Liberalism is losing appeal to capital in favour of fascism, what with Clinton's comical failure to secure the position the Democrats had given up most other politics for...
Was it also losing appeal in 1980, 1984,1988, 2000 and 2004? Because all of those defeats except for 2000 were more decisive than this one. And was it gaining appeal again in 1992, 1996, 2004 and 2008? Because all of those victories were more decisive than this one too.
...and losing appeal to workers due to its insistence on punching leftwards.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, dude, but mass hard-left sentiment in the working class does not exist. You are projecting, and you need to stop doing that if you want to understand what really happened. If "punching leftwards" were unappealing to workers, how the hell do you explain them preferring Donald J. Trump, who was more pugilistic by far than Clinton (or, for that matter, any other candidate in recent history)?
Their main source of votes are urban professionals living in enclaves and people who view them as simply the lesser of two evils. Things are not going to go well for the Democratic Party if it doesn't get its ***** together as serious opposition and given that liberalism is incapable of fighting and prefers fascism over leftism I would say that the prospects are grim.
Bluntly: communists make it something of a habit to try predicting the future through socioeconomics, but if they were any good at it the world would look very different than it does. Do try to keep that success rate in mind when evaluating the predictive power of your dogma.
I don't think the Democratic party has ever been what I would call a "champion of capital." That's more of the Republicans' realm.
Nah, by his standards they are. When he says that he's just complaining that neither party is much interested in militantly seizing the means of production.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Liberalism is losing appeal to capital in favour of fascism, what with Clinton's comical failure to secure the position the Democrats had given up most other politics for, and losing appeal to workers due to its insistence on punching leftwards.
So you're arguing that the reason that the Democrats alienated voting blocks that voted for Obama in 2008 was because they weren't politically left enough?
And so they voted Trump?
How on earth did that make sense in your head when you wrote this?
You are, of course, blissfully unaware of the widespread backlash against Obamacare? Hint: it's not because it isn't Communist-enough.
Liberalism is losing appeal to capital in favour of fascism, what with Clinton's comical failure to secure the position the Democrats had given up most other politics for, and losing appeal to workers due to its insistence on punching leftwards.
So you're arguing that the reason that the Democrats alienated voting blocks that voted for Obama in 2008 was because they weren't politically left enough?
You are familiar with the DLC's modus operandi, right?
Actually, no. Most of them simply stayed home. Of those who voted, most of them (at least, whites making under $50k and various ethnic and religious minorities) voted for Clinton. But fewer voted for her than voted for Obama.
Ironically, with professionals, you see the exact opposite movement. They still voted, by and large, for Trump (though I have little doubt there's more of a split by profession, e.g. investment bankers love Trump), but there was a movement toward Clinton. She arguably made the peak percentage white professionals could get for Clinton.
It's simple: Hillary Clinton and her supporters are more comfortable with a certain type of voter: White, has a bachelor's or better, making over $200k (in 1992 dollars), belongs to a country club, has a place in the Hamptons, an enthusiastic philanthropist who hates taxes. You know, Republicans. (Which is also the only way I can justify pissing away so much money in Texas, Georgia, and Arizona.) Also, they have an inferiority complex after getting schlonged by Obama in 2008.
You are, of course, blissfully unaware of the widespread backlash against Obamacare? Hint: it's not because it isn't Communist-enough.
I assume you understand that private insurance providers are the polar opposite of communism, right? Actually, any viable "replace" would be more communist than Obamacare. (The next option is the public option. Go farther left and you have a complete nationalization of healthcare.)
Then again, there were the "**** Obamacare, I've got ACA" people. Too many of them. But there won't be for very long! #GallowsHumor
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
You are familiar with the DLC's modus operandi, right?
Referencing what specifically? I'm assuming Sanders?
Actually, no. Most of them simply stayed home. Of those who voted, most of them (at least, whites making under $50k and various ethnic and religious minorities) voted for Clinton. But fewer voted for her than voted for Obama.
Ironically, with professionals, you see the exact opposite movement. They still voted, by and large, for Trump (though I have little doubt there's more of a split by profession, e.g. investment bankers love Trump), but there was a movement toward Clinton. She arguably made the peak percentage white professionals could get for Clinton.
It's simple: Hillary Clinton and her supporters are more comfortable with a certain type of voter: White, has a bachelor's or better, making over $200k (in 1992 dollars), belongs to a country club, has a place in the Hamptons, an enthusiastic philanthropist who hates taxes. You know, Republicans. (Which is also the only way I can justify pissing away so much money in Texas, Georgia, and Arizona.) Also, they have an inferiority complex after getting schlonged by Obama in 2008.
Fair, but the question then comes as to what extent is this a problem with centrist Democrats vs. to what extent is this a problem with Clinton, or for that matter Obama?
I assume you understand that private insurance providers are the polar opposite of communism, right? Actually, any viable "replace" would be more communist than Obamacare. (The next option is the public option. Go farther left and you have a complete nationalization of healthcare.)
Then again, there were the "**** Obamacare, I've got ACA" people. Too many of them. But there won't be for very long! #GallowsHumor
Is the backlash against Obamacare really because the people against it want there to be even more government intervention in the healthcare industry?
One cannot deny a major impetus for the flipping of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania wasn't due to the widespread dissatisfaction with Obamacare. Which, again, prompts the rather confused look I have towards someone saying that the problem with Democrats losing elections comes from them not being left enough.
Liberalism is losing appeal to capital in favour of fascism, what with Clinton's comical failure to secure the position the Democrats had given up most other politics for, and losing appeal to workers due to its insistence on punching leftwards.
Actually sounds to me like he's saying democrats are losing voters because the party is becoming increasing left, not because the party isn't left enough for voters.
You are familiar with the DLC's modus operandi, right?
Referencing what specifically? I'm assuming Sanders?
You assume too much. I was referencing the entire history of the group that brought Bill Clinton to power, from their founding to their disbanding. (Though now we have "New Democrats" which are to the DLC what intelligent design is to creationism: Same people, same ideology, different name.)
There's a reason that Bill Clinton would do things like belong to a white country club and deliver a nopology which consists of a rant about a minor rapper, with Jesse Jackson present. It was more about telling whites "Jesse Jackson is my *****."
On the issues, you had Hillary Clinton, proud to sign on to an unpopular war to shore up her credentials for 2008. You had Bill Clinton backing NAFTA and permanent normalized trade relations with China (after running as opposed to "the Butcher of Tiananmen Square" and in favor of freeing Tibet). You had the Clintons and other centrist Dems with this asinine "Let's all get banking jobs!" economic scheme. You had everyone pretending Clinton/Gore and Gore/Lieberman (both being DLC/DLC) were unity tickets, and more recently Clinton/Kaine.
But really, all you have to know about the DLC is that Koch Industries had a chair on the DLC; you may recall David Koch ran for VP in 1980 on the Libertarian ticket because he thought Reagan was a communist.
Actually, no. Most of them simply stayed home. Of those who voted, most of them (at least, whites making under $50k and various ethnic and religious minorities) voted for Clinton. But fewer voted for her than voted for Obama.
Ironically, with professionals, you see the exact opposite movement. They still voted, by and large, for Trump (though I have little doubt there's more of a split by profession, e.g. investment bankers love Trump), but there was a movement toward Clinton. She arguably made the peak percentage white professionals could get for Clinton.
It's simple: Hillary Clinton and her supporters are more comfortable with a certain type of voter: White, has a bachelor's or better, making over $200k (in 1992 dollars), belongs to a country club, has a place in the Hamptons, an enthusiastic philanthropist who hates taxes. You know, Republicans. (Which is also the only way I can justify pissing away so much money in Texas, Georgia, and Arizona.) Also, they have an inferiority complex after getting schlonged by Obama in 2008.
Fair, but the question then comes as to what extent is this a problem with centrist Democrats vs. to what extent is this a problem with Clinton, or for that matter Obama?
It's a problem with most centrist Dems. Obama is kind of an exception in that regard, but most of them bought into the Archie Bunker myth (essentially, that rich people aren't racist) hook, line, and sinker. You'd almost think there white flight and redlining didn't exist. (Ironically, the Clintons themselves would move to Harlem only to white-flight their way to Westchester.)
They're also mistaken in their belief that economic conservatives will be less strident than social conservatives; whether this is because they're huge on Ayn Rand or they've never met anyone who is, is a mystery.
One cannot deny a major impetus for the flipping of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania wasn't due to the widespread dissatisfaction with Obamacare.
Three industrial states which have voted for every Democrat since Dukakis suddenly voted against the wife of a man who pushed for permanent normalized trade relations with China and was herself for even more trade liberalization before she was against it. Gee, might there be a connection, hmm?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Wait, I'm really confused now: what is DLC? I thought you were saying the DNC before. I don't know what DLC stands for?
Furthermore, what is the "Archie Bunker myth"? I was not aware of people saying that rich people weren't racist.
Third, I believe you're conflating college graduates with wealthy people. People who were at the highest income brackets, by and large, voted Trump. But college-educated professionals are not necessarily people who are at the highest income brackets. The professionals you speak of did, by and large, vote Clinton.
Fourth, no, it's not just the mandate that people object to about Obamacare. It's the fact that people lost their previous insurance plans - which Obama said would not happen - and the fact that insurance premiums soared after Obamacare happened. Which, again, really makes me when someone says the problem is that the Democrats aren't left enough, because these people do not seem to be clamoring for greater amounts of government intervention in the healthcare system.
So, basically, I really have no clue what point you're trying to make beyond, "Clinton is a corporate stooge and corrupt." Which, yeah. But so is Trump. And I will agree that Clinton was a major reason why the Democrats lost. Because she's Clinton. But I have no idea what you're saying past that.
Wait, I'm really confused now: what is DLC? I thought you were saying the DNC before. I don't know what DLC stands for?
Democrats Lose Consistently. There are some who say it means Democratic Leadership Council, but experts believe that's a backronym.
But in all seriousness, the Democratic Leadership Council was basically supposedly to "prevent another loss like McGovern, Carter, or Mondale". They had a universal prescription that was just like Mario: Just go right!
In retrospect, McGovern represented a sea change in who Democrats wanted in the party. You see, prior to Kennedy, New England was largely Republican and the South was largely Democratic. A big reason for the South was, of course, President Johnson. You can actually see one little detail on Truman's map that mirrors Johnson's. (See those yellow states? Excluding the Tennessee faithless elector, all those states would go to Goldwater in 1964, and most of them would go to Wallace in 1968.)
From Johnson to Dukakis, we had a series of wave elections (nixing Carter in 1976, who still won with the South). In the end, we got the now-familiar "blue wall" map. The big switch was gaining California (due to demographic changes making California a minority-majority state, and memories of a racist referendum) and New England (due to a full-throated embrace of economic and in some cases social policies that were frankly right of Goldwater).
Furthermore, what is the "Archie Bunker myth"? I was not aware of people saying that rich people weren't racist.
'Twas very common on Democratic blogs leading up to November. Many really fell under the spell of radical centrism. ("Radical centrism" refers to people like Tom Friedman, just so we're on the same page. In fact, he coined the name with The Radical Center.) You could see people saying that dumping the Rust Belt was an end, rather than a price for some noble purpose the way dumping the South was.
Third, I believe you're conflating college graduates with wealthy people. People who were at the highest income brackets, by and large, voted Trump. But college-educated professionals are not necessarily people who are at the highest income brackets. The professionals you speak of did, by and large, vote Clinton.
Not really. They moved toward Clinton, but a majority didn't vote for her.
Fourth, no, it's not just the mandate that people object to about Obamacare. It's the fact that people lost their previous insurance plans - which Obama said would not happen
The only people who lost their previous insurance had policies not worth the paper they were written on. (That's another leg of the stool: Regulating what an insurance company can cover.)
Of course, there were a bunch of "**** Obamacare, I still have my ACA" people. Yeah, the phrase "low-information" doesn't even begin to describe those people.
and the fact that insurance premiums soared after Obamacare happened.
Again, the mandate. Higher demand, higher-risk populations included.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I highly recommend reading the above article. It paints a very detailed description as to how just how damning it was for Clinton to ignore states like Michigan.
On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said.
Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so.
In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.
But an hour-and-a-half after polls closed, Clinton aides began making rushed calls, redrawing paths to 270 through the single electoral vote in Maine and Nebraska. Still assuming wins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Michigan suddenly looked like the state that was going to decide the presidency.
