Support NeoGAF

[Vigilant Walrus]

My thinking is that the GOPs victory happens in a big way thanks to its propaganda news outlets that attacks from a global mainstream, conspiracy and micro targeted subjects.

GOP voters become indoctrinated at many different pinpoints:

1) Mainstream outlets like Fox News.
2) Unlikely allies in outlets like Conspiracy shows like Info Wars. They pretend to be libertarian and for freedom, but in the end it is deplorable.
3) Micro-Targeted specific special interest; guns, israel, abortion, anti enviornment regulation.
4) Online Flank; A new area that targets a lot of depressed and angry young and middle aged men who spend a lot of time on the internet, who has an axe to grind with SJW and liberal snowflakes.

What you end with is a unlikely larger coalition of people brought together on conservative issues. And across all levels of propaganda you have fake news that twists this.



If the Democrats obstruct everything, once it gets through this Right-Wing PR machine, it will be twisted as that the Democrats are responsible for obstruction, but it will also redeem Mitch McConnells obstruction in the last 8 years.
You can say that the republicans started it, but they can say that democrats did it too and they need to STFU.
You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Nobody gives a shit about who started it. You're not 5 year olds. You're a adult who does what you condemn others for doing.

Obstruct, resist and show your Halo on everything you don't want to partake in. Focus on minimizing the damages by letting it seep into state laws so liberal strongholds have a possibility to minimize the damage in local elections.

Understand that the democrats cannot win in a million years by imitating the GOP. Not in this manner. They are wrong. They are the wrong side of history. Don't let the democrats and liberals be deplorable. If society collapses or things get really bad, you want all Americans to collectively take their anger out on them. Give it more time for trumps bad policies to affect more people. Demonstrations will grow a lot over the next 4 years.

Try and figure out how to undo the conservative PR spin that allows them to blame the liberals for anything.

 

[Quixzlizx]

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

Like McConnell wouldn't have done the same thing if the Democrats acted in the same way. Get that shit out of here.

 

[GuyKazama]

Like McConnell wouldn't have done the same thing if the Democrats acted in the same way. Get that shit out of here.

McConnell has never supported Senate rule changes. Do you have a quote that says otherwise?

I used to hate Harry Reid, but his short-sided decison has been a gift. Trump has so many open judge positions to fill -- more than 100 today -- that he will be able to remake the judiciary in his first term with a simple majority.

 

[Banana Aeon]

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

Well, Trump is known not to pay his employees, so it could happen.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

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.

I'm strictly talking about those who either voted for Trump, voted for a third party, or who didn't vote at all (but were able and willing to do so). These people enabled Trump to win. Obviously if an individual was prevented from voting because of voter suppression I'm not talking about them.

The Democratic Party had some problems for sure! I just don't think they deserve all of the blame. It's a cop-out, honestly. And I get that. People are wanting to blame one thing as a scapegoat (Hillary & the Democratic Party this time, since they lost). It wasn't just one thing - it was a combination of factors. Wanting to put the blame solely on the Democratic Party & Hillary is ignoring that tens of millions of Americans saw Trump be sexist, racist, homophobic, etc for two years (more if you count before he officially announced) and they either voted for him or didn't vote at all. I'm not interested in absolving them of all blame.

 

[Quixzlizx]

TPP? Outsourcing?

That protectionist part of Trump's agenda is going to cause long-term damage to the American economy with little to no short-term benefit.

The problem isn't with globalization, it's that the government hasn't been willing to fairly redistribute the gains from globalization throughout the American population. It's a political problem, not an economic problem.

Automation is going to destroy more jobs than outsourcing.

 

[thepotatoman]

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.

I think some of the cabinet votes were a warning sign to liberal activists that democrats are starting to go down the road of appeasing to the right of resisting Trump, banking on the same block of moderate republicans that have betrayed them time and time again. It wasn't a meaningful vote for actually blocking a cabnet member that had no chance of being blocked, but it was a symbolic one.

Now, most of them are looking to the Gorsuch fight, where there can be real obstruction.

And there's been plenty of protests against republicans too, probably much more so than democrats, but democrats are the most likely to actually care to listen.

No real protests about the EC, because that's a really huge stretch. The protests are about obamacare and immigration because stopping republicans from doing something bad is far more likely than forcing them to do something good, and so far it's working.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

McConnell has never supported Senate rule changes. Do you have a quote that says otherwise?

I used to hate Harry Reid, but his short-sided decison has been a gift. Trump has so many open judge positions to fill -- more than 100 today -- that he will be able to remake the judiciary in his first term with a simple majority.

Do you know how many judicial positions there are in the federal judiciary?

Spoiler

100 is not a big number in comparison and will certainly not allow Trump to remake the judiciary

 

[Quixzlizx]

McConnell has never supported Senate rule changes. Do you have a quote that says otherwise?

I used to hate Harry Reid, but his short-sided decison has been a gift. Trump has so many open judge positions to fill -- more than 100 today -- that he will be able to remake the judiciary in his first term with a simple majority.

Why would he have supported Senate rule changes when he was benefiting from the current rules to obstruct a Democratic president?

 

[Not]

That's right.

 

[Rentahamster]

That protectionist part of Trump's agenda is going to cause long-term damage to the American economy with little to no short-term benefit.

The problem isn't with globalization, it's that the government hasn't been willing to fairly redistribute the gains from globalization throughout the American population. It's a political problem, not an economic problem.

Automation is going to destroy more jobs than outsourcing.

Do you think progressives are on the wrong side of this issue too when they criticized it? Or is it just that Trump is doing it in the wrong way, in your opinion?

 

[Xe4]

McConnell has never supported Senate rule changes. Do you have a quote that says otherwise?

I used to hate Harry Reid, but his short-sided decison has been a gift. Trump has so many open judge positions to fill -- more than 100 today -- that he will be able to remake the judiciary in his first term with a simple majority.

McConnell says a lot of shit, yet acts in a completely different manner. Guaranteed, had DeVos or whomever been blocked enough the filibuster would've been nuked. This is the fucking GOP we're talking about, I'm surprised anyone thinks they won't/wouldn't.

 

[BlazinSkatinAxel]

Liberal Kale Party?

We'll see.

Ftfy

 

[Quixzlizx]

Do you think progressives are on the wrong side of this issue too when they criticized it? Or is it just that Trump is doing it in the wrong way, in your opinion?

I can understand why progressives would be against some of the individual provisions in the TPP. But I think it is a mistake to be reflexively against trade with other countries. If we don't increase our ties with the TPP nations, then China will. Just look at how Mexico is hedging its bets now that we've gone pure fuckboy as a trading partner. Do you think that has strengthened or weakened the American economy?

Being a hardcore protectionist at this point is another strain of Make America Great Again, in that it is sentimental longing for a past that is gone. We'd be better off correctly adapting to the future than burying our heads in the sand. Which is why Obama tried to begin a conversation about automation near the end of his term.

 

[Cocaloch]

The Democratic Party had some problems for sure! I just don't think they deserve all of the blame. It's a cop-out, honestly. And I get that. People are wanting to blame one thing as a scapegoat (Hillary & the Democratic Party this time, since they lost). It wasn't just one thing - it was a combination of factors. Wanting to put the blame solely on the Democratic Party & Hillary is ignoring that tens of millions of Americans saw Trump be sexist, racist, homophobic, etc for two years (more if you count before he officially announced) and they either voted for him or didn't vote at all. I'm not interested in absolving them of all blame.

Sure, the party's failure wasn't the only factor, but it was the largest and the one that was probably most avoidable. Moreover it was the one that people on our side actually could have done something about.

Blame is fairly pointless if there is nothing you can do with it, so I'm not too interested in playing that game. This gets especially complicated when a lot of the people that didn't vote at all probably did so because the Democratic party, with plenty of help from GOP propaganda and cultural sexism, did not do a good job of convincing them that they should vote for Hilary instead of just hammering Trump about being awful. When people, quite rightly, understand their individual vote as essentially pointless the best way to actually effect a positive change is to convince them that that doesn't matter. Obama did this by being charismatic, so it's hard to say what the Dems should have done in 2016 without that charismatic leader, but the Dems still should have done better about this.

 

[SpaceCadetKeon]

I hate it when people say that or give him a chance.

I hate it when people say "if he succeeds, we succeed." It's such a gross oversimplification. I don't want him to succeed at all the awful shit his administration wants to do.

 

[Verano]

Purity tests?

 

[CrispyBoar]

The big upside of this is maybe these fools will actually vote at the midterms this time

You can definitely bet that they will if they have a functioning brain.

 

[Jay Sosa]

For Democrats in Washington, many of whom are still surprised by the scale and furiousness of backlash...

Really?

Even as a non US citizen I fully realize how terrible this guy is for this country.

 

[Averon]

Really?

Even as a non US citizen I fully realize how terrible this guy is for this country.

Just goes to show how terribly disconnected they are with the base.

 

[Jay Sosa]

Just goes to show how terribly disconnected they are with the base.

yep, talk about living in a bubble

 

[GameAddict411]

I think that the liberals should create the tea party equivalent for the left. Sadly, the only way to beat the Republicans is to play their dirty games. It's pretty obvious they have been playing by the books for a while and their gerrymandering shows. Trump getting Russian help in the election also shows that the Republicans know that they can no longer win fairly. The democrats have to play dirty for a while to be able to gain back a lot of the ground they lost the past 6 years.

 

[Aaronology]

Here's my hot take: Priority #1 for Democrats is being in touch with their base. Right now people are really, really angry. The Party needs to recognize, embrace and channel that anger. Not be flabbergasted by it. Not be confused or nonplussed by it. Not try to redirect, mollify, assuage, ignore, downplay or bullshit their way out of addressing it. Rationality has its moments and this may not be one of them. If being complete and utter obstructionists is what emotionally energizes the Left, keeps people fired up, makes people feel like they've got a party fighting with and for them and consequently gets bodies to the ballots then that's what they need to be doing.

 

[Carnby]

Come on don't do this. Hillary recieved almost 66 million votes. I'm pretty sure that's more votes than any President in history outside of Obama.

Voters showed up, and I'm willing to bet the Bernie or busters played a rather insignificant role in the election, especially when you had Obama voters in the rust belt and elsewhere swing to Trump this time.

Blame the EC. Blame Hillary's camp and their poor campaign. Don't blame the voters.

Hardly. Try number 10.

http://www.presidentsusa.net/popularvote.html

Edit: nevermind. I'm wrong.

 

[wetwired]

Liberal Tea Party?

We'll see.

Coffee Party?

 

[wandering]

Coffee Party?

Kombucha Party

 

[Foffy]

That protectionist part of Trump's agenda is going to cause long-term damage to the American economy with little to no short-term benefit.

The problem isn't with globalization, it's that the government hasn't been willing to fairly redistribute the gains from globalization throughout the American population. It's a political problem, not an economic problem.

Automation is going to destroy more jobs than outsourcing.

Crystalize this post. It's all dead on the money.

 

[water_wendi]

Hardly. Try number 10.

http://www.presidentsusa.net/popularvote.html

Its worth noting that those numbers include multiple presidential elections. For example, Reagan didnt win with 98 million votes in 1980.

 

[KuwabaraTheMan]

Hardly. Try number 10.

http://www.presidentsusa.net/popularvote.html

Those numbers include every election the candidate was in, not a single election. Hence how Nixon, who ran three times, is in second place, and fucking Adlai Stevenson, who lost twice, is in 15th.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

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.

I think the poster is saying the 73% number is BS. The onus is on the pollster to demonstrate their track record, show if the poll is well calibrated, and the theory/empirical evidence that stands behind extrapolations they make from the data. Don't tell Democrats they should work with Trump based off useless information.

 

[royalan]

Here's my hot take: Priority #1 for Democrats is being in touch with their base. Right now people are really, really angry. The Party needs to recognize, embrace and channel that anger. Not be flabbergasted by it. Not be confused or nonplussed by it. Not try to redirect, mollify, assuage, ignore, downplay or bullshit their way out of addressing it. Rationality has its moments and this may not be one of them. If being complete and utter obstructionists is what emotionally energizes the Left, keeps people fired up, makes people feel like they've got a party fighting with and for them and consequently gets bodies to the ballots then that's what they need to be doing.

Amen

 

[TarNaru33]

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

Since no one seemed to correct this on the first page. That statistic is 73% of Americans, but that wasn't specifically a Democrat/Liberal poll. There were "independents" and Republicans counted in that poll.

 

[Orayn]

Here's my hot take: Priority #1 for Democrats is being in touch with their base. Right now people are really, really angry. The Party needs to recognize, embrace and channel that anger. Not be flabbergasted by it. Not be confused or nonplussed by it. Not try to redirect, mollify, assuage, ignore, downplay or bullshit their way out of addressing it. Rationality has its moments and this may not be one of them. If being complete and utter obstructionists is what emotionally energizes the Left, keeps people fired up, makes people feel like they've got a party fighting with and for them and consequently gets bodies to the ballots then that's what they need to be doing.

This is what we'll actually get:

 

[Mutant]

In a presidency where our POTUS is a fascist that has an agenda to hurt everybody who isn't male and white and time and time again succeeds at hurting them, does working with the fascist to push through economic law that (on paper) seems beneficial to the middle/lower class count as "working with a facist towards white prosperity"? This isn't rhetorical, just a seed of a thought that I would like to see someone who is much more educated on politics talk about. Sorry if this is a shitty post.

Here's my hot take: Priority #1 for Democrats is being in touch with their base. Right now people are really, really angry. The Party needs to recognize, embrace and channel that anger. Not be flabbergasted by it. Not be confused or nonplussed by it. Not try to redirect, mollify, assuage, ignore, downplay or bullshit their way out of addressing it. Rationality has its moments and this may not be one of them. If being complete and utter obstructionists is what emotionally energizes the Left, keeps people fired up, makes people feel like they've got a party fighting with and for them and consequently gets bodies to the ballots then that's what they need to be doing.

Good take!

 

[Mutant]

dp

 

[OniBarubary]

Here's my hot take: Priority #1 for Democrats is being in touch with their base. Right now people are really, really angry. The Party needs to recognize, embrace and channel that anger. Not be flabbergasted by it. Not be confused or nonplussed by it. Not try to redirect, mollify, assuage, ignore, downplay or bullshit their way out of addressing it. Rationality has its moments and this may not be one of them. If being complete and utter obstructionists is what emotionally energizes the Left, keeps people fired up, makes people feel like they've got a party fighting with and for them and consequently gets bodies to the ballots then that's what they need to be doing.

Thaaaaank yoooouuuu.

 

[grumble]

If the premise of that article is true, then the US democratic system really has failed.

 

[skullmuffins]

I think the poster is saying the 73% number is BS. The onus is on the pollster to demonstrate their track record, show if the poll is well calibrated, and the theory/empirical evidence that stands behind extrapolations they make from the data. Don't tell Democrats they should work with Trump based off useless information.

Clearly he disagrees with the 73% number. "Are we trusting polls again?" is shitty reasoning to disagree with a poll. Ever since the election, every single poll-related thread has tons of people denying poll results they don't like as if polls are suddenly useless because they were off by a couple of percentage points in the election or because they don't understand how statistics work or some other piss poor reasoning. It's really annoying.

I've already explained how I feel the 73% number is believable but meaningless. The 73% top number is useless because why the fuck should Democrats care about what Republicans think they should do, and the question is designed to get a lot of positive answers. 48% of democrats responded that Dems should go ham and obstruct on everything, 52% of dems said they should work together on issues they support. I think the takeaway here is that virtually half of Democrats polled said they think Dems should obstruct for the sake of obstruction regardless of if it might be something they could otherwise agree with Trump on.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

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.

Yeah and I'd be with them, because we'd all be smart enough to know Trump didn't really find a way to fund a 400-billion-dollar infrastructure plan without adding to the debt; he just made that up and told his people to repeat it as if it's fact.

 

[hodayathink]

You want to try to primary, say Schumer? Go ahead (I mean, you probably won't succeed, but go ahead). The problem is that the Dems most likely to vote Republican (outside of probably Warner in Virginia) are the Dems that you actually don't want to primary, strategically speaking. Manchin (West Virginia) and Heitkamp (North Dakota) are representing constituencies that voted overwhelmingly Republican in the last presidential election, so if you actually successfully primaried them with someone more liberal all that would happen is that you'd end up adding another Republican seat. Most everything else that has even been anything more than mildly objectionable so far those two (plus maybe one or two others) have been the only rank breaking Dem votes.

That, and I'd like to wait until Congress actually starts trying to pass legislature before determining who is and isn't trying to work with Republicans. If we're going to play the whole "Republicans did it, so we can do it too" game, they didn't actually obstruct cabinet positions in 2008/9. The first batch of legislature and the Supreme Court nomination are where we are going to actually find out where we stand.

 

[Lord Frieza]

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

I knew that thread title would fuck up that topic. That's not what the poll said, but I knew people would just parrot the title.

 

[royalan]

You want to try to primary, say Schumer? Go ahead (I mean, you probably won't succeed, but go ahead). The problem is that the Dems most likely to vote Republican (outside of probably Warner in Virginia) are the Dems that you actually don't want to primary, strategically speaking. Manchin (West Virginia) and Heitkamp (North Dakota) are representing constituencies that voted overwhelmingly Republican in the last presidential election, so if you actually successfully primaried them with someone more liberal all that would happen is that you'd end up adding another Republican seat. Most everything else that has even been anything more than mildly objectionable so far those two (plus maybe one or two others) have been the only rank breaking Dem votes.

That, and I'd like to wait until Congress actually starts trying to pass legislature before determining who is and isn't trying to work with Republicans. If we're going to play the whole "Republicans did it, so we can do it too" game, they didn't actually obstruct cabinet positions in 2008/9. The first batch of legislature and the Supreme Court nomination are where we are going to actually find out where we stand.

The Democrats who have to worry about a potential backlash aren't the blue dogs in purple districts. It's the Pelosis and Schumers who serve as the face of the party and who serve heavily liberal states where movements like this will be able to spread quickly.

Schumer's got the most to worry about. His seat seems pretty safe, but if he keeps fucking up I wouldn't be at all surprised if he got a real challenger.

 

[wandering]

I'm still not entirely convinced that a progressive Democratic Party won't go the way of Labour under Jeremy Corbyn.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The Democrats who have to worry about a potential backlash aren't the blue dogs in purple districts. It's the Pelosis and Schumers who serve as the face of the party and who serve heavily liberal states where movements like this will be able to spread quickly.

Schumer's got the most to worry about. His seat seems pretty safe, but if he keeps fucking up I wouldn't be at all surprised if he got a real challenger.

Chuck Shumer could murder someone on live television and be reelected with over 60% of the vote

He's like a tier above "safe senator"

The very reason these people are the face of the Democrat party is because they're ultra safe. Primarying Pelosi would also be a terrible idea that would drain the DNC of much needed funds.

 

[royalan]

Chuck Shumer could murder someone on live television and be reelected with over 60% of the vote

He's like a tier above "safe senator"

The very reason these people are the face of the Democrat party is because they're ultra safe. Primarying Pelosi would also be a terrible idea that would drain the DNC of much needed funds.

Lets save my post and lets come back to it, oh, say a year from now.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Lets save my post and lets come back to it, oh, say a year from now.

Schumer was just reelected in November with 70% of the vote. It's going to be awhile before he can even be primaried.

 

[The Technomancer]

I knew that thread title would fuck up that topic. That's not what the poll said, but I knew people would just parrot the title.

My point is this: I have seen very progressive people, among whom I count myself, many many times make the mistake of assuming that we are more numerous than we are and that more people support our wide list of concerns than actually do. I want us to be really really careful about honestly assessing what we think the "clearly popular" things the "democrats just need to do to win" are

 

[Stinkles]

Odds are not ever in Trumpniss' favor.

http://m.seattlepi.com/entertainmen...ds-Trump-Won-t-Finish-First-Term-10940321.php

 

[hodayathink]

Chuck Shumer could murder someone on live television and be reelected with over 60% of the vote

He's like a tier above "safe senator"

The very reason these people are the face of the Democrat party is because they're ultra safe. Primarying Pelosi would also be a terrible idea that would drain the DNC of much needed funds.

4-6 years ago, would you have said the same thing about Eric Cantor?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Lets save my post and lets come back to it, oh, say a year from now.

The next time to primary Shumer is in 5 years

4-6 years ago, would you have said the same thing about Eric Cantor?

He was a GOP congressman.

Shumer is a senator with no election for 6 years in a very blue state.