Really? You’ve been here since 1999 and say that? There are Dopers on this board that even admitted to changing party affiliation so they could vote for Trump in the republican primaries. I don’t know how well that worked out for them in the long run.
There are a bunch of threads here about what is wrong with the republicans and not too many of the democrats have any trouble posting their views.
Overturning anti-miscegenation laws and anti-SSM laws were a road too far for many people, too.
Thing is, though, fuck those people. If they’re uncomfortable with recognition of fundamental human rights, they’re the ones who need to change.
You mean like what people said about Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Yeah, fuck 'em.
There were a lot of people who said that about…well, just about any advancement for civil rights in the last 150 years. Hell, there were people in the pre-revolutionary US (obviously it wasn’t the “US” in the pre-revolutionary era, but it’s the most convenient term to refer to the specific portion of Britain’s colonial empire I’m talking about) who said that about republicanism.
The OP’s linked article was a smear job. I was heartened to see the comment section come out against it. My favorite part was how she said Bernie, not Hillary, was a third wayer. That’s straight up Swift Boating. It’s one thing to argue for HRC because you style yourself as a sober minded centrist, or you’re a hawk, but this tendency for Hillary backers to portray her as somehow to the left of Bernie is silly.
It’s interesting that abortion is now the line in the sand and Sanders isn’t a progressive for being pragmatic in a race with no national implications, whereas Clinton chose Kaine for VP, and Democrats like Manchin exist. Or as one comment put it:
I agreed with this part of the article:
But Democrats won’t do that. They’re paid not to. That’s why they voted to take corporate money again.
In some circles, Bernie and his supporters are part of the Russian conspiracy, usually cast as useful idiots, but he did honeymoon in the USSR and he once spoke glowingly of Chomsky, so who knows…
In terms of outcomes? Yeah, she is. After all, had we nominated Bernie Sanders we would have been destroyed in the general. With Clinton, we had a chance. It didn’t work out, but at least we had a chance–something we wouldn’t have had with Bernie Sanders.
And a 45% chance of enacting a 60% left-wing agenda has a higher expected left-wing policy-outcome than a 0% chance of enacting an 80% left-wing agenda does.
That’s why I, a literal communist and pacifist who is far to the left of Sanders, preferred Hillary Clinton.
Also, in terms of policy preferences, inasmuch as Bernie Sanders doesn’t give a shit about anything that doesn’t help cishet white men, Clinton is definitely to the left of Sanders there.
The issue is that when right to choose is the one issue you’re willing to be “pragmatic” and “compromising” on (because he sure as shit isn’t on anything else–most of the time, when it’s a choice between getting something but not everything through compromise, or nothing at all through not compromising, he chooses nothing at all–unless we’re talking about dumping toxic waste of people on color, he’s perfectly happy to compromise to make that happen), it’s pretty obvious what’s really going on. Sanders isn’t a progressive because he doesn’t give a shit about anything that doesn’t affect cishet white men.
I actually do think the characterization of this as Clinton supporters coming with the knives out against Sanders as being quite a smear job as well. It is seemingly an attempt to minimize Democratic voters who strongly believe in social justice issues as being merely upset that Sanders cost them a win. It’s incredibly dismissive. The Democratic Party has two major poles - one concerned more with economic populism and one concerned more with social issues and rights. There are a lot of those social issues folks who are deeply pissed off that the Democratic Party may consider to backslide on issues of reproductive rights or LGBTQ rights in order to appeal to white working class voters.
This isn’t an upsetness over the primaries. These are folks with deeply held beliefs on social issues who don’t want to see their party abandon them. I would argue, for instance, that a lot of those Women’s March folk are very passionate about reproductive rights and would be really upset if the Democratic Party decided to go ‘pragmatic’ on that issue.
Well… then you should not be puzzled at all by the election outcome. If you have obtained a few hills like gay marriage through hard work and winning hearts and minds and your progressive strategy going forward is “fuck 'em” vs winning hearts and minds I would expect a few setbacks.
Eh… gay marriage was achieved partially through winning hearts and minds (and through legislation), but then pushing at the end for “fuck 'em” (aka, the judicial strategy)
I find your “two poles” perspective interesting as many are of the opinion that the Dems have not given nearly as much much serious focus and attention to grassroots economic justice issues as to reproductive choice and gender related issues with even “economic issues” cast mainly as gender related pay parity and child/pregnancy support issues.
It might even be argued that Trump in his bloviating way addressed the “economic justice” concerns of many traditionally democratic working class voters far more effectively than HRC did in the campaign.
The Little Sisters of the Poor were wrong. What the court allowed them to do was dictate their religious beliefs on others. Unfortunately, the right wing Supreme Court let them do it.
