the cause of our growing income inequality in order to benefit big businesses.
Here's some Wikipedia info on it:
Sociologist Thomas Volscho has argued that the imposition of neoliberalism in the United States arose from a conscious political mobilization by capitalist elites in the 1970s who faced two crises: the legitimacy of capitalism and a falling rate of profitability in industry. Various neoliberal ideologies (such as monetarism and supply-side economics) had been long advanced by elites, translated into policies by the Reagan administration, and ultimately resulted in less governmental regulation and a shift from a tax-financed state to a debt-financed one. While the profitability of industry and the rate of economic growth never recovered to the heyday of the 1960s, the political and economic power of Wall Street and finance capital vastly increased due to the debt-financing of the state."
edited 11th Mar '17 5:29:22 AM by MadSkillz
I voted for it, but a lot of us probably just didn't see the point, seeing as the ACA was already a thing and nobody in their right mind would try to get rid of it.
I'm sure a lot of the same folks who voted against ColoradoCare also voted for Trump.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Indeed, they will. Our state wound up going blue in the election, but I know a lot of red voters including an old colleague who could best be described as perpetually drunk on Toxic Masculinity. He was a walking stereotype who on multiple occasions unironically presented the "Shooting would have gone different of ME AND MAH GUN were there!" argument.
Hell, my mom voted for Trump because she's pissed off that a bunch of Mexicans in her neighborhood have a nicer truck than she does. I'm not joking. That is the actual reasoning she explained to me.
edited 11th Mar '17 6:02:25 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.That ColoradoCare thing strikes me as a bad idea. Unless you can exclude out of state people, any kind of state level social service - such as that one - will be overrun by people from out of state and run out of money. Welfare can't be done at a state level, it must be federal.
One wonders how Obama could win the rust belt if working class voters supposedly never vote Democrat. That's before we go into the race question.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI think it's funny how it is usually the same people who:
- Complain about people spending all their time attacking Clinton, while spending all their time attacking Sanders.
- Simultaneously claim that Sanders's ideas are unrealistic, that Clinton was the only candidate who could get things done, and that Clinton and Sanders are almost 100% identical with regards to their policies.
- Say that the so-called 'far-left' are useful idiots for the right by sharing their criticism of Clinton, while happily copying right-wing attacks of the left (progressive ideas are 'pie-in-the-sky', look at Venezuela for the dangers of socialism, the 'alt-left' etc.).
- Saying that it is fake news which has cost Clinton the election, while being eager to share pieces with a questionable grip on the facts, to say the least, as long as they discredit Sanders and his movement.
- Claiming that they are the only people who care about minorities, while attacking ideas that minorities support by a large margin (e.g. I've seen several people claim that tuition-free college is somehow 'racist' - don't ask me why - while completely ignoring the fact that minorities support it by a much larger margin than whites. See also people defending the idea that there's a complete dichotomy between 'economic justice' and 'social justice', while minorities support left-wing economic policies to a larger extent than whites - clearly they don't see it this way).
- Saying that it is progressives like Sanders who want to throw minorities under the bus by trying to convince red-state voters, while the only people I've seen who say that the Democrats need to move to the right because of the election result are people who were firmly in the Clinton camp.
And the list goes on and on. In other words: the 'alt-center' has a problem too
. And no, I don't claim that they are even a majority of the center/the people who supported Clinton in the primaries/however you'd like to call them. But all the strawmanning whenever Sanders is mentioned in this thread is getting really annoying.
Well, I obviously can't speak for all Trump voters, especially since I ain't even one m'self. The ones I've met all seemed pretty jealous and petty, though. But that's anecdotal evidence.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
![]()
And what exactly does your own post history say?
![]()
While I doubt all reactionaries are so out of jealousy, their reasons for being reactionary can be petty to the point of hilarity, if it weren't for the real damage they are doing to political discourse the world over.
Jeff Sessions' perjury may result in his law license being revoked
.
x4 I will use "" to quote because I don't feel like typing the formatting brackets all the time:
"the 'alt-left'"
Show me one person here talking about the alt-left as if it was a thing.
"progressive ideas are 'pie-in-the-sky'"
I don't remember a lot of complaining about progressive ideas but rather about their implementation never being talked about or not being explained in enough detail, making unclear how they would actually be done.
"Saying that it is fake news which has cost Clinton the election, while being eager to share pieces with a questionable grip on the facts, to say the least, as long as they discredit Sanders and his movement."
Yeah, this one I agree with, and some here have admittedly gone for the least charitable interpretation possible of Sanders statements post elections whenever news related to him are posted.
"Claiming that they are the only people who care about minorities, while attacking ideas that minorities support by a large margin"
Haven't seen that, what I've seen is attacking some particular Sanders followers who are racist or sexist, see for example Samuel "rein women in" Ronan
, who was minor a candidate for DNC chair.
"I've seen several people claim that tuition-free college is somehow 'racist' - don't ask me why - while completely ignoring the fact that minorities support it by a much larger margin than whites."
It has been argued that tuition-free college is racist because such a measure would disproportionately benefit white middle class people. Even then, I don't think many here are against it.
"See also people defending the idea that there's a complete dichotomy between 'economic justice' and 'social justice', while minorities support left-wing economic policies to a larger extent than whites - clearly they don't see it this way."
Because historically in the US economically progressive measures have been implemented only at if they excluded minorities. Ideally most serious "social justice" policies should include a lot of "economic justice" measures.
edited 11th Mar '17 6:46:35 AM by IFwanderer
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV

The idea itself is good. A little wary about the means he'll propose. Minorities are a robust blue voting block and need to be supported for it to stay so.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman