uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
By what mechanism would this occur, though? The problem with repeatedly pointing out how close the results were is that it inherently validates basically any change in strategy.
The mechanism would be to play to the base. Play the GOP game. Get people excited. We saw it with Obama. We know it can happen again. Post-Trump, it'll probably be easier.
Democrats have happily courted gullible votes for decades. Failure to address their concerns once in power (courting the financial industry, championing 'free trade' agreements with wholehearted conviction) eventually leads to a festering atmosphere of resentment.
I completely disagree. Democrats have consistently worked for the weaker groups in society. The problem is that nobody can bring back the kind of industries these people used to work in to the US. It's not economically or environmentally feasible. The right wing capitalizes on this and fills the head of these under-educated people with how things should be, claiming that the Democrats are keeping them down, when in actuality it's reality doing it.
Turning around and saying 'well those voters are either irrational, gullible, or racist' is hardly a roadmap to victory under those circumstances.
Nope, again it's a description of reality.
Too generic. What messaging will be used, what narrative is going to be put forward? Organizing locally and building up grassroot movements requires a lot of recruitment. The success or failure of that recruitment hinges on how you try to attract those recruits.
Are you asking me to write down a national strategy for Democrats to organize grass-root movements? That's quite an ask.
I'll say this: The GOP managed it, and they're stupid. Look at the Tea-party movement as a reaction to Obama's melanin content. Right now we have a huge mass of people who are rightly pissed off at Trump's shenanigans. Add to that all the minority groups that will get more active as their existence in the US is threatened. You have the basis of a pretty huge popular movement right there.
Again, you can't refer to the closeness of the election as a reason why a couple of things might have changed it while simultaneously denying that numerous other factors also could have.
Sure. How about you speculate then. Given the fact that Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million people, that the FBI did what they could to get Trump elected, that a lot of Democrats were pissed that Bernie didn't get the nod and that three pivotal states were extremely close, what else could have happened to change the election?
This assumes that all people being called racist are in fact racist.
Nope. It assumes that the racists that are being called racists are racists.
There is a significant contingent out there who knee-jerk apply that label (or other forms of bigotry) to anyone disagreeing with them.
Name them.
ETA: In other words, I call BS. I don't believe there is any significant number of non-racists being called racists with any frequency.
Last edited: