Support NeoGAF

[skullmuffins]

For those talking about the poll with the 73% result, I'd take it with a boulder of salt. It was conducted online.

Lots of reliable polls are conducted online. They're not the same as "polls" that are put up on twitter or a news website or w/e. I don't think the 73% number is hard to believe at all once you understand what the question was, and it was only 52% if you just counted the responses from Democrats (because of course Republicans are going to say D's should work with Trump).

Should Democrats work with Trump on issues they agree with. It's not asking if Dems should roll over and help Trump build the wall and ban muslims or whatever.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Again, the blame falls squarely with Hillary and her campaign. Trump had a movement swelling in some of those states, and they ignored it. We didn't fail the Democratic party. The Democratic party failed us.

Sorry, the voters who either voted for Trump or opted to stay home don't get to say this.

I have no idea why "don't blame the voters!" is a talking point these days. I'll blame them all I want - they're the ones who actually voted Trump in or didn't vote against him!

 

[smokeandmirrors]

good. keep their feet to the fire.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

resist how, exactly? Seems there is one thing that the two parties DO have in common: uninformed voters on how the system actually works.

You want to resist? Protest the GOP on not allowing the popular vote to get preference over the EC. Protest the EC system, and demand a change on those who are actually in a position to make them happen. Democrats can't do shit without some republicans leaning their way right now.

I'm kind of thinking that people may want to check where the money on these 'liberals' is coming from, because it's a very Putin's Russia strategy to go after your own people when they already in a place to help when able to. Whereas if you cut them out, you lose even what you had, and you lose everything.

 

[Orayn]

Lots of worthless simpering cowards need to get their asses primaried.

 

[B-Dubs]

resist how, exactly? Seems there is one thing that the two parties DO have in common: uninformed voters on how the system actually works.

You want to resist? Protest the GOP on not allowing the popular vote to get preference over the EC. Protest the EC system, and demand a change on those who are actually in a position to make them happen. Democrats can't do shit without some republicans leaning their way right now.

I'm kind of thinking that people may want to check where the money on these 'liberals' is coming from, because it's a very Putin's Russia strategy to go after your own people when they already in a place to help when able to. Whereas if you cut them out, you lose even what you had, and you lose everything.

Sadly most people don't understand this. They saw the GOP gumming up the works over the last four years and assume the Democrats can do the same and while there's enough votes in the Senate to force a filibuster, Cabinet positions simply need a 51-vote majority.

As of yet, Trump and the GOP have done nothing the Democrats in Congress are capable of blocking.

 

[Hylian7]

The last remaining Hillary diehards sure are amusing these days.

Not really seeing how they are "Hillary diehards", I think it is more like "not-Trump diehards".

 

[Orayn]

Sadly most people don't understand this. They saw the GOP gumming up the works over the last four years and assume the Democrats can do the same and while there's enough votes in the Senate to force a filibuster, Cabinet positions simply need a 51-vote majority.

As of yet, Trump and the GOP have done nothing the Democrats in Congress are capable of blocking.

Which is why there's no downside to at least symbolically voting to block everything, but some of these fuckwits can't even manage that.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Sadly most people don't understand this. They saw the GOP gumming up the works over the last four years and assume the Democrats can do the same and while there's enough votes in the Senate to force a filibuster, Cabinet positions simply need a 51-vote majority.

As of yet, Trump and the GOP have done nothing the Democrats in Congress are capable of blocking.

And whose fault it is that the Cabinet positions only require a simple majority?

Guess what, it's the Democrats' fault, they're the ones back in 2012 who removed the 60 votes supermajority requirement to approve those positions LOL

 

[Kthulhu]

Glad to see some voters are tired of the party leaders shit.

Hopefully this will actually produce results.

 

[B-Dubs]

Which is why there's no downside to at least symbolically voting to block everything, but some of these fuckwits can't even manage that.

Unfortunately not everyone is in a safe state. Manchin represents goddamned West Virginia, he's literally the best you're going to get out of that state and he's a fuckface.

If you primary him, and beat him, he's just going to be replaced with someone who will vote with the GOP 100% of the time instead of 25% of the time.

If gains can't be made in the midterm coming up what you've seen so far ain't gonna be shit compared to what will happen. God help us if the GOP gets a 60-vote majority in the Senate.

And whose fault it is that the Cabinet positions only require a simple majority?

Guess what, it's the Democrats' fault, they're the ones back in 2012 who removed the 60 votes supermajority requirement to approve those positions LOL

Because if they hadn't the seats would have never been filled. And if they hadn't you can be damn sure the GOP would have done it now.

 

[skullmuffins]

And whose fault it is that the Cabinet positions only require a simple majority?

Guess what, it's the Democrats' fault, they're the ones back in 2012 who removed the 60 votes supermajority requirement to approve those positions LOL

Because Republicans were refusing to confirm Obama nominees... and if the Democrats didn't remove it then, the Republicans could have removed it now.

 

[royalan]

Sadly most people don't understand this. They saw the GOP gumming up the works over the last four years and assume the Democrats can do the same and while there's enough votes in the Senate to force a filibuster, Cabinet positions simply need a 51-vote majority.

As of yet, Trump and the GOP have done nothing the Democrats in Congress are capable of blocking.

People don't want Democrats to obstruct because we mistakenly believe they can get something done in Congress by doing that. We know the Democrats are powerless. It's a test.

If Democrats in Congress can't play hardball now when they have no power and there's absolutely no downside to voting no on the Republican agenda, it doesn't bode well for the future of the party when we regain control of either the House or Senate.

If Democrats can't understand that the way to harness this energy on the left is to lead by example, then at this point, they deserve to be unseated. We're in hard times, the last thing we need are more stupified Democrats who can't read their own base.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Because Republicans were refusing to confirm Obama nominees... and if the Democrats didn't remove it then, the Republicans could have removed it now.

The point is the Republicans wouldn't have removed it now. It's interesting that the Republicans are prudent enough to not try and remove the filibuster entirely even though Trump is trying to push them to. I don't understand a world where the Republicans are the ones who are smart enough to not remove supermajority requirements and the Democrats are the ones dumb enough to do it.

 

[skullmuffins]

The point is the Republicans wouldn't have removed it now.

You can't say that with certainty, unless you think the Republicans would be totally cool with the president having no cabinet in perpetuity. When the other side is obstructing for the sake of obstructing (aka the GOP strategy), you can't simply assume they'd give in even if you made compromise nominees. So, make a choice: nobody gets confirmed, or kill the filibuster.

 

[royalan]

The point is the Republicans wouldn't have removed it now. It's interesting that the Republicans are prudent enough to not try and remove the filibuster entirely even though Trump is trying to push them to. I don't understand a world where the Republicans are the ones who are smart enough to not remove supermajority requirements and the Democrats are the ones dumb enough to do it.

It's literally too soon for this opinion.

 

[old manatee]

If an elected Democrat can't even be bothered to vote against the Trump administration's supervillain agenda I don't really see their purpose.

 

[BajiBoxer]

The point is the Republicans wouldn't have removed it now. It's interesting that the Republicans are prudent enough to not try and remove the filibuster entirely even though Trump is trying to push them to. I don't understand a world where the Republicans are the ones who are smart enough to not remove supermajority requirements and the Democrats are the ones dumb enough to do it.

It's only been one month, lol. Democrats removed the supermajority requirements 5 years into Obama's presidency.

 

[aeolist]

At this point, Trump could find a way to fund a 400 billion dollar infrastructure initiative without adding to the debt, and you would still have some anti-trumpers frothing at the mouth and threatening to primary anyone that votes for it.

that deal would be bad and should be opposed. any reasonable worker-positive infrastructure deal would add to the debt substantially, which is well and good because interests rates are incredibly low right now and we should be taking on more debt to invest in things like infrastructure.

if he announces support for a 21st century works progress administration-like package then dems shouldn't oppose that but there's no chance of that. any infrastructure package to come out of this white house and/or congress will be massive tax handouts to big companies with no guarantees at all for worker pay or protection.

 

[Maintenance]

Will they go through with that though? The Democrats are long overdue for a new spine.

 

[Rentahamster]

You can't say that with certainty

Nor can we say the opposing view is a certainty either.

However, the certainty we DO have now is that the cabinet filibuster is dead.

 

[Banana Aeon]

At this point, Trump could find a way to fund a 400 billion dollar infrastructure initiative without adding to the debt, and you would still have some anti-trumpers frothing at the mouth and threatening to primary anyone that votes for it.

Do you know how the national debt works. Taking in more debt on things like infrastructure is good.

 

[O.v.e.rlord]

Liberal Tea Party?

.

Libertea party?

 

[Rentahamster]

Libertea party?

http://eventful.com/greenville_nc/events/boston-libertea-party-dec-16-durham-nc-/E0-001-007889183-5

 

[necrosis]

Good. It's been a long time coming. It's sad that it took the orange man for it to happen. People should have been up in arms back in 2009 when the dems gutted Obamacare by removing the government option to make republicans and blue dogs happy. If we had a public option the ACA might not be in quite as precarious of a position as it is today.

Btw, those blue dogs? They got decimated in the next cycle anyway. So a lot of good that did...

pretty much my thoughts exactly

 

[aeolist]

Do you know how the national debt works. Taking in more debt on things like infrastructure is good.

an effect of republicans controlling the political message since the 80s without democrats putting up any fight at all is that people really believe things like "debt = bad" in terms of macroeconomics

 

[Savitar]

Rise up, it's time to resist.

 

[O.v.e.rlord]

http://eventful.com/greenville_nc/events/boston-libertea-party-dec-16-durham-nc-/E0-001-007889183-5

Holy shit! It's a thing!?

 

[Cocaloch]

Sorry, the voters who either voted for Trump or opted to stay home don't get to say this.

I have no idea why "don't blame the voters!" is a talking point these days. I'll blame them all I want - they're the ones who actually voted Trump in or didn't vote against him!

Because this removes all agency from political parties, even though they obviously have far more agency in elections than the electorate. At the end of the day parties need to convince people to vote for them.

Not really seeing how they are "Hillary diehards", I think it is more like "not-Trump diehards".

You're not seeing the connection between a drive by insult to these people based on literally nothing other than the assumption that they are further to the left than normal for dems and thus didn't vote and being a "Hillary diehard"?

 

[Rentahamster]

Holy shit! It's a thing!?

It's been coined before, but not really a thing nowadays. Officially, anyway.

 

[Banana Aeon]

an effect of republicans controlling the political message since the 80s without democrats putting up any fight at all is that people really believe things like "debt = bad" in terms of macroeconomics

Republicans have made the national debt so scary but no one understands how it works. It's a shame.

This is why they're attacking the department of education. An educated populace won't vote for them.

 

[Jangowuzhere]

So how do we reconcile this with the overlap with the 73% of Americans who want them to work with Trump?

Because neither side of that argument is going to be able to go it alone

Are we trusting polls again for some reason? 73% of Americans want to work with Trump? What a load of bullshit.

 

[Coolness]

Are we trusting polls again for some reason? 73% of Americans want to work with Trump? What a load of bullshit.

To work on things they agree on. Infrastructure is one.

 

[gutter_trash]

Where are they in agreement?

Infrastructure.... That's it

 

[Vicetrailia]

So how do we reconcile this with the overlap with the 73% of Americans who want them to work with Trump?

Because neither side of that argument is going to be able to go it alone

Online polls are volunteer. They are unable to speak for the general liberal population nationwide. It only represents that specific websites liberal pop, but that's still flawed. And I think the criteria was specific to agreed issues.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Because this removes all agency from political parties, even though they obviously have far more agency in elections than the electorate. At the end of the day parties need to convince people to vote for them.

And solely blaming the political parties or candidates removes all agency from voters. It's a two-way street.

 

[Cocaloch]

Republicans have made the national debt so scary but no one understands how it works. It's a shame.

This is why they're attacking the department of education. An educated populace won't vote for them.

The dems do this too actually. I distinctly remember Hillary going on about it for pretty much no reason in either the first or second debate. It plays well with people on both sides of the aisle.

And solely blaming the political parties or candidates removes all agency from voters. It's a two-way street.

Voters as individuals essentially have marginal agency.

 

[Rentahamster]

Infrastructure.... That's it

TPP? Outsourcing?

 

[Banana Aeon]

The dems do this too actually. I distinctly remember Hillary going on about it for pretty much no reason in either the first or second debate. It plays well with people on both sides of the aisle.

I don't remember Hillary doing it, but I know a lot of Blue Dogs do it. It really needs to stop, because this shit leads to fiscal turmoil.

 

[zelas]

So how do we reconcile this with the overlap with the 73% of Americans who want them to work with Trump?

Because neither side of that argument is going to be able to go it alone

Better question. How does this reconcile with the fact that these threats are coming from voters who couldn't even get Bernie to compete in the Primary?

 

[Rentahamster]

And solely blaming the political parties or candidates removes all agency from voters. It's a two-way street.

Arguments over agency aside, and from a strictly PR point of view, blaming and scolding the people who you want to vote for you next time is not an effective strategy.

 

[aeolist]

Infrastructure.... That's it

republicans want "public-private partnerships" which amount to huge cheap loans and tax breaks for big companies with no guarantees that their workers won't be ground into the dirt and ending up with toll roads everywhere so they can keep profiting for decades. clinton basically wanted this too i believe.

the sanders wing of the democrats want the government to employ people directly and pay them well to build things that would be owned by the public.

we'll get the former unless people actually understand what's going on and are willing to pressure congress over it, which likely won't happen and probably won't matter if it does.

 

[Vicetrailia]

And solely blaming the political parties or candidates removes all agency from voters. It's a two-way street.

People are working on turnout for the next election, they're making calls, protesting, going to town halls, and doing grassroots. Here they're also threatening votes. I don't think there's a need to mention a two-way street.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Voters as individuals essentially have marginal agency.

Who's talking about individual voters?

Arguments over agency aside, and from a strictly PR point of view, blaming and scolding the people whom you want to vote for you next time is not an effective strategy.

Good thing I'm not running for DNC chair.

 

[Cocaloch]

I don't remember Hillary doing it, but I know a lot of Blue Dogs do it. It really needs to stop, because this shit leads to fiscal turmoil.

Personally I think the vast majority of GOP and Dem politicians in high office are aware that debt doesn't matter in the way most people think it does, but that doesn't stop either from talking about it to score points.

I really don't think this is a partisan issue.

Who's talking about individual voters?

If it's not individual choices then we can safely assume that there are systemic issues in play for why different groups of people vote differently. As soon as we move away from the specific we need to look at those systemic issues. Of course many of these are not directly related to failure of the democratic party, voter suppression is an obvious example, but the party's ability to get people to get out and vote is also central. Focusing on how the "voters failed" is meaningless for that reason.

 

[demon]

At this point, Trump could find a way to fund a 400 billion dollar infrastructure initiative without adding to the debt, and you would still have some anti-trumpers frothing at the mouth and threatening to primary anyone that votes for it.

You sure proved your point with that never-would-happen example of yours.

 

[rokkerkory]

We are the rebel alliance!

 

[wumster3000]

good. keep their feet to the fire.

Damn right and I agree with this. If they fold under Trump then fuck them. Let's find people who will stand up for our beliefs.

 

[skullmuffins]

Are we trusting polls again for some reason? 73% of Americans want to work with Trump? What a load of bullshit.

Can we stop disregarding the entire institution of polling every time one comes out with a result we don't agree with? It's embarrassing.

Do:
Look at the actual question asked in the poll. Different phrasing can produce very different results.
Look at who conducted the poll and if they've been reliable in the past
Look at the poll methodology. Was it done well?
Look at the sample. Do the sample demographics look OK?

Don't:
Say polls got things wrong before so why should anyone ever trust them
Say a poll is inherently garbage because it "only" polled 1,000 people
Say a poll is inherently garbage because you were not polled.

 

[cress2000]

Lots of reliable polls are conducted online. They're not the same as "polls" that are put up on twitter or a news website or w/e. I don't think the 73% number is hard to believe at all once you understand what the question was, and it was only 52% if you just counted the responses from Democrats (because of course Republicans are going to say D's should work with Trump).

Should Democrats work with Trump on issues they agree with. It's not asking if Dems should roll over and help Trump build the wall and ban muslims or whatever.

I can't dispute your points.

But I did find it interesting that the pollster Harris at least doesn't have the greatest reputation going by 538's ratings, for what it's worth. They have a bit of a right-wing bias and have the same grade as Zogby (C-). They only have one sample to draw from for Harvard (C+) on there though.