Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, SCRawl, Thanas, Edi, K. A. Pital

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28677
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

Postby Simon_Jester » 2017-03-14 04:31pm

Bernkastel wrote:Yes. The GOP has their core of voters that'll support them, no matter what. And? Who cares. Clinton didn't lose the election because of a failure to appeal to that GOP core. Romney had those voters and he lost solidly to Obama. The solid core of GOP supporters didn't help him and the amount of voters that turned out for Trump was less than that. Just remember that. Trump did worse than Romney.
Ahem. Point of information:

Trump received 62.98 million votes. Romney received 60.93 million votes. Reports that Trump had fewer votes than Romney were premature and based on incomplete counts, at a time when not all votes had been tallied, even if all precincts had reported.

As a percentage of the voting age population, if I remember the last time I ran the numbers, Trump did worse than Romney... but only on a percentage basis. Assuming literally every Romney voter voted "Trump" in 2016, that would still leave roughly 2,050,000 extra Trump voters who never voted for Romney; they must have come from somewhere.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3819
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

Postby TheFeniX » 2017-03-14 04:53pm

Simon_Jester wrote:As a percentage of the voting age population, if I remember the last time I ran the numbers, Trump did worse than Romney... but only on a percentage basis. Assuming literally every Romney voter voted "Trump" in 2016, that would still leave roughly 2,050,000 extra Trump voters who never voted for Romney; they must have come from somewhere.
If I had to make a guess digging through all the garbage from this election: that's from the working and middle class voters that flipped back when Democrats found out the hard way said voters supported Obama, not Democrats in general, and definately not Clinton. Also possible: Trump picked up some voters that felt shafted by the Republican party after GW, saw nothing worthwhile in Romney, did in Trump and also couldn't be bothered to vote for a black man, so they stayed home in 2008 and 2012. Trump also did better among certain minorities and women than Romney did IIRC. I've assumed it's a number of small shifts in multiple and sometimes related (middle-class AND women, for instance) demographics since Democrats have hemorrhaged popular support along with status-quo Republican politicians.

Things get... really confusing when faith in both parties is this low. Small groups of certain demographics shift nearly every election, but that usually doesn't matter. For Obama, it just turned a sure thing into a landslide in 2008 and gave him a more healthy margin in 2012. This time it made a big difference in the EC, for numerous reasons we've talked about multiple times.

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28677
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

Postby Simon_Jester » 2017-03-14 05:09pm

Well, proportionately Trump didn't do better than Romney; I think he may actually have done worse by a percentage point or so (in other words, the number of people voting for the Republican in the election grew by about 3%, but the number of registered voters grew by more like 4%). I'd have to recheck my numbers but I think that's the case.

So "Trump got exactly the same support in exactly the same demographics Romney did" is a fairly good approximation of the truth, and any movement of demographics for or against him pretty much canceled itself out.

The point is just that the reports that Trump got fewer votes than Romney by headcount is simply not true, it's a meme that's been bouncing around since early reports when the vote totals hadn't been completely counted.

By the same token, Clinton got 65.84 million votes, while in 2012 Obama got 65.92 million votes. That doesn't mean "OMG, Clinton is almost as popular as Obama was..." but by the same token, it probably also means that we didn't see millions upon millions upon millions of Obama voters deserting to Trump. Some, maybe, enough to be significant in such a close Electoral College situation, quite possibly... but not a huge number.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
Shroom Man 777
FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
Posts: 20867
Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
Contact:

Re: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

Postby Shroom Man 777 » 2017-03-14 06:01pm

TheFeniX wrote: when Democrats found out the hard way said voters supported Obama, not Democrats in general, and definately not Clinton.


Yeah... I think Obama got in precisely because he was seen as different from the DNC establishment. Clinton is the exact opposite of that. They see her AS the DNC element, if not its entirety then, worse, the fossilized wretched kind that even the younger Ds are tired of.
Image Image Image
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people :D - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!

