Yeah well, when that scenario played out in the primary, with Hillary adopting more of Bernie's platform than of any primary loser in history, a left - far left version of this went down,



[Edited on February 9, 2017 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2017 1:49:57 PM

This example doesn't really address blue collar workers or Trump voters, but it seems somewhat relevant:

I disagreed with the Obama administration's (and to a larger extent, the Democratic party's) all-of-the-above energy policy, because it would have continued to worsen the effects of green house gases on the climate; I similarly disagreed with the Clinton campaign's support for increased fracking.

I have no idea if this factor affected the turnout for Hillary Clinton during the last election; I just know that I weighed it heavily when determining whether I would vote for Clinton or not.

Assuming that a significant enough portion of the left had protested Clinton's campaign for this same reason, this would have meant the difference between an EPA that supports increased renewable energy funding in addition to increased fracking versus an EPA led by someone whom had previously sued the EPA thirteen times.

The first outcome would not have been ideal, but I would certainly accept it over the outcome that we have now.

2/9/2017 1:50:31 PM

^^ That picture perfect illustrates my point, which I'm certain you understand, but refuse to acknowledge.

If Democrats only compromise with the far right, then they slowly drift to the right themselves.

Without a third person in that cartoon pulling Democrats to the left, then there is no meaningful political balance being struck.

2/9/2017 2:12:16 PM

Bernie DID pull Clinton to the left. Her campaign included many policies from his primary and he helped with the strategy. Many on the left STILL refused to vote for her.

In the end Bernie himself didn't end up passing many of the Bernouts' idealogical purity test.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good - Confucius or Sun Tsu or someone.

2/9/2017 2:31:52 PM

How do you fight perception? I mean when a good chunk of the country sees Bernie as a communist and Obama as a radical Liberal (lol, come on... guy was right of center at best) what is the way forward?

2/9/2017 2:32:39 PM

^Clearly, forced re-education in public schools.

2/9/2017 2:53:36 PM

^ Jesus Schools. With Grizzly Bears

2/9/2017 3:06:11 PM

"Fight perception"? Lol

have you stopped to consider that maybe half of the country doesn't agree with socialism, big government, high taxes, and doesn't view it as "the way forward"?

2/9/2017 3:09:59 PM

See. This is what you're battling. A person who, without a hint of sarcasm, thinks Obama was a leftist.

[Edited on February 9, 2017 at 3:16 PM. Reason : Probably thinks GWB or Bill was too]

2/9/2017 3:15:33 PM

^^ social democracy is capitalist, not socialist

computer, disregard

[Edited on February 9, 2017 at 3:17 PM. Reason : god dammit, didn't see the username]

2/9/2017 3:16:56 PM

Quote :

"See. This is what you're battling. A person who, without a hint of sarcasm, thinks Obama was a leftist."

He is not the mark, though. Yeah, he's an idiot who gets his jollies trolling an obscure message board, but for every one of him, there are others out there in the fence who can be swayed by coherent arguments and empathy.

Also, he's a perfect example of why a strong Left is needed to counter the radical right. If contemporary liberals only had to argue with him, they'd eventually be pulled in his direction. They NEED someone to the left of them to keep them honest.

2/9/2017 3:39:54 PM

Quote :

"if there weren't other factors at play, the second letter would not have thrown trump the victory"

This is true.

It's also meaningless.

In a situation where the outcome was this close, you could say it about any factor. Trump won Pennsylvania by about 70,000 votes. That's out of roughly 6,000,000 votes cast, or just over 1%. It's a very thin margin.

I can believe that .6% of Pennsylvanians were swayed by the Comey e-mail release.

But I can also believe that .6% of Pennsylvanians were swayed by Clinton's apparent health problems. I can believe that .6% of those Amish-adjacent dipshits were convinced to vote for Trump because Bill met with Lynch. Or because of the information that came out of the DNC hacks. Or any of a dozen other things. Remove these or any "other factors," and Clinton wins Pennsylvania. (Yes I know she needed other states, too, but several of the swing states had comparably narrow margins)

When a contest is those close, every factor can be called "the one" that decided the outcome. Pick whatever you like, that's what did it. Is any of this a useful analysis? No.

2/9/2017 10:05:59 PM

^ not really

The effect of "fake" scandals has a known trajectory, that self corrects. The election happened to hit within the period before things could return to equilibrium from the comey letter. If the election were a few days earlier or later Hillary would have won.

I agree this is not relevant today, except to understand that the narrative that America is somehow inundated with people who love trump is specious.

Not that democrats don't have major problems. They need a lot of work selling their vision to blue collars and religious people.

2/9/2017 10:19:57 PM

My point was that there were many other factors that could have been avoided or addressed. Her campaign, the Democratic party, and her supporters thought she had it in the bag, so they were comfortable ignoring things that were clearly important. Young people, the working class, trust issues, speeches, etc. Because of this, a small swing at the end enabled their defeat.

There's also the fact that they HELPED TRUMP WIN. They wanted an extreme candidate from the Republican primary, and they sure as hell got one.

[Edited on February 9, 2017 at 10:49 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2017 10:45:34 PM

^ Eh I think as of right now we can still make the argument that Trump may be less damaging than someone like Cruz could be just because he's less competent.

2/10/2017 12:28:11 AM

Cruz was also on their pied piper list

2/10/2017 7:16:04 AM

Quote :

"He is not the mark, though. Yeah, he's an idiot who gets his jollies trolling an obscure message board, but for every one of him, there are others out there in the fence who can be swayed by coherent arguments and empathy."

Your side has no coherent arguments.

Your entire platform was identity politics, victimhood narratives, and "Trump is a ___phobe". That is why you lost.

2/10/2017 9:24:41 AM

^ still the platform

2/10/2017 6:07:31 PM

How dumb do trump voters want us to think they are?

You didn't vote for trump because you thought he was the best, you voted for him because someone called you racist?

This is literally the argument 95% of times someone says "this is why trump won"

[Edited on February 11, 2017 at 10:50 PM. Reason : ]

2/11/2017 10:49:38 PM

Someone hurt my feelings so I voted for trump.

Ok bruh

2/11/2017 11:08:35 PM

^^ Not that I think it's a logical thing to do, but... Our elections are essentially a false dichotomy. 100s of millions of people believe they have to pick either R or D, no matter what. And, at a time when both candidates are literally the worst candidates their party has ever brought forward, if D is consistently calling you a racist at just about every single turn? well...

Again, is it a logical reason to vote R? Fuck no. Is it understandable? Yup.

And I'd say that the fault lies partly with the Dems for continuously reinforcing the two-party system. What was their appeal this year to Bernie voters? "You have to vote for her or else the R will win." You can't push a two-party restriction on people, and then go around insulting people at the drop of a hat. That's just how it is.

2/12/2017 12:51:36 AM

If Bernie stood out from the party, and enough serious people had stepped out from against Trump to support a conservative, then things may have been different with four real options, but the money/power base in DC is too entrenched in maintaining their power, so we are stuck with two horrible parties until Congress becomes less two-party from Congressional elections (where I think it will/should start).

2/12/2017 7:00:45 AM

^ We would have to redraw the entire district system for that to start. If that happens than there is a slight possibility.

2/12/2017 7:57:55 AM

Quote :

"Again, is it a logical reason to vote R? Fuck no. Is it understandable? Yup."

I actually think there is quite a bit of truth to Democrats accusing too many folks of racism and those accusations are at times WAY over the top. I also think you're right that those accusations do motivate some folks politics (to be against Dems) and in some cases it evens scares those being accused.

But I'd also point out the opposite is also true. Republicans will go to the mat defending some pretty obvious bias or even blatant racism, because they know it's politically useful or they straight believe it, I dunno.

Here is the best example I've found so far:

Rand Paul on confirming Jeff Sessions:

Quote :

" “In some ways, the Democrats made it much more certain that I would vote for him, by trying to destroy his character. I think to me it’s very upsetting that they didn’t choose to go after him on particular issues like civil asset forfeiture, where they might have been able to persuade someone like me,” Paul said Thursday. “They chose to go after him, and try to destroy a man’s character.” “No person that I know wants to be called racist or insensitive or that you’re for trying to prevent people to vote.” Paul said. “We may disagree exactly on what the law should be, but that is attacking someone’s motives and character to say that he doesn’t want, for some reason, African-American voters to vote, and I don’t think it’s true.” "

This is LITERALLY the argument you are using above. But come the fuck on. You don't think Jeff Sessions history doesn't have a trend of bias against people of color? Does someone LITERALLY have to don a white hood to be racist? It's not obvious why a black person might be concerned about this dude taking over the justice department?????

Again, I think it's true that Dems overreact at times and see bias where perhaps a more mundane explanation is appropriate. But is it also not true that the GOP REFUSES to consider that bias might exist at times?
That racism only consists of burning crosses?

2/12/2017 9:50:51 AM

I think the main takeaway for Clinton voters is understanding just how out of touch you are with the other side.

Not that Trump supporters have made great efforts to reach out, rather they have been forced to hear the other side from the media, celebrities and extremely vocal leftists 24/7. Whereas the leftists, even when they pretend to ask the other side something... they don't actually want to hear an answer, they just want to insult the other side and feel good about themselves.

The DNC's entire platform was collectivist identity politics, with a side of marxist oppression narratives. The DNC convention was nothing but a "victim parade" of demographic quotas, featuring:

victim anchor baby
victim black lady
victim Muslims
victim midgets

While this appeal to emotion works well with women and gullible SJWs, it doesn't work with the other demographics, aka working class men.

So I don't think most guys voted Trump out of "anger because people called them racist". Though leftists thinking that proves my point about them being out of touch.

2/12/2017 2:36:50 PM

Oh please. The entire trump platform revolves around victims caused by "policy".

Trump would never have won without the blue collar worker feeling victimized.

What policy causes the victim??? And what victim do you support?????

[Edited on February 12, 2017 at 6:23 PM. Reason : Which victim is real?!?!??]

2/12/2017 6:23:15 PM

Quote :

"Trump would never have won without the blue collar worker feeling victimized. "

which is how the democrats carried the rust belt for so long. trump essentially out-democratted the democrats in those areas.

2/12/2017 7:09:26 PM

http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/how-white-house-advisor-stephen-miller-went-from-pestering-hispanic-students-to-designing-trumps-immigration-policy

A profile on Miller who trump sent out today to say dumb things.

2/12/2017 8:12:17 PM

JCE2011, out of curiousity have you read: "Listen Liberal". Author has a great talk summarizing the book here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGLGKghQlgY

Outlines a lot of those points.

Frank on Maher:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pWz5hQUhT8

2/12/2017 8:29:32 PM

King trump decrees his power is not to be questioned

2/12/2017 10:07:37 PM

^^ I've been watching some of his talks. I think his criticism of the media's corruption getting Trump elected was spot on.

2/13/2017 10:51:37 AM

Quote :

"If Democrats did a better job these past three decades telling the workers of the world to unite and to seize the means of production, then we'd be having a different discussion"

Do you really think that when your communist revolution happens, you're going to be on the right side of it? The "workers of the world" would turn on your bourgeois ass so fast it would make your head spin.

2/13/2017 6:35:34 PM

^ yeah it's likely/possible stronger worker unions would have sealed the borders a long time ago,or created catastrophic trade wars already.

We really just need intelligent leaders making the best decisions based on available data, including sociological and psychological data.

[Edited on February 13, 2017 at 6:53 PM. Reason : ]

2/13/2017 6:52:50 PM

Quote :

"And just tell me where in the world you find these angels that are going to organize society for us?"

2/13/2017 7:53:42 PM

^ we are those angels

Government=society

If smart people don't continuously try to convince everyone else to make good decisions and choose other smart people, then dumb people will make those decisions for us.

There's no way to organize government where people don't have to get involved and things still turn out okay.

2/13/2017 8:29:29 PM

well, it's worked out swimmingly thus far

2/13/2017 8:39:12 PM

It takes a special kind of stupid to be a Marxist in 2017 America. At least they are being honest about it ITT.

2/14/2017 10:23:52 AM

Quote :

" We really just need intelligent leaders making the best decisions based on available data, including sociological and psychological data."

No. Contemporary liberals consistently make this mistake. The "If only we had smart leaders" argument.

YOU CANNOT SET UP A SYSTEM OF VAST UNCHECKED POWER AND THEN RELY ON THE WISDOM OF THOSE IN POWER TO DO THE RIGHT THING. You have to limit the authority they have to begin with.

Liberals would be better served defending democratic institutions (AFFORDABLE universities, free speech and independent media, labor unions, ballot access, corporate regulating, etc) and impeding overreach than trying to find their champion.

Democrats have abandoned these institutions (and their original missions) because they were flooded with a sea of corporate cash, and now they've turned the keys over to a madman.

Quote :

"Do you really think that when your communist revolution happens, you're going to be on the right side of it? The "workers of the world" would turn on your bourgeois ass so fast it would make your head spin."

Calm down, comrade. I already said I was being provocative with that statement. But the sentiment remains. Democrats abandoned labor (see Shrike). They adopted corporatism. And without that necessary counterbalance, populist outrage found an outlet in a nationalistic voice in Trump. We could have just as easily provided those voters with a more Socialist alternative to their problems. We could have had a reasonable discussion about the role of labor, the social responsibility of the Capitalist class, and what would define an equitable share of profits in the age of rampant privatisation, but our Democratic Party didn't want to turn their back on their corporate donors. So we didn't have that discussion. Instead, we are witnessing the rise of fascism, which is the point I've been trying to make.



Now....where did I put my Ushanka?

[Edited on February 14, 2017 at 2:19 PM. Reason : ]

2/14/2017 2:06:50 PM