Jump to content

U.S. Election - Because we know better than you do


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Triskele,

But talking down to people pisses them of regarless of how right you beleive yourself to be.  How do you overcome that?

Is there a way to tell people, "The Republicans are distracting you with racism and social issue pandering to ignore the fact that they are serving the people who sent your jobs overseas" without making them feel like they're being talked down to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Triskele,

But talking down to people pisses them of regarless of how right you beleive yourself to be.  How do you overcome that?

I can't tell if your comment towards me was sarcastic or not, but I'll give it a try.

It's not necessarily talking down to someone. There is a difference between analyzing voting behaviour and criticizing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was a pretty interesting read:

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/11/10967374/obama-staffers-bernie-sanders

It's the people from Obama's campaign talking about Sanders' campaign. Mostly about why they think it and the candidates in question are different.

Quote

 

In conversations with veterans of the Obama campaign both the day before and the day after the New Hampshire primary, their assessment of Sanders mixed real admiration with genuine dismay. They recognize the excitement Sanders is generating among Democratic voters — including groups they had trouble reaching, like white voters with incomes under $50,000. And they recognize that in some ways, Sanders is climbing an even harder hill than Obama did in 2008.

"Both candidates ran from the outside, but Obama had significant establishment support in his campaign, including from the traditional Democratic donor base," says Anita Dunn, a senior adviser on Obama's 2008 campaign. "Sanders's fundraising is all the more remarkable because he will not get the high dollar-donors that Obama did."

But, in a reaction that may reflect the experience of Obama's presidency as much as his campaign, the Obama veterans are almost universally frustrated by Sanders's message, which they see as both less realistic and less unifying than what they offered in 2008.

"Obama got in the race to be president, and Sanders got in the race to send a message, and you can see that difference in their approaches to policymaking," says Dan Pfeiffer, who was Obama's communications director in 2008. "Obama wouldn't support a policy unless he felt it was feasible if he was president. Sanders doesn't seem to have that limitation, which gives him more message purity and a sharper contrast with Clinton, but is a huge substantive and political problem if he ends up in the White House."

 

 

Quote

 

Jon Favreau, Obama's speechwriter on the 2008 campaign, points to a line Obama used often on the trail, where he would say, "It's time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they'll get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair." Over email, Favreau unpacked its importance:

To me, this exemplifies the difference between Bernie and Obama. Bernie would never say something like that. He doesn't think insurance companies, or drug companies, or banks, or millionaires get any seats at the table. He doesn't talk about making progress by working with Republicans, or the political establishment, or the business establishment. I guess his plan is to build a mobilized grassroots that simply wrestles power away from those who have it.

 

Quote

 

For these reasons, veterans of Obama's 2008 campaign rankle at the comparisons made between their candidate and Sanders. Yes, both were transformational candidates running on a promise to change American politics. But Obama's ex-staffers see the campaigns as quasi-opposites.

"The Obama-Sanders comparisons are overly facile," Pfeiffer continues. "In 2008, Obama's campaign was about channeling hope, and Sanders's is about channeling anger — well-deserved, righteous anger, but anger nonetheless."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Is there a way to tell people, "The Republicans are distracting you with racism and social issue pandering to ignore the fact that they are serving the people who sent your jobs overseas" without making them feel like they're being talked down to?

I think the real problem with this way of thinking, as I've been thinking about it over the years, is that it predisposes that said things are actually a distraction to the people in question rather then the whole point.

Maybe to many people stopping abortion is more important then, like, tax policies that benefit them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Shryke said:

I think the real problem with this way of thinking, as I've been thinking about it over the years, is that it predisposes that said things are actually a distraction to the people in question rather then the whole point.

Maybe to many people stopping abortion is more important then, like, tax policies that benefit them.

But the groundswell of resentment that Trump is tapping into seems to be rooted in economic, not social issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Shryke said:

I think the real problem with this way of thinking, as I've been thinking about it over the years, is that it predisposes that said things are actually a distraction to the people in question rather then the whole point.

Maybe to many people stopping abortion is more important then, like, tax policies that benefit them.

The fact that this is in any way deemed as some kind of breakthrough realization by you is the only surprising thing here. It should be utterly obvious that this is the case.

I can think of many such issues. Gun rights, anti-abortion, gay marriage, immigration etc. etc. which rank far higher in social conservative priority lists than tax or economic policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

But the groundswell of resentment that Trump is tapping into seems to be rooted in economic, not social issues.

The feeling of loss and dispossession is rooted in both economic and social woes. People being left behind in both the job market and the changing social mores of the US and all that. But the focus of who is to blame and how to fix it circles back around to racism and bigotry and other pre-existing prejudices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here's a fun fact I just saw about New Hampshire. Sanders got 39,600 votes from people ages 18-29. The Republicans got a combined 42,600 votes from people ages 18-29.

Yes, Democrats got more total votes from that age group because Clinton did get some (around 8,000), but the margin is very tight. Point is, Clinton lost because voters that backed her in 2008 decided to back Sanders this time; not because Sanders is turning out new voters in his much lauded-"revolution." In fact, if anything it would look like the revolution is on the Republican side.

Iowa was a similar story, and overall turnout in both states has been higher for Republicans than Democrats, with Republicans breaking their turnout records and Democrats falling short of their 2008 numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fez said:

So here's a fun fact I just saw about New Hampshire. Sanders got 39,600 votes from people ages 18-29. The Republicans got a combined 42,600 votes from people ages 18-29.

Yes, Democrats got more total votes from that age group because Clinton did get some (around 8,000), but the margin is very tight. Point is, Clinton lost because voters that backed her in 2008 decided to back Sanders this time; not because Sanders is turning out new voters in his much lauded-"revolution." In fact, if anything it would look like the revolution is on the Republican side.

Iowa was a similar story, and overall turnout in both states has been higher for Republicans than Democrats, with Republicans breaking their turnout records and Democrats falling short of their 2008 numbers.

I don't think anybody but the hardcore Bernites really think there's going to be a political revolution. Sanders has captured the imagination of a significant portion of the Democratic base, but in terms of inspiring the politically uninvolved to participate, he is simply nowhere near the motivator that Barack Obama was when he first ran. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

I don't think anybody but the hardcore Bernites really think there's going to be a political revolution. Sanders has captured the imagination of a significant portion of the Democratic base, but in terms of inspiring the politically uninvolved to participate, he is simply nowhere near the motivator that Barack Obama was when he first ran. 

Then unfortunately it would appear that at least two-thirds of my FB friends are #feelingthebern. 

It always frustrating it witness a large segment of one's political party decide to grasp likely defeat from the jaws of probable victory. Its even more frustrating when they do so with the smug, self-satisfaction of thinking that this is the true path to victory and that there's a secret majority on their side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Fez said:

Then unfortunately it would appear that at least two-thirds of my FB friends are #feelingthebern. 

It always frustrating it witness a large segment of one's political party decide to grasp likely defeat from the jaws of probable victory. Its even more frustrating when they do so with the smug, self-satisfaction of thinking that this is the true path to victory and that there's a secret majority on their side.

Clinton is faring extraordinarily poorly among young Democrats. Any Democrat will require (relatively) high turnout to win, and young voters are the most notoriously difficult to mobilize. Many young Democrats may well stay home if they're not excited about (or, as seems to be the case, they actively dislike and distrust) the nominee. This is on top of her legal baggage and general demonstrated inefficacy as a campaigner. If anyone is poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it's Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Clinton is faring extraordinarily poorly among young Democrats. Any Democrat will require (relatively) high turnout to win, and young voters are the most notoriously difficult to mobilize. Many young Democrats may well stay home if they're not excited about (or, as seems to be the case, they actively dislike and distrust) the nominee. This is on top of her legal baggage and general demonstrated inefficacy as a campaigner. If anyone is poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it's Clinton.

I don't disagree, but now that the Rubiot 9000 is broken, the Republicans don't have any threatening candidates. She'd really have to drop the ball or be looking at jail time to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

I don't disagree, but now that the Rubiot 9000 is broken, the Republicans don't have any threatening candidates. She'd really have to drop the ball or be looking at jail time to lose.

If this election is going to turn on where angry white guys take their votes, Trump vs. Sanders or a damaged Clinton could be a real problem. Especially since voter ID requirements are pretty widespread now, and are more effective than previously thought at suppressing minority votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't disagree, but now that the Rubiot 9000 is broken, the Republicans don't have any threatening candidates. She'd really have to drop the ball or be looking at jail time to lose.

Well, I agree, if the Republicans nominate Trump or Cruz it will be a rout. I just reject the idea that Clinton is somehow the more electable choice for Democrats, she has some very serious liabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another unknown with Clinton is what the Republicans are sitting on from the emails. Not that I think anything actually that bad is in there, but I'm sure any one of us has somewhere in our emails something that could be used to swift boat us and I doubt she's different. They wouldn't waste it now, they'd wait until September or October and drop it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...