User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3819
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

Postby TheFeniX » 2017-03-14 06:51pm

Simon, I got nothing to add there. I'm still, when I have time, just reading about this. There's way too much editorializing for my taste. Many rags are content to try and blame ONE specific group or idea for this cock-up. Shit, I just read one the other night that was "You should really blame the Middle Class for Trump's win." Fuck that guy, even if there are elements of truth to that, that is not the whole story. Nowhere CLOSE.

Where's the fucking people out there who DON'T have an axe to grind? Who can do their job and look at the whole picture leading up to this bullshit? Seriously, anyone got some links? Every asshole out there seems to just want fucking clicks and I gotta keep digging to find 1 or 2 gems..... and this bedrock layer is tough.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Yeah... I think Obama got in precisely because he was seen as different from the DNC establishment. Clinton is the exact opposite of that. They see her AS the DNC element, if not its entirety then, worse, the fossilized wretched kind that even the younger Ds are tired of.
8 years of Republicans running this country into the ground should take some credit. But the "non-establishment" or inexperienced comments about Obama were a boon for voting whites. HRC attacked him mercilessly about this in the primary and people got the message: just not the message Clinton wanted.

He didn't flip all of the white votes, not even most, but as I've said a few times, he flipped enough to make a big difference. And this was a big deal for a black man in 2008. I got... mileage out of rubbing redneck noses in shit around that time.

Obviously, the Black vote was going to come out strong for a Black Democrat. But more than that, big pushes were made to motivate those voters to... well vote. And it worked quite well. Even without it, I think Obama would have won comfortably. McCain wasn't a strong candidate. He talked big, but he didn't distance himself enough from the GOP trainwreck. And Palin. Ahem, hold on: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

To be fair, Palin should have shown Democrats that betting on a woman to get the female vote is a bad idea.... or that (IIRC, it's been years) Obama polled better with women than HRC. Women aren't exactly what I would label a "demographic" when it comes to voting. They tend to vote much more in line with other factors than their genitalia. Same for men really.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11802
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

Postby The Romulan Republic » 2017-03-14 06:55pm

I don't think Clinton's loss was ultimately about policy first and foremost, or even about a rejection of the DNC or the so-called establishment. Clinton had a ridiculous amount of personal baggage, which made her, for many people, the personification of everything that was disliked and even hated about politics. Some of it was her own damn fault, some of it was the result of a two and a half decade long systematic smear campaign, and it was compounded by Russian and FBI electioneering, but it was only possible to undermine her so effectively because of the existing perception of her.

She also lacked the ability to appeal emotionally to voters who weren't already part of her base.

Combine those two weaknesses and, despite her admittedly vast connections and experience, she was a remarkably poor choice for a candidate.

I remember a comment from Trevor Noah on the Daily Show during the election, to the effect that Clinton and Trump were both lucky, because they were both running against the only person they could actually beat.

Now, Clinton would have made hands-down the better President, even with all of her flaws. But she was a poor choice of candidate, and the DNC leadership's insistence on her only made it worse, because it made everyone who disliked her feel that she was being forced on them by the party bosses.

Edit: Of course, its a testament to how hard Donald Trump sucks that with all of that, Clinton still kicked his ass in the popular vote.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
Shroom Man 777
FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
Posts: 20867
Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
Contact:

Re: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

Postby Shroom Man 777 » 2017-03-14 07:00pm

Hmmm... IMO it's tricky to separate Clinton's personal baggage with "DNC" and "establishment" since she is such a big part of it. At least, the stuff that exists (her being a warmonger, etc.). The made up stuff is, well, made up.
Image Image Image
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people :D - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11802
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

Postby The Romulan Republic » 2017-03-14 07:20pm

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Hmmm... IMO it's tricky to separate Clinton's personal baggage with "DNC" and "establishment" since she is such a big part of it. At least, the stuff that exists (her being a warmonger, etc.). The made up stuff is, well, made up.


True, though, the email scandal (inflated though it was) was her own particular problem, and probably what ultimately defeated her as much as anything (with some Hatch Act-violating assistance from the FBI).
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11802
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

Postby The Romulan Republic » 2017-03-14 07:43pm

I think the DNC fundamentally misread the mood of the electorate. They thought that Obama was popular and they could sell Clinton as a continuation of Obama despite her lacking Obama's charisma, and underestimated the intensity of "anti-establishment" sentiment in the electorate.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
Bernkastel
Padawan Learner
Posts: 311
Joined: 2010-02-18 09:25am
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

Postby Bernkastel » 2017-03-15 09:52am

Simon_Jester wrote:Ahem. Point of information:

Trump received 62.98 million votes. Romney received 60.93 million votes. Reports that Trump had fewer votes than Romney were premature and based on incomplete counts, at a time when not all votes had been tallied, even if all precincts had reported.


Okay, thanks for the correction.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:
TheFeniX wrote: when Democrats found out the hard way said voters supported Obama, not Democrats in general, and definately not Clinton.


Yeah... I think Obama got in precisely because he was seen as different from the DNC establishment. Clinton is the exact opposite of that. They see her AS the DNC element, if not its entirety then, worse, the fossilized wretched kind that even the younger Ds are tired of.


Oh, certainly. In my opinion, the DNC failed to understand, and still do, why Obama had the draw that he did. They still have the idea that it's a failure in regards to not being centrist enough or in not trying enough to reach across the isle by moving their principles rightward that lost them the 2016 election. Yet there is no proof that this is true.

................................

Ray, I have two points for you to address.

. First, you're making the assumption that voters saw a refusal to vote for Hilary as a vote for Trump, as at least them being willing to accept him as President. You need to prove that this was the case, as opposed to something like being hostile to both parties and not being willing to be a supporter of either. In responding, I'd caution you against using logic as a basis. Remember that one bit of news after the election was stories of Trump voters realising that evil Obamacare that Trump going to get rid of was was the Affordable Care Act that was helping them. Voters aren't necessarily logical actors.

. Second, you're assuming that the way to gain enough votes is to pivot rightwards on social issues. You're assuming this was the weakness of the Democrats, rather than economic issues and the disinterest of the DNC in progressive policies that a lot of Americans support, like moving to a Medicare for all model of healthcare over Obamacare.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11802
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

Postby The Romulan Republic » 2017-03-15 10:58am

Bernkastel wrote:Oh, certainly. In my opinion, the DNC failed to understand, and still do, why Obama had the draw that he did. They still have the idea that it's a failure in regards to not being centrist enough or in not trying enough to reach across the isle by moving their principles rightward that lost them the 2016 election. Yet there is no proof that this is true.


I'm not sure that's the case, even as an overgeneralization. Its what experience would teach one to expect from much of the DNC leadership, true, but I think they recognize, to some extent, the failure to reach more progressive voters as part of the problem, given the more prominent role Sanders seems to have had lately, for example. I also think the DNC chair contest is encouraging, actually- no Ellison didn't get it, but he made a very strong showing, and Perez is, from what I've read, one of the more progressive leaning of the Obama cabinet.

Time will tell weather its just for show, but I think their are very few issues the party can move Right on, practically speaking.

They can move Right on hawkishness towards Russia, and are doing so (because Putin interfered in the election). They can probably move Right on guns, though I don't think it'll make a big difference.

But if they move Right on the treatment of women and minorities, they'll stand to lose a lot of voters who are currently loyal to them, and gain few in return, I suspect (because they will never out-bigot the Republicans). And if they move Right on economics, they will just lose more ground with the working class and progressives.

I think that for progressives, its rather fortunate, in a way, that if we were going to lose, it happened in this manner- at the hands of the FBI and Putin's interference. Because it gives the DNC a scapegoat other than the Left wing of the party. I was living in dread through much of the election that a loss would put entirely on Bernie Sanders and his supporters, but that largely hasn't happened, perhaps because much better scapegoats presented themselves.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
Bernkastel
Padawan Learner
Posts: 311
Joined: 2010-02-18 09:25am
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

Postby Bernkastel » 2017-03-15 11:29am

My view of proceedings so far, admittedly a view from the other side of the Atlantic, is that the DNC is just the same as before, with the same expectation of gaining progressives simply via token gestures (like creating the Deputy Chair position to put Keith Ellison in) and using the threat of Trump to ignore the need to change tactics. I'm not exactly encouraged by the failure of the DNC to reinstate the corporate money ban or any of the news in regards to DNC moves since the inauguration of Trump.

Still, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the DNC has failed to make a clear change of policies away from the old and towards those that could draw Obama voters back to them?

No, the DNC don't have any room to move the party right. But that doesn't mean they'll not try anyway and thus risk further losses in 2020.

Yes, the backlash against progressives could be a lot worse. But the DNC needs more than to be able to say "we didn't scapegoat progressives after the election" in order to make progressives or those who could be drawn in by progressive policies to back the party.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11802
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

Postby The Romulan Republic » 2017-03-15 11:33am

Oh, no doubt the DNC needs to shift further Left on corporate money issues.

I'll be keeping a close eye on the primaries in both 2018 and 2020 to see which way things are going.

Edit: Also, the loss of Centrist establishment Chosen One Clinton did a real blow, I think, to the credibility of that wing of the party.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but its my understanding that the Clinton Democrats emerged, taking the party to the Right, as a response to the loss of more Left-wing candidates (i.e. MGovern and Mondale). So its not inconceivable that the loss of Clinton now could start the pendulum swinging back the other way, especially when their's a clear popular alternative direction for the party emerging in the form of the Sanders progressives.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11171
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

Postby Elheru Aran » 2017-03-15 11:55am

The Romulan Republic wrote:Edit: Also, the loss of Centrist establishment Chosen One Clinton did a real blow, I think, to the credibility of that wing of the party.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but its my understanding that the Clinton Democrats emerged, taking the party to the Right, as a response to the loss of more Left-wing candidates (i.e. MGovern and Mondale). So its not inconceivable that the loss of Clinton now could start the pendulum swinging back the other way, especially when their's a clear popular alternative direction for the party emerging in the form of the Sanders progressives.


Off the cuff analysis (I am not a student of politics):

As we are aware, the Democratic Party was the racist Southern conservative party in the first half of the 20th. Starting with Franklin Roosevelt, continued by Truman, given a big kick in the pants by liberal Eisenhower, and buoyed along by the reforms of Lyndon Johnson (JFK was only a paper Democrat when it came down to it, by modern standards he'd be old-money Republican with possible liberal leanings), it gradually got tugged (kicking and screaming all the way, I might add) leftward.

Through the 80s and early 90s you still had a lot of conservative Democrats laying around, particularly in the Bible Belt. Bill Clinton might have been nominally centrist, but he pulled the party over to the left in the long run, as a lot of those conservative D's changed camps on him thanks to Republican muckraking. Most of the liberal slants the party follows are the results of a few generations' worth of effort. Blame its conversion from the racist Southern party for that.

IMO the Democratic Party won't really turn full-on left-wing until the Baby Boomers are mostly gone, and Generation X (or whatever they call the people born in the 80s-90s) kick in full swing.
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.

User avatar
Shroom Man 777
FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
Posts: 20867
Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
Contact:

Re: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

Postby Shroom Man 777 » 2017-03-15 12:05pm

Honestly I think we've all got the same points we're throwing at Ray (over and over again). So I'll just tag you and maybe Simon - ala WWF tag team match, in this case handicap match with Ray alone, or with his tag team partner GOD - and let you guys carry on.

Ladies and gentlemen, GOD HAS LEFT THE BUILDING! [/Vince McMahon]
Image Image Image
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people :D - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!

User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3819
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

Postby TheFeniX » 2017-03-15 04:19pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:Time will tell weather its just for show, but I think their are very few issues the party can move Right on, practically speaking.

They can move Right on hawkishness towards Russia, and are doing so (because Putin interfered in the election). They can probably move Right on guns, though I don't think it'll make a big difference.
I hope Democrats ignore this because they don't need to "move right" on anything to pickup votes or to give the electorate the idea that Democrats fight for them. This is why I mentioned the economy (and probably why Trump did so much): public support for financial regulation is pretty high. Beating up on Wall Street would be easy money, yet neither party will take a crack at it. Americans have never been in favor of having jobs outsourced and not just due to "Murrica first." A BIG problem is they don't trust foreign business to keep their information private or protect their financial information. Same reason we don't want prisoners handling it. But also: why ship jobs overseas when we have so many unemployed here? Why isn't the American business banking on American workers?

The "move right" angle needs to stop. Democrats honestly need to consider a large shift left when it comes to certain economic positions. Because, let's just say, they go "We are now anti-abortion" or "we want to meet conservatives in the middle" on that issue accomplishes what? No Republican to whom THAT'S a sticking point is EVER going to swap to (D) when (R) is already in their pocket.

But you can get the Republicans who are like "whores should deal with the consequences.... but, I could REALLY use some fucking health care and deal with my bank not robbing me blind." Obama didn't pick up the people he did by focusing on social issues. He did it by saying: "your leaders are fucking you. I will not be fucking you."

If Democrats "moved right" anywhere it would be taking a harder stance against terrorism (which they already do) and beat up on illegal (which they do, except for Obama). So.... what's the point of moving right instead of just pushing the issues to the back until they build up some landslide support? Then they can push whatever "side-issues*" they want while American's are happy they are making money and not having it fleeced from them by the Too Big to Jail people.

* I don't consider these side-issues, but lets be fair here: these are still divisive issues where moderates find too much time is being dedicated to them while they struggle to keep their heads afloat financially.

But if they move Right on the treatment of women and minorities, they'll stand to lose a lot of voters who are currently loyal to them, and gain few in return, I suspect (because they will never out-bigot the Republicans). And if they move Right on economics, they will just lose more ground with the working class and progressives.
Something like 46% of women are anti-abortion. And what have Democrats really DONE for minorities in the past... man even 16 years? Even Obama: he talked big about having a "talk" about racism, but what's been done? The DoJ released it's reports PROVING such liberal bastions as LA and New York have police departments that target minorities consistently. And what's been done to correct this?

Yes, Republicans are actively hostile towards these groups, but as 2016 kind of showed: they may not vote (R), but they might just decide to not vote at all.

I think that for progressives, its rather fortunate, in a way, that if we were going to lose, it happened in this manner- at the hands of the FBI and Putin's interference. Because it gives the DNC a scapegoat other than the Left wing of the party. I was living in dread through much of the election that a loss would put entirely on Bernie Sanders and his supporters, but that largely hasn't happened, perhaps because much better scapegoats presented themselves.
Look at how many people still think Obama is a Muslim, then look at his election numbers. Look at ALL The shit Republicans (and certain Democrats) heaped on him, a black man, and then look at the 2008 election results. People came out of the wood-works for him.

The e-mails are the face to a larger issue with Clinton: she's THAT easy to bog down and rip through whatever approval ratings she had.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11802
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

Postby The Romulan Republic » 2017-03-15 05:50pm

TheFeniX wrote:I hope Democrats ignore this because they don't need to "move right" on anything to pickup votes or to give the electorate the idea that Democrats fight for them. This is why I mentioned the economy (and probably why Trump did so much): public support for financial regulation is pretty high. Beating up on Wall Street would be easy money, yet neither party will take a crack at it. Americans have never been in favor of having jobs outsourced and not just due to "Murrica first." A BIG problem is they don't trust foreign business to keep their information private or protect their financial information. Same reason we don't want prisoners handling it. But also: why ship jobs overseas when we have so many unemployed here? Why isn't the American business banking on American workers?

The "move right" angle needs to stop. Democrats honestly need to consider a large shift left when it comes to certain economic positions. Because, let's just say, they go "We are now anti-abortion" or "we want to meet conservatives in the middle" on that issue accomplishes what? No Republican to whom THAT'S a sticking point is EVER going to swap to (D) when (R) is already in their pocket.

But you can get the Republicans who are like "whores should deal with the consequences.... but, I could REALLY use some fucking health care and deal with my bank not robbing me blind." Obama didn't pick up the people he did by focusing on social issues. He did it by saying: "your leaders are fucking you. I will not be fucking you."

If Democrats "moved right" anywhere it would be taking a harder stance against terrorism (which they already do) and beat up on illegal (which they do, except for Obama). So.... what's the point of moving right instead of just pushing the issues to the back until they build up some landslide support? Then they can push whatever "side-issues*" they want while American's are happy they are making money and not having it fleeced from them by the Too Big to Jail people.

* I don't consider these side-issues, but lets be fair here: these are still divisive issues where moderates find too much time is being dedicated to them while they struggle to keep their heads afloat financially.


Definitely not side issues, no.

I mostly agree with the above, actually. However, I'll point out a couple of things:

First, a lot of people now regard Obama as a disappointment. And I'm not talking about Right wingers who always hated him. I'm talking about people who view him as part of the same corrupt "establishment" (though I find that "establishment" is a somewhat vague, even meaningless buzzword, especially if millions of voters can contrive a definition where hereditary rich white male Trump is outside of it).

Moreover, Obama, I think, went as far as he did more on his personal charisma and political skill than on having a radically progressive platform. And of course, I also think the "anti-establishment" push on the Left is a lot stronger now than in 2008.

I also think sometimes people place too much weight on economic issues, as if those are the only issues anyone votes based on. They may be the single biggest concern to a lot of voters now, but we start falling silent on other issues and it will cost votes. And I think that civil liberties and social justice are going to remain in the foreground as long as the current cabal in Washington is in power, because Trump and the Republicans are actively putting those issues under threat, for hundreds of millions of voters.

I worry not only about the Democrats failing to learn the lessons of last election, but about them learning those lessons too well, ignoring current crises while they focus on "preparing to fight the last war", so to speak.

Something like 46% of women are anti-abortion. And what have Democrats really DONE for minorities in the past... man even 16 years? Even Obama: he talked big about having a "talk" about racism, but what's been done? The DoJ released it's reports PROVING such liberal bastions as LA and New York have police departments that target minorities consistently. And what's been done to correct this?


Obama's Justice Department did investigate and prosecute corrupt and racist police forces on occasion. Not completely solving the problem is not the same as doing nothing.

Also, their is no denying that the Obama Administration is by far the best for LGBT that ever existed.

Yes, Republicans are actively hostile towards these groups, but as 2016 kind of showed: they may not vote (R), but they might just decide to not vote at all.


These groups cannot be treated as homogenous blocks, obviously. Some will vote Republican and some will not vote, even if its against their self-interest.

However, many members of these groups are loyal Democratic voters, in part because they know that Republicans have contempt for their very existence, and if the Democratic Party stops making at least some effort on their behalf, or worse, becomes actively unfriendly towards civil liberties and social justice, then three things are likely to happen: Some of these people will turn apathetic and not vote Democrat. Some of them will go third party, because at least its a pointless gesture they can believe in. And some of them will conclude that they have no recourse at all in America other than violence.

And this is just looking at it from a pragmatic, not a moral point of view.

I get it. You don't like the DNC, and you think they need to focus more on progressive economics. I agree.

But I also feel that their is a real danger of tunnel vision among progressives, thinking that the only issues that matter are being "anti-establishment" and holding progressive views on economics, and that as a result, we're going to lose votes from women and minorities who do care about their civil rights.

Look at how many people still think Obama is a Muslim, then look at his election numbers. Look at ALL The shit Republicans (and certain Democrats) heaped on him, a black man, and then look at the 2008 election results. People came out of the wood-works for him.

The e-mails are the face to a larger issue with Clinton: she's THAT easy to bog down and rip through whatever approval ratings she had.


I think its mainly a combination of two things:

1. She already had a negative reputation with much of the electorate, built up over decades. The email scandal could be easily fit to that narrative, and brought all that animosity and distrust to the fore.

2. She lacked Obama's personal charisma and skill as a campaigner to compensate for that. People like Obama. In my experience, outside of her hard core fans, people don't generally like Hillary Clinton.

As to policy, I think that, in a nutshell, the Democratic Party needs to be both the Party of Social Justice and the Party of the Working Class. I don't think that their's a contradiction between those things at all, either. We should be the party of good jobs, health care, and education, and a fair political process, for all Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, beliefs, etc. That's the winning card.

Edited to clarify my closing argument.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3819
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's International Women's Day message: think of the men

Postby TheFeniX » 2017-03-16 11:35am

The Romulan Republic wrote:I also think sometimes people place too much weight on economic issues, as if those are the only issues anyone votes based on. They may be the single biggest concern to a lot of voters now, but we start falling silent on other issues and it will cost votes. And I think that civil liberties and social justice are going to remain in the foreground as long as the current cabal in Washington is in power, because Trump and the Republicans are actively putting those issues under threat, for hundreds of millions of voters.
Economic issues actually just lost their #1 priority and was replaced (barely) by "Ability of government to get things done." Immigration is still way high but I have no idea how you can label that solely an social issue. There are multiple economic factors behind both the system and the push-back against it.

Obama's Justice Department did investigate and prosecute corrupt and racist police forces on occasion. Not completely solving the problem is not the same as doing nothing.
"On Occasion" is nearly the definition of "side issue."

However, many members of these groups are loyal Democratic voters, in part because they know that Republicans have contempt for their very existence, and if the Democratic Party stops making at least some effort on their behalf, or worse, becomes actively unfriendly towards civil liberties and social justice, then three things are likely to happen: Some of these people will turn apathetic and not vote Democrat. Some of them will go third party, because at least its a pointless gesture they can believe in. And some of them will conclude that they have no recourse at all in America other than violence.
You were the one talking about moving right, not me. Fact is, Obama's 2008 platform wasn't anything progressive on social issues, though just running a Black candidate was extremely progressive in of itself. Obamas platform was nearly all based economic and foreign policies and that's what he focused on and hammered McCain on. You had to scroll WAY down to even get to equal pay for women. He road into office in what I would still call a landslide victory.

McCain tried to rile up the Infrared part of his base with Palin and we all know how THAT worked out. Democrats are in a better position since, as of now, many of their social stances are popular ones among moderates. If anything though, Democrats are wishy-washy about actually being socially progressive while Republicans are not afraid to push regressive policies HARD.

Clinton's 2016 message was WAY more progressive on many social issues AND much more visible and she barely won/lost to a hate spewer like Trump. Should I blame her emphasis on social issues? No, that would be stupid. Her faults on social issues weren't enough to do that. She may have been weak on support for LGBT and minorities but she was still BY far the better qualified candidate on social issues for anyone with an inkling of social justice. No one in that group is going to stay home when voting time comes, even for a weak candidate, because their way of life is at stake.

Republicans WILL destroy them. This same idea is what gets hardened conservatives out to vote: they believe Democrats will destroy them and their way of life. 8 years of Obama letting Gun Control slip didn't matter: "they comin' fer mah gunz!" Gays getting married is a direct attack on them. The only difference is that conservatives of this nature are almost universally delusional in this approach. Doesn't matter: they vote.

So, what was it? And I'm still not sold on the "e-mails" issue if not taken as part to a larger issue with her as a candidate. As I've said before, Obama was ruthlessly slandered on numerous front once Republicans realized A wasn't working so they went to B, then C, then XYZ. Republicans were able to hammer home one issue on Clinton and essentially destroy her: why? No one gave a shit about e-mails before and I doubt they will again.

EDIT: Forget this while ranting: What was it that made Democrats hemorrhage popularity over the course of 8 years?[/edit]

I get it. You don't like the DNC, and you think they need to focus more on progressive economics. I agree.
I try to not let my distaste for either party get the best of me. I'm basing this near-solely off reading I've done about this election and past ones. And most people don't like the DNC or RNC right now, so this isn't exactly the WORST time to be saying "find something both your base and the average American can agree on and push it."

Because I got.... beating up on illegals, yelling at Iran more, and.... spanking Wall Street. I don't think it's far-fetched to say spanking Wall Street would do more to build goodwill among the populace and help America as a nation than the other two.


Return to “News and Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests