The Democratic Party Continues to Ignore Reality

[ivwshane]

^ Pretty good example of this supposed liberal of little faith who's quick to turn on people when things don't go his way.

Its called projecting and no, he's not aware that that is what he's doing. He's regressing into a conservative. I hope he an exception and not the norm, else jackalas will too regress into his former self.

 

[Bowfinger]

You need a reality check. From Reagan forward, we've allowed the Job Creators to manage the economy with their free market ways & they're now hogging the pie. The top 1% share of national income has doubled & the top 0.1% share is about half of that. If the income distribution of 1980 had been maintained median families would earn ~40% more.

We can't afford to indulge the Rich nor our fantasies of becoming them nearly as much as we have.

This is a good example of the problem the Democrats face, one of several good examples in this thread. You make a sound, factual argument as to why most Americans should prefer Democratic policies. You even have good data to support it. The problem is it's an appeal to intellect and reason instead of something that grabs you by the gut. It's too wordy. It's too wonky. Too many Americans lack the patience, and perhaps the critical thinking skills, to process arguments based on facts and reason. They want feels, not facts.

So, that's the challenge for the Democrats. How do they turn their well-reasoned arguments into compelling slogans and sound bites? How do they condense all their facts and figures into easy-to-digest feels. They have the steak, but they need to sell the sizzle. As someone (you?) noted above, Republicans are masters at this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

"I'm not conservative, but here's why liberals are the Real problem" said no liberal ever.

I didn't say I was a Liberal or Socialist either if you had followed along, but I guess it's good that you realize I never said what you attribute. But I will remember and pass that bit of wisdom along if a self identified liberal ever is so incredibly foolish to make that comment.

 

[agent00f]

Clinton didn't lose because of the percentages of who voted for Trump vs Clinton. Clinton lost because of a lack of voter turnout. The younger generation, even though Clinton won the percentage war, didn't turn out like they did in the past couple of elections.

Clinton got as many votes as Obama did last time out. She lost because Trump pulled +14% non-college white (and Clinton got +10% college ones), which red-shifted certain key areas skewed for that relevant demographic.

 

[ivwshane]

This is a good example of the problem the Democrats face, one of several good examples in this thread. You make a sound, factual argument as to why most Americans should prefer Democratic policies. You even have good data to support it. The problem is it's an appeal to intellect and reason instead of something that grabs you by the gut. It's too wordy. It's too wonky. Too many Americans lack the patience, and perhaps the critical thinking skills, to process arguments based on facts and reason. They want feels, not facts.

So, that's the challenge for the Democrats. How do they turn their well-reasoned arguments into compelling slogans and sound bites? How do they condense all their facts and figures into easy-to-digest feels. They have the steak, but they need to sell the sizzle. As someone (you?) noted above, Republicans are masters at this.

100% agreed and its why I believe the left should be doing their own propaganda right now (by that I mean sound bites on why their policies are better and why the rights policies are not and how they've failed repeatedly). The reason I say the left needs to do this is because it needs to be about the policies themselves and not about Republican vs Democrat.

 

[agent00f]

I didn't say I was a Liberal or Socialist either if you had followed along, but I guess it's good that you realize I never said what you attribute. But I will remember and pass that bit of wisdom along if a self identified liberal ever is so incredibly foolish to make that comment.

Of course, you're fair and balanced. That statement perfectly encapsulates everything you've ever said and likely forever will.

This is a good example of the problem the Democrats face, one of several good examples in this thread. You make a sound, factual argument as to why most Americans should prefer Democratic policies. You even have good data to support it. The problem is it's an appeal to intellect and reason instead of something that grabs you by the gut. It's too wordy. It's too wonky. Too many Americans lack the patience, and perhaps the critical thinking skills, to process arguments based on facts and reason. They want feels, not facts.

So, that's the challenge for the Democrats. How do they turn their well-reasoned arguments into compelling slogans and sound bites? How do they condense all their facts and figures into easy-to-digest feels. They have the steak, but they need to sell the sizzle. As someone (you?) noted above, Republicans are masters at this.

The prevailing wisdom among liberals is that conservatives are gut thinkers, which really discredits what they're acting in self-interest for to get out of the deal. It's hardly a coincidence that racial resentment is pretty arguably the best predictor for party affiliation, as perfectly validated by the election of the birther king.

 

[mect]

Clinton got as many votes as Obama did last time out. She lost because Trump pulled +14% non-college white (and Clinton got +10% college ones), which red-shifted certain key areas skewed for that relevant demographic.

No she didn't. Obama got 65,915,795. Clinton got 65,844,610.

 

[Jaskalas]

At least 85% of the electorate have no fucking idea what you just said. You could say it a thousand times, but they'll just get mad at you for making them feel stupid.

You think we cannot use smaller words? Of course we can.

1. Trickle down? Why should we reward your stingy boss when we can just pay you direct?
2. Money? You want, me give.

This is a twitter thread that I thought perfectly captured what's behind the alienation. It's not super long, 12 tweets or so.
Twitter.com/haircut_hippie/status/858817232792584195

Thanks for sharing that. It really does encapsulate much of it.

...he is more likely to achieve them through bits and pieces over time rather than all at once through some revolution.

What, is the Reagan revolution not a thing? Did that election not mark the start of a new era of American policy? You say that which has already happened once cannot happen. Moreover, a national movement probably will start off with small traction at first, I get that. But this is not a time of peace and stability, Trump represents the volatility in America and he's not going to cure it. It'll be there... hanging over every election until something fundamentally changes.

What, you're telling us not to push for that change?

 

[agent00f]

No she didn't. Obama got 65,915,795. Clinton got 65,844,610.

Try doing some math to demonstrate my point.

 

[agent00f]

What, is the Reagan revolution not a thing? Did that election not mark the start of a new era of American policy? You say that which has already happened once cannot happen. Moreover, a national movement probably will start off with small traction at first, I get that. But this is not a time of peace and stability, Trump represents the volatility in America and he's not going to cure it. It'll be there... hanging over every election until something fundamentally changes.

What, you're telling us not to push for that change?

Reagan mostly attracted white labor class with social/religious issues. You know, why jesus hates "welfare queens". For a long time democrats appealed to that class's economic interests, but really they could see where things were headed when browns were increasing allowed in their ranks. I think they knew what Reagan was offering even if many like to believe/pretend they're too stupid to.

 

[ivwshane]

You think we cannot use smaller words? Of course we can.

1. Trickle down? Why should we reward your stingy boss when we can just pay you direct?
2. Money? You want, me give.

Thanks for sharing that. It really does encapsulate much of it.



What, is the Reagan revolution not a thing? Did that election not mark the start of a new era of American policy? You say that which has already happened once cannot happen. Moreover, a national movement probably will start off with small traction at first, I get that. But this is not a time of peace and stability, Trump represents the volatility in America and he's not going to cure it. It'll be there... hanging over every election until something fundamentally changes.

What, you're telling us not to push for that change?

I'm definitely not telling to not push for change! I'm saying that hating on someone who isn't pushing for change fast enough and who isn't trying to block change, isn't the smart thing to do.

Just because reagan called it a revolution doesn't mean it was. The only radical thing he did was lower the tax rate, that's hardly revolutionary.

 

[agent00f]

I'm definitely not telling to not push for change! I'm saying that hating on someone who isn't pushing for change fast enough and who isn't trying to block change, isn't the smart thing to do.

Just because reagan called it a revolution doesn't mean it was. The only radical thing he did was lower the tax rate, that's hardly revolutionary.

I would tend to agree it was a revolution in how it essentially turned/perpetuated gop politics into a referendum on race as ultimately personified by trump. That isn't to say there's no other issues, but in practice that's what american elections are hinged on. All the econ jazz is literally academic, just words mouthed because rationalization is socially expected.

 

[ivwshane]

I would tend to agree it was a revolution in how it essentially turned/perpetuated gop politics into a referendum on race as ultimately personified by trump. That isn't to say there's no other issues, but in practice that's what american elections are hinged on.

And I'd argue that that want a revolution at all but an evolution of the times. Republicans needed a new base and got one the way they always have, by creating a new enemy to scapegoat the country's ills.

 

[DrunkenSano]

100% agreed and its why I believe the left should be doing their own propaganda right now (by that I mean sound bites on why their policies are better and why the rights policies are not and how they've failed repeatedly). The reason I say the left needs to do this is because it needs to be about the policies themselves and not about Republican vs Democrat.

I agree that this would be a very good step forward. Another step forward would be a new, younger face at the head of the Democratic party. People are tired of the same, aging politicians in office. We need younger, more diverse faces.

 

[ivwshane]

I agree that this would be a very good step forward. Another step forward would be a new, younger face at the head of the Democratic party. People are tired of the same, aging politicians in office. We need younger, more diverse faces.

Has anyone seen any polling on how engaged the younger generations are with regards to politics?

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm definitely not telling to not push for change! I'm saying that hating on someone who isn't pushing for change fast enough and who isn't trying to block change, isn't the smart thing to do.

Are we not talking about winning elections by energizing the base? By calling out to those in economic turmoil? A bold economic agenda can utilize the populist energy that won the past 3 Presidential elections. That's the message... how to win.

If you're telling us to accept mediocrity... then we shall see what that candidate looks like if / when nominated. It'll help if they at least are not vowing Neocon policy.

 

[ivwshane]

Are we not talking about winning elections by energizing the base? By calling out to those in economic turmoil? A bold economic agenda can utilize the populist energy that won the past 3 Presidential elections. That's the message... how to win.

If you're telling us to accept mediocrity... then we shall see what that candidate looks like if / when nominated. It'll help if they at least are not vowing Neocon policy.

I don't think you realize how partisan this country is. If we can enact change via a "evolutionary" candidate then great, I personally don't think it's possible in the climate.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is a good example of the problem the Democrats face, one of several good examples in this thread. You make a sound, factual argument as to why most Americans should prefer Democratic policies. You even have good data to support it. The problem is it's an appeal to intellect and reason instead of something that grabs you by the gut. It's too wordy. It's too wonky. Too many Americans lack the patience, and perhaps the critical thinking skills, to process arguments based on facts and reason. They want feels, not facts.

So, that's the challenge for the Democrats. How do they turn their well-reasoned arguments into compelling slogans and sound bites? How do they condense all their facts and figures into easy-to-digest feels. They have the steak, but they need to sell the sizzle. As someone (you?) noted above, Republicans are masters at this.

I would just add one thing. Feels are meaningless if they lead to a party that talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. It's one thing to say that economic inequality is destroying the country. It's quite another to end ones addiction to campaign contributions from the rich or escape the endless brainwashing their control of the media permits. It's going to have to be a war to end the class warfare the wealthy are waging against the whole, or the whole pie will collapse together. Everything is based on competition and hate generated by fear and so wealth will create what it fears, its own destruction. To divide is to destroy. The wealthy, the deplorables, everybody, democrats and republicans, etc. are all part of the problem and all will benefit from a real cure. We win together or we all fall. Crybaby, 'you deserve your misery' liberals and vindictive republicans are different shoes worn by the same insane mentality. Feels work properly when they align with facts. The fact as I see it is that democracy is dead because only the wealthy have a say in who is elected. The solution is a revolution, the one required to get money out of politics. The citizenry will have to rise up and demand change or nothing will change that matters. This requires a vision that the situation we are in is otherwise hopeless.

 

[agent00f]

I don't think you realize how partisan this country is. If we can enact change via a "evolutionary" candidate then great, I personally don't think it's possible in the climate.

I think it's pretty obvious given Sanders is basic the socialist wing of the democratic party. If that's a formula for victory you'd think it'd have some more success.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think you realize how partisan this country is. If we can enact change via a "evolutionary" candidate then great, I personally don't think it's possible in the climate.

The fact of partisanship is the reason change is impossible. When you see the hopelessness of a partisan solution there is nothing left to do but die to that hope. Democrats who see this in some measure are calling for others in the party to eliminate the grip of money on the party. It needs a new direction and a new message to announce the intention to change, not hold on to a failed policy.

 

[HTFOff]

The Democratic Party Continues to Ignore Reality

I'm unconvinced this needs changing. We need more hillary, more sanctuary cites, more summer riots, more of katy perry, more jayz, bon jovi et al. And more free shit, too.

Go team blue!

 

[Triloby]

Has anyone seen any polling on how engaged the younger generations are with regards to politics?

If by political engagement among the youth, you mean bitching and moaning about current events and shitposting stupid memes on Facebook and Twitter, then I guess the youth today are "engaged" in politics. Whether or not they are actually motivated enough to go to the polls and actually vote for their constituents come the mid-terms and 2020 elections, I can't say for sure.

 

[dank69]

I would just add one thing. Feels are meaningless if they lead to a party that talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. It's one thing to say that economic inequality is destroying the country. It's quite another to end ones addiction to campaign contributions from the rich or escape the endless brainwashing their control of the media permits. It's going to have to be a war to end the class warfare the wealthy are waging against the whole, or the whole pie will collapse together. Everything is based on competition and hate generated by fear and so wealth will create what it fears, its own destruction. To divide is to destroy. The wealthy, the deplorables, everybody, democrats and republicans, etc. are all part of the problem and all will benefit from a real cure. We win together or we all fall. Crybaby, 'you deserve your misery' liberals and vindictive republicans are different shoes worn by the same insane mentality. Feels work properly when they align with facts. The fact as I see it is that democracy is dead because only the wealthy have a say in who is elected. The solution is a revolution, the one required to get money out of politics. The citizenry will have to rise up and demand change or nothing will change that matters. This requires a vision that the situation we are in is otherwise hopeless.

This election proved that money has no say in who is elected. You can't blame this incoming disaster on the wealthy this time.

 

[Guurn]

Here is a fucking exercise for you:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

And that's why she lost.

 

[agent00f]

I'm unconvinced this needs changing. We need more hillary, more sanctuary cites, more summer riots, more of katy perry, more jayz, bon jovi et al. And more free shit, too.

Go team blue!

Let's not pretend these things have any bearing on how much you & peers love degeneracy.