Bernie Bros' sack bruised and battered

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 43 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #26865
    Vitalogy
    Participant

    “Since Obama took office, we are down a little over 1000 seats”

    Wanna know why? Because the US is not as progressive as a whole as Dems would like. In 2008 Dems had both Houses and the Presidency. And people voted accordingly moving forward based on their rejection of the progressive policies put forth.

    Which is why Bernie didn’t stand a chance in hell of winning a national election. Going more left isn’t the solution.

    #26867
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    >Because the Bernie Bots didn’t show up to vote.

    Why do you think that happened? What could have been done about it?

    When you show your work, remember we don’t dictate votes.

    I see you guys also taking about social issues, Gerrymandering, divisive forces. Religion.

    I also see a couple, it is close arguments.

    I agree with those points in general.

    What could be done to improve on margins. Could it have been done?

    Same deal, we can’t tell people how to vote. We can make a vote preference more compelling.

    #26868
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    >Because the US is not as progressive as a whole as Dems would like

    Dems are not presenting progressive ideas in legislation, though they like to run on them. The GOP trades on social regression to advance extreme neo economics. Dems are trading on social progress so to advance moderate neo-economics.

    Progressives are not about neo-economics.

    See the trouble yet?

    Notice how the GOP does present their ideas in legislation, even though it gets shot down?

    Dems don’t do the same. They then have little to encourage people to vote on.

    Surely becoming more and nicer Republicans isn’t the answer. Why not vote the real deal?

    #26869
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    >Despite their efforts the economic recovery went well,

    No it didn’t. Ask this in the regions where Dems and Clinton have lost big.

    #26878
    edselehr
    Participant

    Yes it went well. Not great, but well. And not equitably, admittedly. But the GOP wanted to see the economy tank to prove Obama’s incompetence, and that didn’t happen.

    One must remember that the president has little direct influence on the economy. Congress and corporate interests run the show, and have to take the lion’s share of blame or credit for the economy.

    If you are saying that the economy didn’t recover under Obama you’re on Trump’s side. True, Missing?

    #26881
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    I’m not making any of those arguments and am on the side of labor and the middle class.

    On a class basis by income, there are two outcomes. Upper class people agree on recovery. Lower class people do not agree on recovery. This does vary by region too.

    From a macroeconomic view, we did recover quite nicely. In very rough terms, a third of us improved. Two thirds quit declining, or continued decline.

    #26882
    Vitalogy
    Participant

    KSKD is off his rocker.

    I called his ass out way earlier in the process about the danger of Trump getting elected.

    Every fucking single Bernie supporter should have shown up to vote for Hillary (Choice A). But they were to good for that. So we got Choice B. I’m sure there’s close to zero Berie Bots that are glad Choice B got elected, but YOU share the blame.

    Hillary did the work. The Bernie Bots didn’t when it came time to show up at the poll. So you can suck it!

    #26883
    Andrew
    Participant

    The way I see it, the lower/middle classes have not been doing well for a long time. They may have enjoyed some artificial prosperity during the Bush years between the 2001 recession and the 2008 collapse, due to the housing bubble that pumped fake wealth into the economy.

    People tend to compare those times to now and say, “Gee, how come we haven’t recovered yet back to those boom times?” I say: because they weren’t really that great ten years ago! It was fake prosperity.

    My perspective on today’s economy is this: in 2009, when the Democrats had Congress and the presidency, the economy was on a cliff – it could have gone into a deep depression for years. I think some forget how dire and scary those times were. Instead of a depression, we got a pretty good recovery, even if not everyone has “recovered” as much as others. (Ironically, had the recovery been worse, liberals in Congress might have had more political working room to push through more aggressive reforms, as FDR was able to do in 1933-1934, after four years of a depression.)

    But edselehr is right about the president vs. Congress: if you want real “progressive reform,” you need the Congress to do it, and you also need to build the political base for them to do it. The Democrats did not have that political base in 2009-2010; they had a temporary control of Congress due to Iraq and the 2008 crash. As we have found out with Obamacare, just having a temporary majority doesn’t give you the time to nurture real reforms – it doesn’t happen simply by passing one law.

    #26885
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Written on mobile, and I’m not gonna edit. Too late for me. Early morning tomorrow.

    >The way I see it, the lower/middle classes have not been doing well for a long time

    Exactly right. And during that time, the numbers in real economic trouble have been increasing.

    BTW, I’m not making a President impact economy argument as much as I am making an economic policy argument.

    Dems have not performed for labor and the middle class. Neither has the GOP.

    Moves right to compete are counter productive, as we’re things like putting Social Security on the chopping block. The ACA lacking better, public options after Obama ran on single payer is another one.

    No Vitalogy, she did not do that work. Has she done it, she would have won.

    This is precisely why I posed these two questions.

    We are here now, and it’s extremely important to get where people are and speak to that or Dems will continue tepid performance.

    Failure to do it means social and economic regression.

    You guys really don’t have a very good grasp on where the lower classes are at. It’s obvious throughout this discussion.

    Obama pushing hard for TPP did not help. It’s actually a very significant negative, and doing it placed an additional burden on Clinton. She lost those regions by pretty thin margins.

    Right now there is a choice:

    Push with the same losing strategy, or go with one that is worse, or better.

    Many say move right economically. There are no good answers there. There isn’t anything on the right that speaks to the basic economics in play and those drive party seats as well as membership.

    We have seen what the current strategy does, and that’s 1k seats down.

    Which leaves left, a clear class play to improve things for the majority who need them.

    Making “all those people need to…” arguments won’t get us where we need to be. People either find it compelling, or they do not, end of story.

    The default, as stated by a couple of you is complete shit and here we are.

    That means putting policy visions and people out there that voters are motivated to vote for.

    Most of this thread contains, “but we suck less!”, or “stooped people”, or “be more like the GOP”.

    We suck less isn’t good enough. 1k seats down us are null anyone needs to see there.

    Stooped people? Yeah, explain to me how talking people down gets them to the polls. I’ll wait.

    And a move to the GOP bills down to “we suck a little less, but the gays can marry” hardly inspiring and worth it.

    Again, the GOP trades on social regression to advance extreme right economics. The Dems have been trading on social progress for less extreme right, some say center economics.

    The class issue I put here is simply not addressed by right leaning, austerity, neo economic policy. The decline has been steady for a long while.

    Factor out the social differences, and there is currently no economic force looking to improve for labor and the middle class and as a class bloc, represent a majority of people.

    That is where the wins are.

    My interest here is two fold:

    One, the economic policy in play is unacceptable in that we have too many Americans in trouble. It’s not working. Real change is needed here, not a consolidation or narrowing down.

    We do that, and it’s for sure social regression in addition to more economic unrest in the undeserved majority. A larger majority too.

    I want Dems to win, and fight for it, not demonstrate some of the most tepid politics I think I have seen. I want that win, because of social issues and the party being closest to the necessary economic policy it takes to do that.

    What I see is a whole lot of people pissed off, yet unwilling to recognize what happened, and in that scenario, the beatings will continue, until that understanding is improved.

    Blaming people in real need for their rejection of the economics is not the answer.

    Right now, there is only ONE domniant economic policy on the table, the only question posed to the voters being extreme or moderate.

    Early on, I said establishment referendum election and I’m not wrong.

    Trump presented authoritarian populist and talked jobs, sort out trade deals, infrastructure, etc… we know he’s full of shit too.

    Bernie presented the left, also populist.

    Clinton presented a grudging center left, maybe.

    Take this discussion and drop it in various parts of the nation, and it plays out very differently. The polarization on economic lines is class level stuff.

    The answers need to match the need, or the outcomes will favor the populist.

    If we want the wins, we need to recognize and address economics.

    Progressives continue to have the best overall economic appeal. And that is precisely where my politics will stay too. I’m in a solid majority on that on nearly every economic issue in play right now.

    The current Democratic Party leadership is not, and needs to be if there is any hope at all of taking this back in the short term.

    You guys do not appear to want those things.

    In fact, what I see is a whole lot of, “teach them a lesson”, played just as the right would play it. LMAO! The primary advocacy here is a move to the right economically to go with it!

    Why not just bring Republicans with a better social agenda? That what I read here.

    Fuck that, I’m no rightie. Know damn well what is needed and won’t shut up about it.

    You, we’ll most of you, might as well just say, “fuck poors” and be done with it.

    And there is Andy wonder at tepid performance at the polls?

    It’s pretty damn bad to read such aggressive advocacy against a whole downtrodden class of people, more people mind you, and to see that coupled with, “they should have voted so I’m good, but fuck them?”

    It may be 8 long years. No joke.

    Later kids. You all keep mulling those questions for a while. Bonus points for actually looking at the economics in play for the last 30 years and where way more people are at than you realize.

    I’ll come back later after you all have had a good think on this.

    Got party reform and movement building to do. Those people mean it. They are cornered economically, desperate. Know that. It’s a big deal.

    😀

    #26886
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    One more thing. Again, I’m not angry. Tell me to fuck off, etc…

    It’s all good. You all know the skin I have. Not a damn thing you can say to get under it. Otherwise serious as a heart attack. Meant every word here. Did you?

    We all want it better, and we all do not want, nor wanted Trump.

    What we had going just is ineffective. It’s time for change. No going back. Everyone meant well too. Myself included.

    The good is we have a real shot at left economics. We need them.

    The bad is we are extremely likely to get authoritarian populist policy.

    See Trump’s drug price deal?

    He wants to lower prices by removing bidding restrictions. This will be popular. But he will offset that with massive deregulation too.

    Trump appears willing to trade costs for risks. Bet you a stiff drink that is his gimmicks, and you know he has one. Done this way, he can avoid a lot of the “how do we pay for that?” questions and desperate people won’t care. (Though they should as the risks will be massive and they will have no real idea until a lot of the die or are harmed)

    The evil here is most people will benefit, but the overall risks and environmental harm will kill and harm a lot of people.

    Those that don’t get hit by the risks will benefit, and that’s going to be a lot of people.

    Mix in tort reform, and holy cow!

    Look out!

    I submit there may never even be a return to the old game. Plausible.

    So go left! It’s a clear, sane and centrist where practical answer. Massive support possible. Take backs in the mid terms possible.

    Or do you want more of that Trump shit? It’s only what, day 8, nine?

    Cheers!

    #26887
    paulwalker
    Participant

    Missing, I will never tell you to f-off. Because I respect you too much, and I actually enjoy this debate. I understand those opposing you on this, (despite their crude personal attacks). That said, I understand their arguments. But unlike some on here, I can read and understand both arguments. It is quite a bit more complicated than Bernie electing Trump. Just didn’t happen that way, for sure.

    #26897
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Well they should know better. It’s me, and I beat that shit out of the house how many times?

    LOL

    In truth, it’s all good. Most of us are just pissed off. I get that. I’m pissed too.

    The real answer to that is to get it sorted so we can minimize this shit.

    #26898

    Is it any consolation that some/many of us are happy?

    #26899
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Not really. Making other people choices for them while stripping away important protections does more harm than good. Trump brings gimmicks and bravado to a table needing real answers and resolve.

    An upside is a solid vetting of this stuff. You being happy has more people lit up and active than I’ve seen recently.

    Sets the stage for big moves. I see that as a high risk, but potential high reward scenarios.

    Not happy about that, given the state of our politics. Would be much nicer to take it in more reasonable fashion.

    But, if it’s a raw fight we must have, bring it.

    Maybe it’s a shorter one.

    #26900
    Andrew
    Participant

    “Is it any consolation that some/many of us are happy?”

    Sure, about as much consolation as all of those who were celebrating the 9/11 attacks right after they happened. You know, like those thousands of Muslims in New Jersey who were celebrating on TV that no one but Donald Trump ever saw…

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 43 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.