They scrambled a call with campaign attorney Marc Elias, prepping for a recount in a vote that oddly looked like it would be a narrower win than they had ever prepared for. An hour later, after they hung up, they realized it was over. They could tell by the numbers they were seeing — not the numbers being spewed from their own internal analytics team, but the numbers sitting at the bottom of the TV tuned to CNN. With the recount frozen, Clinton lost Michigan by 10,704 votes.
That wasn't Obamacare premiums that cost Clinton the Rust Belt states. It was cosmopolitan hubris that backfired on her in the worst possible way.
That wasn't Obamacare premiums that cost Clinton the Rust Belt states. It was cosmopolitan hubris that backfired on her in the worst possible way.
Yep. And the real problem is, this was Bill Clinton's wife, and she was in favor of more trade liberalization (TPP), as I said.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I hate to be the one to break it to you, dude, but mass hard-left sentiment in the working class does not exist. You are projecting, and you need to stop doing that if you want to understand what really happened. If "punching leftwards" were unappealing to workers, how the hell do you explain them preferring Donald J. Trump, who was more pugilistic by far than Clinton (or, for that matter, any other candidate in recent history)?
Bluntly: communists make it something of a habit to try predicting the future through socioeconomics, but if they were any good at it the world would look very different than it does. Do try to keep that success rate in mind when evaluating the predictive power of your dogma.
Nah, by his standards they are. When he says that he's just complaining that neither party is much interested in militantly seizing the means of production.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And so they voted Trump?
How on earth did that make sense in your head when you wrote this?
You are, of course, blissfully unaware of the widespread backlash against Obamacare? Hint: it's not because it isn't Communist-enough.
You are familiar with the DLC's modus operandi, right?
Actually, no. Most of them simply stayed home. Of those who voted, most of them (at least, whites making under $50k and various ethnic and religious minorities) voted for Clinton. But fewer voted for her than voted for Obama.
Ironically, with professionals, you see the exact opposite movement. They still voted, by and large, for Trump (though I have little doubt there's more of a split by profession, e.g. investment bankers love Trump), but there was a movement toward Clinton. She arguably made the peak percentage white professionals could get for Clinton.
It's simple: Hillary Clinton and her supporters are more comfortable with a certain type of voter: White, has a bachelor's or better, making over $200k (in 1992 dollars), belongs to a country club, has a place in the Hamptons, an enthusiastic philanthropist who hates taxes. You know, Republicans. (Which is also the only way I can justify pissing away so much money in Texas, Georgia, and Arizona.) Also, they have an inferiority complex after getting schlonged by Obama in 2008.
I assume you understand that private insurance providers are the polar opposite of communism, right? Actually, any viable "replace" would be more communist than Obamacare. (The next option is the public option. Go farther left and you have a complete nationalization of healthcare.)
Then again, there were the "**** Obamacare, I've got ACA" people. Too many of them. But there won't be for very long! #GallowsHumor
On phasing:
Fair, but the question then comes as to what extent is this a problem with centrist Democrats vs. to what extent is this a problem with Clinton, or for that matter Obama?
Is the backlash against Obamacare really because the people against it want there to be even more government intervention in the healthcare industry?
One cannot deny a major impetus for the flipping of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania wasn't due to the widespread dissatisfaction with Obamacare. Which, again, prompts the rather confused look I have towards someone saying that the problem with Democrats losing elections comes from them not being left enough.
Actually sounds to me like he's saying democrats are losing voters because the party is becoming increasing left, not because the party isn't left enough for voters.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
You assume too much. I was referencing the entire history of the group that brought Bill Clinton to power, from their founding to their disbanding. (Though now we have "New Democrats" which are to the DLC what intelligent design is to creationism: Same people, same ideology, different name.)
There's a reason that Bill Clinton would do things like belong to a white country club and deliver a nopology which consists of a rant about a minor rapper, with Jesse Jackson present. It was more about telling whites "Jesse Jackson is my *****."
On the issues, you had Hillary Clinton, proud to sign on to an unpopular war to shore up her credentials for 2008. You had Bill Clinton backing NAFTA and permanent normalized trade relations with China (after running as opposed to "the Butcher of Tiananmen Square" and in favor of freeing Tibet). You had the Clintons and other centrist Dems with this asinine "Let's all get banking jobs!" economic scheme. You had everyone pretending Clinton/Gore and Gore/Lieberman (both being DLC/DLC) were unity tickets, and more recently Clinton/Kaine.
But really, all you have to know about the DLC is that Koch Industries had a chair on the DLC; you may recall David Koch ran for VP in 1980 on the Libertarian ticket because he thought Reagan was a communist.
It's a problem with most centrist Dems. Obama is kind of an exception in that regard, but most of them bought into the Archie Bunker myth (essentially, that rich people aren't racist) hook, line, and sinker. You'd almost think there white flight and redlining didn't exist. (Ironically, the Clintons themselves would move to Harlem only to white-flight their way to Westchester.)
They're also mistaken in their belief that economic conservatives will be less strident than social conservatives; whether this is because they're huge on Ayn Rand or they've never met anyone who is, is a mystery.
It's because they don't like the mandate. The only way to get rid of the mandate and still cover preexisting conditions is exactly what I said.
Three industrial states which have voted for every Democrat since Dukakis suddenly voted against the wife of a man who pushed for permanent normalized trade relations with China and was herself for even more trade liberalization before she was against it. Gee, might there be a connection, hmm?
On phasing:
Furthermore, what is the "Archie Bunker myth"? I was not aware of people saying that rich people weren't racist.
Third, I believe you're conflating college graduates with wealthy people. People who were at the highest income brackets, by and large, voted Trump. But college-educated professionals are not necessarily people who are at the highest income brackets. The professionals you speak of did, by and large, vote Clinton.
Fourth, no, it's not just the mandate that people object to about Obamacare. It's the fact that people lost their previous insurance plans - which Obama said would not happen - and the fact that insurance premiums soared after Obamacare happened. Which, again, really makes me
So, basically, I really have no clue what point you're trying to make beyond, "Clinton is a corporate stooge and corrupt." Which, yeah. But so is Trump. And I will agree that Clinton was a major reason why the Democrats lost. Because she's Clinton. But I have no idea what you're saying past that.
DLC was a centrist-leaning democratic thinktank/strategy group that backed the Clintons and other politicians like Joe Lieberman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
Democrats Lose Consistently. There are some who say it means Democratic Leadership Council, but experts believe that's a backronym.
But in all seriousness, the Democratic Leadership Council was basically supposedly to "prevent another loss like McGovern, Carter, or Mondale". They had a universal prescription that was just like Mario: Just go right!
In retrospect, McGovern represented a sea change in who Democrats wanted in the party. You see, prior to Kennedy, New England was largely Republican and the South was largely Democratic. A big reason for the South was, of course, President Johnson. You can actually see one little detail on Truman's map that mirrors Johnson's. (See those yellow states? Excluding the Tennessee faithless elector, all those states would go to Goldwater in 1964, and most of them would go to Wallace in 1968.)
From Johnson to Dukakis, we had a series of wave elections (nixing Carter in 1976, who still won with the South). In the end, we got the now-familiar "blue wall" map. The big switch was gaining California (due to demographic changes making California a minority-majority state, and memories of a racist referendum) and New England (due to a full-throated embrace of economic and in some cases social policies that were frankly right of Goldwater).
'Twas very common on Democratic blogs leading up to November. Many really fell under the spell of radical centrism. ("Radical centrism" refers to people like Tom Friedman, just so we're on the same page. In fact, he coined the name with The Radical Center.) You could see people saying that dumping the Rust Belt was an end, rather than a price for some noble purpose the way dumping the South was.
Not really. They moved toward Clinton, but a majority didn't vote for her.
The only people who lost their previous insurance had policies not worth the paper they were written on. (That's another leg of the stool: Regulating what an insurance company can cover.)
Of course, there were a bunch of "**** Obamacare, I still have my ACA" people. Yeah, the phrase "low-information" doesn't even begin to describe those people.
Again, the mandate. Higher demand, higher-risk populations included.
On phasing:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547
I highly recommend reading the above article. It paints a very detailed description as to how just how damning it was for Clinton to ignore states like Michigan.
That wasn't Obamacare premiums that cost Clinton the Rust Belt states. It was cosmopolitan hubris that backfired on her in the worst possible way.
Yep. And the real problem is, this was Bill Clinton's wife, and she was in favor of more trade liberalization (TPP), as I said.
On phasing: