Mark Blyth, the economist who's making sense

Status
Not open for further replies.
ttystikk said:
I didn't post that. For my part, I'm on record as saying he could have done a better and more direct job of appealing to non-white voters. No campaign is perfect.

Funny how these discussions completely fail to recognize what he's been doing SINCE November 8 of 2016.
Click to expand...
Ok then. You are on board with the idea that everybody votes in their own best interest. Always.

It's up to candidates to convince people that they are the best candidate for them. As I've said before, I always thought it was Clinton's job to convince Bernie's supporters to vote for her. Bernie's support was important but it was Clinton's job to win the election, not Berinie's.

Bernie has been fine with me since then. I wouldn't object to you or pad criticizing Democratic Party leadership if you would stick to facts or opinions based upon them. Regardless of my low opinion of your and Pad's critical thinking abilities, I'm happy to see the Democratic party shift positions into ones that I want to see. One has little to do with the other.
 
ttystikk said:
Hey, how 'bout them Democrats? You know, the ones who have reduced themselves to irrelevancy across the nation as well as in Washington?

How's that sniping at popular politicians working out for ya?

From here, it's not looking good at all- so maybe instead of constantly boring and shanking and trying to find fault, just maybe it's time to open up the fucking process to new ideas.

But keep picking. I'm sure you'll feel better about being on a losing team.
Click to expand...
I present to the forum another example of @ttystikk 's poor critical thinking skills and regurgitating right wing propaganda.
 
Fogdog said:
Ok then. You are on board with the idea that everybody votes in their own best interest. Always.

It's up to candidates to convince people that they are the best candidate for them. As I've said before, I always thought it was Clinton's job to convince Bernie's supporters to vote for her. Bernie's support was important but it was Clinton's job to win the election, not Berinie's.

Bernie has been fine with me since then. I wouldn't object to you or pad criticizing Democratic Party leadership if you would stick to facts or opinions based upon them. Regardless of my low opinion of your and Pad's critical thinking abilities, I'm happy to see the Democratic party shift positions into ones that I want to see. One has little to do with the other.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not.

I think people vote in their own PERCEIVED best interest, which is a very different thing.
 
http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/

Democrats.......................Independents
% of votes: 75%.............% of votes: 25%

Sanders: 35%.................Sanders: 63%
Clinton: 64%...................Clinton: 34%

It’s hard to win the Democratic nomination without winning Democrats. Independents accounted for fewer than one-quarter of voters.

It's a two way street. If Sandernistas (snicker) want to win without just becoming the Republican-lite party, they need to attract more votes from the party that did not support them much. If mainstream Democrats want to win the independent vote they need to listen to Sandernistas (snicker). This can go really badly for progressives or really well.
 
Fogdog said:
http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/

Democrats.......................Independents
% of votes: 75%.............% of votes: 25%

Sanders: 35%.................Sanders: 63%
Clinton: 64%...................Clinton: 34%

It’s hard to win the Democratic nomination without winning Democrats. Independents accounted for fewer than one-quarter of voters.

It's a two way street. If Sandernistas (snicker) want to win without just becoming the Republican-lite party, they need to attract more votes from the party that did not support them much. If mainstream Democrats want to win the independent vote they need to listen to Sandernistas (snicker). This can go really badly for progressives or really well.
Click to expand...
And the first stage is establishment resistance to change. This to me explains the 2016 election.
 
ttystikk said:
So the fact that Democrats are in the minority across the country is irrelevant to the conversation- and you want to accuse me of a lack of critical thinking skills?

Results matter. Excuses don't. But keep trying to blame me, it's entertaining.
Click to expand...
Your words: the ones who have reduced themselves to irrelevancy across the nation

Poor critical thinking skills, yeah those words reflect poor critical thinking skills.

Clinton won the majority vote. The Senate is nearly tied with the margin of two votes going to Republicans. Democrats tied the house up in knots because they forced Republicans to finally agree on a totally shitty plan that nobody wanted. I don't know about your state, but in mine, Democrats are not irrelevant. Come to think of it, they aren't in your state either. In recent special elections, there is a shift in winning margins that bode well for the upcoming election.

I can agree with you about this: Democrats don't hold power in the south. Or in states with rural populations. Which is a lot of states and why right wingers have out sized power compared to the total number of people who vote in the US.

But that's not what you said. You said "reduced...to irrelevancy". Poor critical thinking there.
 
ttystikk said:
No, I'm not.

I think people vote in their own PERCEIVED best interest, which is a very different thing.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why you feel the need to include "perceived". Unless you are saying they got it wrong.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog said:
Its your racism and sexism that I'm pointing out.
Click to expand...

I know you'd love nothing more than to discredit me with the usual "racist" smear that you like to trot out. Instead of countering my arguments (which you have failed miserably at) you try to label me. It's thinly veiled.

Fogdog said:
This grandiose idea that anybody who voted other than your way was unable to make a decision in their own interest.
Click to expand...

What is grandiose about pointing out facts? You have yet to explain where my premise falls short. Someone living at or near the poverty line (for example) would indeed benefit from the policies that Bernie campaigned on. I have said several times that they may have had other reasons for voting the way they did, which is their decision to make, but that does not mean that they didn't vote against their own financial interests. Please punch holes in this. I've been waiting days for someone to...

Fogdog said:
And that's what this is about. It's not "sanders supporters racist and must be destroyed".
Click to expand...

That's what you would like to make this about. My question to you was straight forward. Why did you vote for Bernie despite his overt racism and sexism? You present yourself as a someone who is very concerned with racism and sexism. You paint Bernie voters as racists and sexists, and post numerous examples of how Bernie was tone-def to these issues, and was going to do nothing to advance them...and yet you voted for him. That doesn't make any sense. If a candidate does not stand for something that I am passionate about, I will not vote for him/her. So, you're either admitting to being a giant hypocrite, or you are admitting to not doing your homework and being an uniformed voter. Or, you really don't give much of shit about these issues and just use them to flog other people with when your arguments fall short.

Fogdog said:
Do you agree with pad when he says "social justice warriors should be kicked to the curb"? Said otherwise, put social issues on the back burner?
Click to expand...

No I don't. Why can't a politician fight for both social and economic equality? Take a look at the thread that pad started about Jim Keady running for congress in NJ. He represents everything that I'm looking for in a politician. I believe that a lot of Democrats (including Hillary) have paid lip service to minorities, but have done very little policy wise to help them. It's a strategy to get votes, and nothing more.
 
Fogdog said:
Your words: the ones who have reduced themselves to irrelevancy across the nation

Poor critical thinking skills, yeah those words reflect poor critical thinking skills.

Clinton won the majority vote. The Senate is nearly tied with the margin of two votes going to Republicans. Democrats tied the house up in knots because they forced Republicans to finally agree on a totally shitty plan that nobody wanted. I don't know about your state, but in mine, Democrats are not irrelevant. Come to think of it, they aren't in your state either. In recent special elections, there is a shift in winning margins that bode well for the upcoming election.

I can agree with you about this: Democrats don't hold power in the south. Or in states with rural populations. Which is a lot of states and why right wingers have out sized power compared to the total number of people who vote in the US.

But that's not what you said. You said "reduced...to irrelevancy". Poor critical thinking there.
Click to expand...
This adds up to 'fighting a rearguard action with no hope of directing the national agenda' at best.

The overall picture is one of a complete rout and with the thinking I'm seeing here and on the national stage, things won't be changing much in 2018.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think Democrats will be setting, nevermind advancing, any political agendas anytime soon.
 
ttystikk said:
And the first stage is establishment resistance to change. This to me explains the 2016 election.
Click to expand...
65% of the Democratic party electorate is "the establishment"? Why don't we call it more accurately "a large majority". A major proportion of which are black, brown voters? Also women? You said they are resisting change. What are you really saying here?
 
@st0wandgrow 's RACIST RANT on black voters:
st0wandgrow said:
That's a good question. I don't know the answer, but if I were to guess I'd say it's a variety of things. A lot of older black voters supported her because of Bill. After all, he was the "first black president". She did particularity well in the south with black votes, so I would say that some of that boiled down to religion. They might have had an issue with Bernie being a Jew. The dnc was trying to push the narrative that Bernie was an atheist, so some may have heard/believed that. I also believe that Bernies support for gays, and gay marriage hurt him in the black community. While Clinton was busy signing the defense of marriage act, and don't ask don't tell, Bernie was voting against those initiatives and standing up for gays before it was popular. The black community (I'm guessing largely due to religious beliefs) is very opposed to gay marriage and gay equality. Yes, they are capable of being prejudiced too.
Click to expand...
 
Fogdog said:
I don't understand why you feel the need to include "percieved". Unless you are saying they got it wrong.
Click to expand...
Everyone who falls through an open manhole perceived the error of their safe pathway incorrectly.

Why is it so hard for you to see the difference between perfect knowledge and being suckered in by hype?

The vast majority of Republican voters are voting against their own self interest in terms of taxes, income distribution and healthcare. Your assertion that the same couldn't possibly be happening on the Democratic side is laughably incorrect and just shows how partisan your thinking is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top