• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair

Status
Not open for further replies.
PBY said:
I actually agree with this.
Click to expand...

PBY said:
No one is saying Trump got it from there. The issue is appropriating the language of the right.
Click to expand...

Wait. To be clear, I don't think either is a real issue. I think it's natural for some of the anti-Clinton arguments to have arisen from the leftists, and I think it's really dumb to read into anyone being called alt-left.

That's what I meant by "both are stupid." The whole thing is a non-issue, and much like pigeon said to Valhelm earlier, I don't really buy it if someone tried to say "Yall called me alt-left, I'm out" unless they were already looking for an out. I'd wager no one gives a shit.
 
IAmAnAgnostic said:
People are getting charged for bringing down Confederate statues.

rhYrIEG.jpg
Click to expand...

I mean, what are they supposed to do? They are on film destroying public property. It's not like they can just wave it away.
 
So, in total, how many republicans actually called out Trump by name in response to that speech yesterday? 3? 4?
 
balladofwindfishes said:
Nobody wants to be the news channel that defends Nazis. That's a bridge they won't cross, as we've seen over the last few days.
Click to expand...

Yet.

"Nazi" is a fashion label at this point, and an ugly one. Easy to criticize.

Criticizing the 62 million people that eagerly voted for a racist and a white supremacist agenda? White anchor: "I'm sorry but this just isn't a racist country, folks. We need to come together and heal." I'm a little skeptical. Just give it a few days and everyone will forget this even happened.
 
pigeon said:
I'm just going to take this as a statement that you don't believe leftists should work with us to oppose white supremacy and you've come up with the most absurd and childish possible excuse to explain why.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you would come to that conclusion unless you were trying to smear people on the left. Cooperation between leftists and liberals is necessary to overpower the right, but this cooperation can't happen unless liberals are willing to concede some matters of policy. For decades, liberals have asked leftists to give up everything, to abandon their anti-capitalist and pacifistic convictions just because the Republicans are worse. We lined up behind Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, and Kerry yet our political system continued to slide to the right. While Obama rode to office on a progressive platform and made some serious political accomplishments, the Democrats were unable to secure any political power outside the White House and allowed the most horrifying aspects of the Republican party to take control of almost state and local government.

The American left has been surging since the start of this decade, and this has greatly altered the political landscape of the Democratic constituency. Political attitudes, especially among young people, have shifted to the left. But this change hasn't been reflected in the broader Democratic ideology. For cooperation to happen, the centrist Democrats which dominate the party apparatus and control the purse-strings will need to actually respond to the policy concerns of leftists. If they don't do this, the Republicans will continue to have a lock on power.

For cooperation to happen, liberals will need to stop bashing people on their left. Prominent Democrats need to stop accusing their critics of being Russian agents or secret conservatives and need to bring to the table progressive causes like single-payer healthcare, a higher minimum wage, and anti-imperialism. This isn't petulence. This basic coalition-building.
 
kirblar said:
Source for the graph.

A reason why when #corporatedems and #identitypolitics come out of the same person you're going to get one heck of a stinkeye.
Click to expand...

I'm really confused why Crab bitched about the sample size... without seeing the study?

Crab said:
I also don't think that graph is true. The sample size is much too small to make reliable conclusions. It's like the polling that came out showing younger millenials were more anti-Corbyn than older ones on the basis of a subsample of 79 people - patent nonsense.
Click to expand...

???
 
Also Pigeon -- this isn't about me or my decisions. I voted for Hillary and Scott Fuhrman and Patrick Murphy despite disagreements with policy, because I recognized that the alternative was much worse. But I don't control the voting habits of millions of other Bernie supporters. Offering something to young people and leftists will turn more of them into voters like me.
 
Valhelm said:
Also Pigeon -- this isn't about me or my decisions. I voted for Hillary and Scott Fuhrman and Patrick Murphy despite disagreements with policy, because I recognized that the alternative was much worse. But I don't control the voting habits of millions of other Bernie supporters. Offering something to young people and leftists will turn more of them into voters like me.
Click to expand...

It's a dumb, shortsighted strategy. You take the party hostage after you win power, not before. Controlling a minority party that's out of power gets you nowhere.

Honestly, who gives a shit what's in the party platform? The only thing that matters is if you're willing to shut the government down and default on our country's debt to get a $15 minimum wage.
 
"Alt-left" is a dumb term. At the same time, there are elements on left (or that purport to be on the left) that engage in Russia trutherism and validate Trump's "deep state" talking points and they should be called out. See the Salon article posted a few pages back, or the Nation article it references.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/us/politics/voter-registration-rural-republican.html

WASHINGTON — With President Trump's poll numbers slipping, a group of the president's former campaign aides is beginning an effort to encourage new voters in parts of the country that supported him in the election, and to stop what they contend are illegal votes in Democratic areas.

Look Ahead America also seeks to discourage or invalidate "fraudulent" votes by deploying poll watchers with cameras, and through what it called a forensic voter fraud investigation to identify "votes cast in the names of the deceased, by illegal immigrants or non-citizens," according to the prospectus, which was shared with The New York Times.

The group is the brainchild of two people who initially helped run the data team for Mr. Trump's campaign, Matt Braynard and Witold Chrabaszcz.
Click to expand...
 
jtb said:
It's a dumb, shortsighted strategy. You take the party hostage after you win power, not before. Controlling a minority party that's out of power gets you nowhere.

Honestly, who gives a shit what's in the party platform? The only thing that matters is if you're willing to shut the government down and default on our country's debt to get a $15 minimum wage.
Click to expand...
That's a lie, it gets you money and attention. (see Stein, Jill)
 
jtb said:
It's a dumb, shortsighted strategy. You take the party hostage after you win power, not before. Controlling a minority party that's out of power gets you nowhere.
Click to expand...

The Democrats in their current state probably can't take power. Progressive policy proposals are very popular, but few Democrats are willing to adopt them. While Democrats have understandable concerns for being hesitant to become more outspoken advocates for progressive change, the post-2006 GOP comeback shows that this strategy works.

From what I can tell, Democrats in charge seek to basically run 2018 and 2020 like they played 2014 and 2016. We lost back then with that strategy, and I don't know if Trump's unpopularity is enough for us to win now.
 
kess said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/us/politics/voter-registration-rural-republican.html
Click to expand...

I mean, we already have poll watchers a lot of precincts and there are very specific laws about what poll watchers can and can't do. A lot of those laws won't change because then Democratic poll watchers get to be just as dickish as Republican poll watchers would be.

Valhelm said:
The Democrats in their current state probably can't take power. Progressive policy proposals are very popular, but few Democrats are willing to adopt them. While Democrats have understandable concerns for being hesitant to become more outspoken advocates for progressive change, the post-2006 GOP comeback shows that this strategy works.

From what I can tell, Democrats in charge seek to basically run 2018 and 2020 like they played 2014 and 2016. We lost back then with that strategy, and I don't know if Trump's unpopularity is enough for us to win now.
Click to expand...

I sort of disagree with this tbh. 2018 will basically be entirely about Trump's popularity no matter what Democrats do/don't do, because that's the historical dynamics of midterms. Maybe less so for a Senate race and a Governor's race, but for House races? There is nothing anyone could do to change the fact that it will be a referendum on Trump.

(This feels a bit like Democrats Will Only Win When They Take Up MY Values. And I share your values, but I don't know if that's the best way to treat the electorate)
 
Valhelm said:
The Democrats in their current state probably can't take power. Progressive policy proposals are very popular, but few Democrats are willing to adopt them. While Democrats have understandable concerns for being hesitant to become more outspoken advocates for progressive change, the post-2006 GOP comeback shows that this strategy works.

From what I can tell, Democrats in charge seek to basically run 2018 and 2020 like they played 2014 and 2016. We lost back then with that strategy, and I don't know if Trump's unpopularity is enough for us to win now.
Click to expand...

That's.... not how the American electorate works? For better or worse (okay, for worse), the party that controls the White House is always "responsible" for the current state of affairs. 2018 will be a referendum on Trump. We very well may lose due to gerrymandering and a terrible Senate map, but it won't be for a lack of popular support.

Also, I'm not really seeing a lot of daylight between the Democratic party platform (hell, the party as it was in 2008), Bernie's positions, and the positions polled.

whyamihere said:
(This feels a bit like Democrats Will Only Win When They Take Up MY Values. And I share your values, but I don't know if that's the best way to treat the electorate)
Click to expand...

This is where I'm at. If America was a far-left country... we'd be a far-left country.
 
whyamihere said:
I sort of disagree with this tbh. 2018 will basically be entirely about Trump's popularity no matter what Democrats do/don't do, because that's the historical dynamics of midterms. Maybe less so for a Senate race and a Governor's race, but for House races? There is nothing anyone could do to change the fact that it will be a referendum on Trump.
Click to expand...

No, that lets the terms of debate be set entirely by the other side. Trump (and his potential impeachment) need to be taken into account, but the Democrats will be much stronger if they can offer voters something they didn't in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016.

jtb said:
Also, I'm not really seeing a lot of daylight between the Democratic party platform (hell, the party as it was in 2008), Bernie's positions, and the positions polled.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't oppose some movement to the left, then?
 
Valhelm said:
No, that lets the terms of debate be set entirely by the other side. Trump (and his potential impeachment) need to be taken into account, but the Democrats will be much stronger if they can offer voters something they didn't in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016.
Click to expand...

Well, again, Democrats won in 2006 because they were able to run against an unpopular president. Republicans were able to win in 2014 by running against an unpopular president. You don't really get to set the terms of the debate in the midterms because that's not at all how American elections work.

Also, Democrats did very well in 2012 even if we didn't win the House.
 
whyamihere said:
I sort of disagree with this tbh. 2018 will basically be entirely about Trump's popularity no matter what Democrats do/don't do, because that's the historical dynamics of midterms. Maybe less so for a Senate race and a Governor's race, but for House races? There is nothing anyone could do to change the fact that it will be a referendum on Trump.

(This feels a bit like Democrats Will Only Win When They Take Up MY Values. And I share your values, but I don't know if that's a general rule)
Click to expand...

Ultimately, Dems in 2018 will need to decide if they want to run on an "Impeach Trump" platform. The alternative would be to run on "Stop Trump".

There is really nothing historically to base that decision on, just don't let the analysts in the Clinton campaign, who thought moderate Republicans could be convinced to vote against racism, near the decision making.

Oh the days of thinking people were mostly good, and we would be looking at possibly taking back the House and Senate due to Trump... I remember having no problem with the strat at the time, as it was the logical method to make such significant gains in congress at the time.
 
I mean, I guess I don't know. I don't know if you can really "run on" something in midterm, or if it matters at all, or if it's all the economy and the president's numbers.

I guess you can try ("Better Way" and "Better Deal" and "Contract With America"), but I'm not really sure that stuff matters imo.
 
Box of Kittens said:
2014 and 2016 were abysmal failures and widely recognized as such. Who is advocating we just do the same thing we did then?
Click to expand...

Please enlighten me as to how our 2018 strategy and platform are meaningfully different!

Should add that I don't think rose emoji twitter users can take over the Democratic party anytime soon. The Democratic Party is a liberal capitalist institution and will remain as such for the foreseeable future. But if the votes of leftists are needed to win elections, Democratic candidates will need to offer something other than the fear of Trump and the GOP.
 
Valhelm said:
No, that lets the terms of debate be set entirely by the other side. Trump (and his potential impeachment) need to be taken into account, but the Democrats will be much stronger if they can offer voters something they didn't in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016.



You wouldn't oppose some movement to the left, then?
Click to expand...

I want to win. And I think the GOP's enormous failure on healthcare has given Democrats a huge opening to push for Medicare for All (whether that's a public option or single payer). A raise in the minimum wage is smart and "populist". $15 is a nice round number that's probably too steep a jump, but fuck it, let's do it anyways.

"Medicare for All" is clearly the right messaging for healthcare. I don't think you'd find a single person in the party today that disagrees with that. It polls well, it's simple, people like Medicare, etc. The 2020 nominee will be for Medicare for All - regardless of who it is. Hell, Joe Manchin is probably for Medicare for All.

What I don't want is to move left simply for the sake of making ourselves feel good and righteous in June, only to lose in November.

My take, in general, is: if some entrenched incumbent can't fend of a primary challenge from the left, then they're a shitty, weak incumbent. Would 2010 have turned out differently had we only run Specter and Crist? I don't think so. So, on that front, primary everybody. Just don't be surprised when most incumbents survive. (Because, again, if America was a far-left country - we'd be a far-left country!)

Basileus777 said:
There is plenty of talk in this very thread about how the Clinton strategy of appealing to moderate republicans in suburbs is the future of the Democratic party.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like Dems have a choice.
 
Valhelm said:
Also Pigeon -- this isn't about me or my decisions. I voted for Hillary and Scott Fuhrman and Patrick Murphy despite disagreements with policy, because I recognized that the alternative was much worse. But I don't control the voting habits of millions of other Bernie supporters. Offering something to young people and leftists will turn more of them into voters like me.
Click to expand...

I'm really tired of this conversation.

If I need to offer "young people" free college to have them stand up and fight Nazis then maybe they aren't good allies against Nazis.

I think they are, and I don't think I do. That's not to say we shouldn't pass free college on its own merits, but this is really disgusting tit-for-tat politics on the topic of opposing white supremacy.
 
Basileus777 said:
There is plenty of talk in this very thread about how the Clinton strategy of appealing to moderate republicans in suburbs is the future of the Democratic party.
Click to expand...

Uh?
Where

There was in 2016, then we discovered that Racism and Xenophobia is more important to most of those people combined with people who typically stayed home in rural areas turning out to vote for someone who "tells it like it is" aka codeword for Racism.

pigeon said:
I'm really tired of this conversation.

If I need to offer "young people" free college to have them stand up and fight Nazis then maybe they aren't good allies against Nazis.

I think they are, and I don't think I do. That's not to say we shouldn't pass free college on its own merits, but this is really disgusting tit-for-tat politics on the topic of opposing white supremacy.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the right has moved so far right that using the situation to basically withhold your vote to get what you want is amazingly shortsighted, and dangerously close to endorsing said racism and xenophobia.

After all, a non-vote is still a vote, just giving the GOP a half vote.
 
Valhelm said:
Please enlighten me as to how our 2018 strategy and platform are meaningfully different!

Should add that I don't think rose emoji twitter users can take over the Democratic party anytime soon. The Democratic Party is a liberal capitalist institution and will remain as such for the foreseeable future. But if the votes of leftists are needed to win elections, Democratic candidates will need to offer something other than the fear of Trump and the GOP.
Click to expand...

Sure. I think we need to do more to reach those people and also re-establish ourselves as the party for the working people. But you also, it feels like you're dismissing the importance the president's popularity in a midterm for your own political goals, which are that Democrats Must Appeal To Leftists To Win Elections. I don't know if that's going to be the number one dynamic in the 2018 midterms.
 
How do you win back the House if you don't win every single Hillary-GOP district? Because these aren't voters you "want" in the party? I don't see why Dems should make this hard on themselves.
 
pigeon said:
I'm really tired of this conversation.

If I need to offer "young people" free college to have them stand up and fight Nazis then maybe they aren't good allies against Nazis.

I think they are, and I don't think I do. That's not to say we shouldn't pass free college on its own merits, but this is really disgusting tit-for-tat politics on the topic of opposing white supremacy.
Click to expand...

This is how coalitions work, Pigeon. Young people hate white supremacy, given that almost half of them are not white, but they still don't vote. For this to change, Democratic candidates need to offer policies different from those that they currently do.
 
Valhelm said:
This is how coalitions work, Pigeon. Young people hate white supremacy, given that almost half of them are not white, but they still don't vote. For this to change, Democratic candidates need to offer policies different from those that they currently do.
Click to expand...

Then stop saying they hate white supremacy, because apparently they don't!
 
smokeymicpot said:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/spec...-loses-top-fbi-investigator/story?id=49249486

Special counsel's Russia probe loses top FBI investigator

One of the FBI's top investigators, tapped by special counsel Robert Mueller just weeks ago to help lead the probe of Russian meddling in last year's presidential election, has left Mueller’s team, sources tell ABC News.

It's unclear why Strzok stepped away from Mueller's team of nearly two dozen lawyers, investigators and administrative staff. Strzok, who has spent much of his law enforcement career working counterintelligence cases and has been unanimously praised by government officials who spoke with ABC News, is now working for the FBI's human resources division.
Click to expand...
What the fuck.
Wray what are you doing.
 
pigeon said:
Then stop saying they hate white supremacy, because apparently they don't!
Click to expand...

As much as I despair at people not turning out to vote, it's a bit too reductionist to leave it at "they vote or they're ok with white supremacy." Though I don't think silencing some low profile people on twitter will do much of anything either.
 
I think also there's this weird thing where the Clinton campaign has been blamed for all of the things they did wrong (which, I'm down with that), but the left also wants to absolve the Obama -> Trump WWC and non-voting young people from any responsibility for what happened. Which has been a bit weird.

I think you can say that if young people truly cared about white supremacy, 100% of them should've voted and voted for Clinton even if she wasn't their candidate of choice at first. Which, fine. Then they didn't, so that's a problem, and while they might not care about white supremacy as much as they preach, we still need to find a way to get them to the polls because I care about white supremacy and need Trump out of office in 2020. If that means policy concessions like tuition free college that apparently trump caring about white supremacy, fine.
 
Diablos said:
What the fuck.
Wray what are you doing.
Click to expand...
He got sent to HR. That's quite the unceremonious demotion. Either Mueller or Wray doghouse'd him and we can't tell which one. (though I would guess Mueller, since this would be an immediate firestorm if Wray did that right after coming in.)
 
kirblar said:
He got sent to HR. That's quite the unceremonious demotion. Either Mueller or Wray doghouse'd him and we can't tell which one. (though I would guess Mueller, since this would be an immediate firestorm if Wray did that right after coming in.)
Click to expand...

Seems like the only two options are Wray mucking things up or the investigator doing something Mueller didn't like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
The Crisis in Venezula
2
2K
God Enel replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
397 398 399 400 401
20K
2M
ShadowSwordmaster replied
Top Bottom