US Politics returns: the post-Election thread

[Martell Spy]

Interview with Rand Paul: ‘I Can’t Support Anybody to Be Our Secretary of State Who Didn’t Learn the Lesson of Iraq’
For the libertarian-leaning senator, just about anybody would be better than John Bolton or Rudy Giuliani.

https://reason.com/blog/2016/11/15/interview-with-rand-paul-i-cant-support

[Mudguard]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I regards to the results of this election? I think what Scott was referring to is the finger pointing that the Clinton Campaign is currently engaging in. This wasn't just about sexism and racism. They were outplayed by a campaign that was underfunded compared to theirs. Their excuses are their own at this point. I just hope the DNC as a whole doesn't embrace this tact.

Yeah, they are pointing the finger at everyone but themselves.  Clinton made a big mistake ignoring the working class in the rust belt and midwest.  Based on recent news articles, it seems that this was a deliberate strategy by her campaign that went against Bill Clinton's recommendations.  Say what you want about Bill Clinton, and there is a lot you can say, but the man was a brilliant politician.  I remember Hillary stating during the primaries that she was going to put coal miners out of business in favor of solar energy and other green energy solutions.  That was such a stupid thing to say.  You can promote solar without stating that you want to put coal miners out of business.  This is just one example that shows how out of touch she was with working class America.  She never developed a message for these people.  

While I don't have a problem with calling out or attaching Republican's positions, you can't spend all or most of your time doing that, especially if you believe that Republican voters aren't going to be listening to you anyway.  You need to provide voters with a compelling reason to vote for you that goes beyond "well, I'm not as bad as the other guy."  Clinton spent way too much time arguing that Trump was unfit to be the President, and not enough time selling herself and her ideas.

[IamMe90]

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

Yeah, they are pointing the finger at everyone but themselves.  Clinton made a big mistake ignoring the working class in the rust belt and midwest.  Based on recent news articles, it seems that this was a deliberate strategy by her campaign that went against Bill Clinton's recommendations.  Say what you want about Bill Clinton, and there is a lot you can say, but the man was a brilliant politician.  I remember Hillary stating during the primaries that she was going to put coal miners out of business in favor of solar energy and other green energy solutions.  That was such a stupid thing to say.  You can promote solar without stating that you want to put coal miners out of business.  This is just one example that shows how out of touch she was with working class America.  She never developed a message for these people.  

While I don't have a problem with calling out or attaching Republican's positions, you can't spend all or most of your time doing that, especially if you believe that Republican voters aren't going to be listening to you anyway.  You need to provide voters with a compelling reason to vote for you that goes beyond "well, I'm not as bad as the other guy."  Clinton spent way too much time arguing that Trump was unfit to be the President, and not enough time selling herself and her ideas.

Yes, definitely. Campaigning heavily in Nevada and Arizona instead of shoring up support in key states (ie, rust belt + PA) seemed presumptuous and arrogant; and what's really disappointing is that, for all I can tell from media reports, the DNC is basically eschewing an opportunity to engage in some serious introspection on how they managed to lose to the worst Republican candidate in... pretty much forever, in order to stick their heads in the sand and make excuses. 

If they don't recognize that they majorly fucked up throughout basically the whole process, from their paternalistic and dishonest handling of the primary to their strategy in the general, then we're in even more trouble next time. 

[Altherion]

24 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

Yes, definitely. Campaigning heavily in Nevada and Arizona instead of shoring up support in key states (ie, rust belt + PA) seemed presumptuous and arrogant; and what's really disappointing is that, for all I can tell from media reports, the DNC is basically eschewing an opportunity to engage in some serious introspection on how they managed to lose to the worst Republican candidate in... pretty much forever, in order to stick their heads in the sand and make excuses.

They ran a data-driven campaign using an algorithm to optimize their resources (including campaign appearances, celebrity concerts, TV ads and county-level campaign offices). The problem is that when you do this, you have to give the machine some data to work with and the data they used included polls which turned out to be wrong. When something like that happens, there needs to be a human being who looks at the output and says "Wait a minute... that doesn't look right." I work with data in physics and it's not easy to do this even there.

In politics, the problem is a whole lot harder and people who can do this are quite rare. Ironically, the Clinton campaign did have such a person (Bill Clinton, who told them that their attitude towards the white working class was problematic), but they basically told him that his ideas were old and he should shut up and let the campaign handle it. Hillary Clinton appears to have been unable to see the issue or even acknowledge it when it was pointed out to her.

[DireWolfSpirit]

18 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I don't think arguing is a particularly effective way at changing minds, particularly at this partisan time in our history. In my opinion, events have a better chance of changing a lot more minds (I know, a total reversal of the prevailing wisdom before the elections, but I am re-evaluating a lot of my priors).

I dont either because for someone to agree with something they usually need to believe they came upon a view through their own discovery and conclusion. I think its best just to offer information and views in a neutral way. If the information or view is solid it will sell itself. Just plant the seeds and with patience the roots take hold.

[DunderMifflin]

41 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I dont either because for someone to agree with something they usually need to believe they came upon a view through their own discovery and conclusion. I think its best just to offer information and views in a neutral way. If the information or view is solid it will sell itself. Just plant the seeds and with patience the roots take hold.

That's pretty difficult as well.

Even that turns off both sides and you end up looking like the know it all asshole who thinks they are better than everyone.

 

[mormont]

Sometimes, what you have to do is get a critical mass of people, enough to change the facts on the ground, and only then will other people come around. Take for example gay marriage, another topic on which I recall being warned about alienating good people who were on the other side but felt bad about being told their view was bigoted. I don't doubt that those people really were good people, in many ways: they were also in the wrong, just like the good people who voted for Trump are in the wrong.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I told my son we lived through 8 years of W. Bush, we can survive this too. His spirit was pretty bruised by the election, he had a sense of betrayal and disbelief that his country could elect such a person. What a great kid, his soul is solid.

[SeanF]

One phrase that needs to be banished forever is "Coalition of the Ascendant".  Demographics are not destiny, because many peoples' voting behaviour changes as their circumstances change.  And, believing that your final victory is inevitable due to demographic change simply encourages lazy thinking.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Sometimes, what you have to do is get a critical mass of people, enough to change the facts on the ground, and only then will other people come around. Take for example gay marriage, another topic on which I recall being warned about alienating good people who were on the other side but felt bad about being told their view was bigoted. I don't doubt that those people really were good people, in many ways: they were also in the wrong, just like the good people who voted for Trump are in the wrong.

Forgive me, but who are you to say who is in the so called right or wrong? More accurate would be to say that you disagree with their opinion.

 

[Jo498]

I think this is part of the problem. It seemed to be possible to "agree to disagree" about a lot of things or at least to think that someone was wrong without necessarily implying that s/he was irrationally evil or plain stupid. Now the range of policies, moral attitudes etc. where one cannot state disagreement without comparing the other side to Hitler or KKK (or in the best case scenario to an illiterate moron) in the next sentence seems to be almost all-encompassing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Sometimes, what you have to do is get a critical mass of people, enough to change the facts on the ground, and only then will other people come around. Take for example gay marriage, another topic on which I recall being warned about alienating good people who were on the other side but felt bad about being told their view was bigoted. I don't doubt that those people really were good people, in many ways: they were also in the wrong, just like the good people who voted for Trump are in the wrong.

Y'all convinced me and it wasn't via shaming.

[Ice Queen]

14 hours ago, Altherion said:

Well, if fragile male voters were the issue, she could have simply chosen Sanders himself. I know, I know: too risky, potentially sacrifices the Vermont Senate seat and he's a socialist. Somebody ought to have reminded the Clinton campaign that it's hard to win with no risk and no sacrifice.

Regarding the seemingly eternal fight over the Midwest voting numbers: I don't want to get into it again, but I will point out that in PA and MI, had Trump not gotten 210K and 163K (respectively) votes more than Romney, he would have lost despite the fact that Clinton got fewer votes than Obama. The loss of turnout for Democrats was the larger of the two effects, but it would not have been sufficient on its own -- Trump needed both to win.

In 4 years (or less), much of the country might finally be ready for someone like Bernie after the drubbing they're going to take and the sense of utter betrayal they're going to feel...and that's already begun. Also, there are too many old people and boomers who are still terrified of the word "communist" and have no idea what a "socialist" is. 

[OldGimletEye]

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

One phrase that needs to be banished forever is "Coalition of the Ascendant".  Demographics are not destiny, because many peoples' voting behaviour changes as their circumstances change.  And, believing that your final victory is inevitable due to demographic change simply encourages lazy thinking.

A couple of things here:

1. If more minorities flee to the Republican Party, then the Republican Party as we know might not be the same. I actually would think it would be a healthy development if both parties had healthy minority constituencies. Though I don't see it happening anytime soon, which is unfortunate.

2. It looks true that the Democratic Party is going to have to do some fancy footwork here, in that it is going to need to increase it's minority voters while not hemorrhaging white voters. It needs both right now. What I question right now is the need for the Democratic Party to make too many concessions, right now, over issues of race and gender, even if takes a few short term ass kickings. If it retreats too much on race and gender issues, then the Democratic Party is likely to lose minority voters, which they surely need and ought not take for granted. And if it gives up too much ground now, then I have to wonder how it will reclaim that ground later.

The Democtratic Party is in a pretty tough spot right now. It's going to have to think carefully about how to proceed. One bright spot here perhaps is: The Republicans will fuck up.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OGE,

I, for one, have never said the Democratic party needs to make "concessions" or "appease" white voters.  

My point, and only point (since the start of this particular line of discussion) is that shaming and screaming at people rather than rationally engaging them may prompt push back as people respond emotionally to emotional appeals.  Shaming is as likely to provoke anger as it is to provoke empathy as such purely emotional appeals are a risky method of engagement.

You, in particular, are quite good at rational reasoned engagement.  I wish more people engaged issues the way you do.

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

OGE,

I, for one, have never said the Democratic party needs to make "concessions" or "appease" white voters.  

My point, and only point (since the start of this particular line of discussion) is that shaming and screaming at people rather than rationally engaging them may prompt push back as people respond emotionally to emotional appeals.  Shaming is as likely to provoke anger as it is to provoke empathy as such purely emotional appeals are a risky method of engagement.

You, in particular, are quite good at rational reasoned engagement.  I wish more people engaged issues the way you do.

I get what your saying to an extent.

But, when somebody like Trump makes a clearly overt and racist statement, the response should be what? I don't always agree with calling everyone a racist, but when somebody does make a racist statement, I think they ought to get hammered on it.

The problem here is that often some conservatives want to play games. Like talking about Obama's birth certificate and then saying,"oh this isn't motivated by any racism. I have legitimate concern here!'

That's bullshit. And that kind of bullshit needs to be called out.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OGE,

In that circumstance I agree.  

What I don't see is the benefit of, using Drawkcabi's example, of opening up a can of rhetorical "woop-ass" on someone who (without more) says "Hello" to a woman in passing for "invading her space".  What benefit comes from that style of confrontation, if any?  If that is what activists are doing regularly I'm not surprised at all to see push back.

8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I get what your saying to an extent.

But, when somebody like Trump makes a clearly overt and racist statement, the response should be what? I don't always agree with calling everyone a racist, but when somebody does make a racist statement, I think they ought to get hammered on it.

The problem here is that often some conservatives want to play games. Like talking about Obama's birth certificate and then saying,"oh this is motivated by any racism. I have legitimate concern here!'

That's bullshit. And that kind of bullshit needs to be called out.

 

 

[ummester]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Sometimes, what you have to do is get a critical mass of people, enough to change the facts on the ground, and only then will other people come around. Take for example gay marriage, another topic on which I recall being warned about alienating good people who were on the other side but felt bad about being told their view was bigoted. I don't doubt that those people really were good people, in many ways: they were also in the wrong, just like the good people who voted for Trump are in the wrong.

That is very judgemental - I don't think any of us get to determine what is ultimately right or wrong when it comes to human ideology, as ideology is always subjective. Claiming any ideology is wrong, however righteous you may feel about your own, is a form of intellectual bigotry.

[butterbumps!]

23 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

OGE,

I, for one, have never said the Democratic party needs to make "concessions" or "appease" white voters.  

My point, and only point (since the start of this particular line of discussion) is that shaming and screaming at people rather than rationally engaging them may prompt push back as people respond emotionally to emotional appeals.  Shaming is as likely to provoke anger as it is to provoke empathy as such purely emotional appeals are a risky method of engagement.

You, in particular, are quite good at rational reasoned engagement.  I wish more people engaged issues the way you do.

I think that in the case of trump voters it's especially tough to not come across as judging either morally or intellectually.  Trump is kind of an unprecedented case where people went for a candidate who is both extremely morally compromised as well as devoid of redeeming policy and characteristics.    The reasons for voting for him actually are morally compromised and/ or invalid.    He just simply was not a valid choice for any of the reasons people are giving for having voted for him (outside of those doing so because they agree with the anti PC stance).     

I personally haven't gone around calling anyone out for their trump vote at this stage (irl I mean), but I am sort of at a loss in how one should communicate these points in a manner trump voters will be comfortable with (and I question if never making them uncomfortable is even a good thing), that doesn't fall victim to being accused of coastal elitism and that doesn't require giving up ground on our parts.   

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I get what your saying to an extent.

But, when somebody like Trump makes a clearly overt and racist statement, the response should be what? I don't always agree with calling everyone a racist, but when somebody does make a racist statement, I think they ought to get hammered on it.

The problem here is that often some conservatives want to play games. Like talking about Obama's birth certificate and then saying,"oh this isn't motivated by any racism. I have legitimate concern here!'

That's bullshit. And that kind of bullshit needs to be called out.

 

Or to use another example: would it have been better if I had just called my first cousin "stupid" and blocked him when he shared anti-muslim memes as opposed to engaging him rationally?