There was a rock star fervor around Obama and an exaggeration of Hillary’s qualifications, but it’s difficult to take the OP seriously when Trump supporters call him “God-Emperor” and “Daddy” and the Trump subreddit reads like a 370k member cult.
If some Republican says to Hillary supporters “maybe you don’t hate America, but you are ok with being on the same team as those who do”, is that going to make them think twice about voting for her?
Why do you assume I’m trying to get Trump people to vote Democratic? We just need all the Democrats to get involved and come out and vote and if that happens we win. I’m fighting apathy on my side, not trying to convince the inconvincible. If the election happened again right now, Hillary wins just due to increased turnout on our side.
I’m not going to stop calling out what’s happening though, regardless of the chagrin it may cause Trump people. You voted for it, you own it. All of it.
So Hillary lost in 2016, largely due to Democratic apathy and therefore lower turn out, even though there was a lot of name-calling against Trump voters. So the answer is even more name-calling. But this time, it will work.
Are you aware that you can do more than one thing at a time? You can both call out racism/sexism/homophobia when you see it, and you can organize and encourage political involvement of others. This isn’t an either or. We will not ignore racism/sexism/homophobia no matter how much you advise it. Sorry.
Name-calling isn’t necessary or helpful in exciting and motivating liberal voters, but anger and passion probably are, and name-calling will probably be a byproduct of such anger and passion.
So you are going to do what you did in 2016 - both attempt to turn out the vote, and call the other side names. Even though Hillary lost because Democrats did not turn out for her, and the other side won. And since turnout is historically lower in mid-term elections than ones in Presidential years, and since a number of Congressional districts that went for Hillary also went with the GOP candidates for Congress, and since there are 25 Democrat-controlled seats in the Senate up for re-election vs. 8 GOP ones, this is, no doubt, a winning strategy. As mentioned, good luck with that.
Why are conservatives such snowflakes. They can dish it out but sure as hell can’t take it. Toughen the hell up. Liberals are insulted constantly from your side. What’s good for the goose and all. Don’t expect it to stop. If Republicans do things that are sexist/racist/homophobic it will be called out. Every time.
Mid term elections tend to go to the party not in power. Especially when the incumbent is very unpopular, as Trump is. So go ahead and be overconfident. That helps us too. You might want to check with your reps that are running and hiding from their constituents right now. They don’t seem to share your confidence or they wouldn’t be afraid of doing a town hall in their home districts. Their own voters are terrifying them right now.
No one denies she voted yes. She had reasons for voting yes that many can, and do, disagree with.
The part that requires nuance is when people want to draw the conclusion that because she voted yes she must be an unrepentant war-hawk, who flip-flopped later for political expediency. She has been completely consistent and honest with her point of view, which is what the speech illustrates.
Anyone can disagree with her decision, but to use it as an example of dishonestly is nonsense.
yet, point out that some people had reasons to vote for Iridescent Cheese Wheel that had nothing to do with bigotry (or being comfortable with bigotry) and all you get back is “nuh uh! they’re racist misogynists and we need to scream at them relentlessly!”
“Massive flaws” being the crap that Russian propagandists made up or exaggerated and that the Right and Bernie Bros gleefully spread. :dubious:
Yes, She had flaws, the biggest of which isnt 1/10 the size of Trumps smallest flaw.
“She got paid big bux to give speeches to walls Street and Big Banks”. vs Putting Big Bankers and Wall Street billionaires in charge of the government, filling the cabinet with them.
So did most of Congress including many Democrats. You seem to forget this was a War started by a GOP president for the benefit of his GOP cronies, a President who* lied to congress *about the dangers. And you seem to forget that Trump was also in favor of the War.
I find this OP to be representative of much right-wing thought about us left-of-center types: find one or two of the most ridiculous examples of left-of-center thought that they can find, claim they’re typical rather than a bizarre exception, and whack that straw man to pieces, claiming that they’ve demolished liberalism in toto.
Of course, even that’s a notch above another frequent wingnut ploy: assume that liberals are for whatever wingnuts are against. (E.g. since wingnuts are anti-Islam, claim liberals are pro-Islam in all of its manifestations; since wingnuts are against taxing and non-defense, non-police government spending on general principles, claim that liberals simply want to tax and spend more, period.) It’s an even easier straw man to demolish, and it saves the trouble of having to come up with examples at all.
One thing that I find absolutely fascinating is that there is strong support among Democrats for the idea, of which Airbeck’s quote below is a good example, that anyone voting for Trump is guilt of being sexist/racist/homophobic, or at least of being guilty by association for being on the same team as people who are. I don’t see any of the pro-Democrat people opposing that viewpoint here, for example. Yet at the same time they seem to feel that Hillary (and other Democrats’) vote to enable the Iraq war, which allowed the war to actually take place, doesn’t make them at all responsible for the war. I don’t see how you can actually reconcile the two positions, especially since her pro-Iraq vote was a direct vote for war, while someone could easily vote for Trump for reasons that aren’t sexist/racist/homophobic.
Do you really think that you can use ‘guilt by association’ to keep people from voting for the other party (and to avoid them staying at home in disgust), but at the same time disavow ‘guilt by directly voting for’ for your candidates? Seriously, the whole concept is just a muddled mess.