Sanders is starting to get tiresome. Either man up and join the party or go fuck off. If he hadn’t run in a party he wasn’t a member of, there would have been no concern about the DNC being in the tank for Hillary and no butt hurt Berniebots voting for that waste of carbon compounds, Jill Stein and more importantly, no sociopath with the nuclear football.
Not the same thing. It’s perfectly acceptable to say how another party is wrong, and your party is right. That’s kind of the whole point of a party.
But telling another party what they need to do is silly. How could you know anything of use to them, when what you value is completely different than what they value? Why would they think anything you say is appropriate for their members, when you aren’t their target audience?
Dems to Sanders: “YOU ARE NOT OF THE BODY.”
Seriously, while Sanders may not be a party member, most of his supporters are. Or, at the very least, are people that the Dems need to win. A new philosophy needs to emerge that keeps those folks “in the tent”, whether Sanders himself is on board with it himself or not.
Now back when Bill was President they had a tactic called “triangulation”. Take this group’s approach, take that group’s approach. Then blend those approaches together in a fashion that is not a mere mathematical splitting of the difference, but which transcends both.
The Democrats need to do this internally.
Well, what if a guy says I vote Republican, even though I agree with the Democrats on a lot of issues – because I’m a single-issue voter, and that issue is ‘guns’. If the Dems would renounce that one, I’d rejoice and join them; but they don’t, so I don’t. And I bet a lot of guys vote the way I do, and would vote how I would.
Could he say something of use to them?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: If one can explain how values are more or less shared, but there’s a hiccup or two, then yes.
Longest answer: Parties have more or less triangulated their preferred position on every single issue. If winning more elections was as simple as switching one position, they’d’ve already done that. Voters who agree on most everything but one issue are too rare to change the party.
It’s not always a case of getting voters to switch parties, but often a case of getting voters to vote vs. stay home. 2016 was a case of people not turning out to vote for Hillary, because she wasn’t Obama, and other people turning out to vote for Trump. Yes, yes, I know - popular vote. Doesn’t matter - Trump won, and the GOP has been winning since 2008 or so.
If the Dems want to say “we have nothing to learn from the GOP about winning elections”, fine with me. Stick to your strategy of “if you don’t vote Democratic you are racist/sexist/homophobic/deplorable/stupid”.
Regards,
Shodan
Wow, I actually agree with Shodan. Elections are not about changing minds any longer, they are about enthusiasm vs apathy. Anger wins elections, more of the same loses them. Republicans won entirely on that, but they also gave it up. They can’t hold on to the anger when they control everything, and Trump is doing a great job of crushing the apathy that was enveloping our party.
Trump won because of identity politics and economic populism. People act like this election was about the working class. It wasn’t. It was about the white working class. The non white working class preferred Hillary by a 50 point margin, the white working class preferred Trump by a 40 point margin. Claiming this is about economics is disingenuous. It is about race and identity politics. Trump ran on a platform of banning Muslims, deporting 11 million Latino immigrants, letting the police crack down on black in the ghetto, letting men act however they want around women.
Even trumps economic platform was identity politics. Deporting illegals so the white working class don’t have to compete with Latino immigrants. Changing trade agreements has a strong nationalist slant.
Maybe a small percentage of whites who voted Trump will vote Democrat if the Democrats push economics. But fundamentally people vote based on identity, and identity has a large racial and gender component.
That is why women are about 10 points to the left of men, atheists maybe 50 points (as a guess) to the left of evangelicals, Latinos 40 points left of whites, etc.
I’m all for the dems pushing economics, but that will probably only have marginal effects in the electorate. Pushing economic policy won’t change the fact that working class white men preferred Trump by 50 points or that working class black women preferred Hillary by 90 points.
You’re partly right. I think messaging is the key. But there’s little to share between the two parties on how to message to their supporters. The way one party gets its message out and energizes its supporters is simply not going to work for the other.
For the most recent presidential election, both parties have lessons to learn. Democrats need to learn how to translate their greater popularity into winning elections. Republicans need to learn how to become a majority party. There’s little either can learn from the other.
Correct. The Democratic Party is the party of adults, so their messaging needs to be tailored to adults; our base isn’t the emotionally- and intellectually-immature, so GOP tactics won’t work on them.
OK … so the Dems need a charismatic white guy who is appealing to women to win? I’m not being snarky, it’s a serious question.
Do you believe the Democrats could make a tailored-to-the-immature pitch while slyly winking to the party of adults that, yes, it’s all an act; just play along as if we were talking about Santa or the Tooth Fairy in front of small children, huh?
I’m kinda curious as to how far you take it, is all.