Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I've thought of this and I think it's the best approach. The problem is, there really is no such thing as local campaigns for federal office anymore. If you are running such a campaign you absolutely have to show up. If you show up, you absolutely have to speak to the issues. If you speak to the issues, whatever you say can and will be used against you in the national court of opinion.

Strategically, I probably agree. But I'm not sure abandoning those places is the best long-term approach.

See above.

You know, this dumbass blanket statement makes a normal conversation with you virtually impossible.

Spoken like a true white man. A message of inclusion is not the same as a promise to a discrete minority. Although, given how you think about this shit, I suppose it's obvious that it might as well be when it comes to fragile ass white people.

Ah, yes. Politicians always run on redressing past sins. They never focus on fixing issues that face people in the fucking moment. The fact that those issues have a history that stretches back to the beginning of this country is obvious, yes. But if you keep phrasing the issues that people currently face as sins of the majority's past, let's agree that it is pointless to continue debating anything.

Which people will be exhausted? I think people will be exhausted of a hateful, negative, exclusionary, incompetent, Administration and will be fired up to vote it the fuck out of office.

I still think this is Joe Biden's party if he wants it. I seem to recall when I said that he would crush the entire Republican field before the general started, you told me all about how dumb it was that I thought Biden could pull it off and how he was such a gaffe machine and couldn't get out of his own way, blah blah blah. Now you're telling me I need to pay attention to him. You have balls that are bigger than you're brain.

And Joe Biden has gone after Trump for many things. And, if you swapped their names out, your description of his speeches above could easily be attributed to Hillary during last year's campaign.

TM

My positions change because, as a moderate, I see both sides of every issue. Did I once assume Biden a gaffe machine? Probably. Did I also come to see him as the best hope the Ds had of winning during the late summer of 16? Yes I did.

It is because Biden is a gaffe machine that he connects with the otherwise Trump voter. He seems "real," and he's gutsy, and this passes the "have a beer with the guy" standard which is, unfortunately, still the litmus test for 1/2 the country.

Hillary isn't Joe. She's scripted. It's sad, because supposedly IRL, she's funny as fuck. Good one on one/small group personality. Bad candidate.

Identity politics is a political loser. That's not my opinion. It's fact. By definition, it separates people. If one wants to win an election separating people, he ought to carry a copy of Sisyphus around in his pocket. Don;t get mad at me. I don't care how one wins an election, and I have no feeling one way or another on identity politics. I just don't see the math working if one uses it as an across-the-board strategy. I think it needs to be applied strategically, in a targeted fashion.

By the way, I'm not speaking as a fragile white guy. I understand that I have failings in seeing my privilege. I get it. I'd prefer to combat racism by taking a stand where I can make a difference (and I've done so). I'm an ally, but introspection isn't my strong suit. In anything.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I am looking forward to when you release the study on shit you just know and for which you have zero evidence. Should be a good, long read.

TM

How am I going to prove that?

Trump won by finding a pile of votes that didn't show up in the data. I like the data, but we increasingly live in a world decided by things happening within the margin of error. It's fashionable, but it's also unwise, to reflexively disregard all things which cannot be empirically verified.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I see how you're confused. I didn't say that no one calls themselves moderate. I said very few moderates actually exist. Basically, I disagree with the premise in your first link that "moderate" has any more actual meaning than "independent." Self-identified moderates are mostly posers who think saying they're moderate makes them sound smart and thoughtful when really, they're just republicans who aren't Christian conservatives.

Which btw, is more or less what you're saying when you say that so-called moderates default to a GOP anti-tax position. Those people are not moderates.

No, you said there are "very few" moderates. In fact, roughly 1/3 of voters identify as moderate.

You, who enjoys employing literal out of context readings to support your often picayune disagreements with broader points more than perhaps any other poster on this board, should know better.

As to the indie v. moderates thing, argue with yourself.

On your last point, data? How can you prove that?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Your opinion of yourself is so confusingly high that I wonder about your mental health.

TM

I also do an exception impression of him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How am I going to prove that?

Trump won by finding a pile of votes that didn't show up in the data.

This is isn't right. Polls have margins of error, and shit happens -- people change or make up their minds at the last minute. The polls weren't that far off.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The gay rights movement certainly had its share of people who -- fairly -- accused the broader society of homophobia in a way that was not politically popular and turned off many people. You can only say there was a tight, coherent argument and a shrewd strategy by ignoring all of the other messy, incoherent, unshrewd stuff, of which there was a lot. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. When you talk about gay rights, you see it as a legal strategy, and don't really have a story of how hearts and minds were changed. (Hard to fault you for this, because it has been a stunning change over a short period of time, and I'm not sure anyone really predicted it or has explained it well.) With the lessons you draw from gay rights, it seems like you should be concluding that the battle for racial and gender equality is basically won, since post-Brown the Fourteenth Amendment has been understand in a way even stronger than what gays have won. Since that obviously isn't true, maybe you ought to think a little harder about what you've been saying.

The gay rights movement succeeded in getting laws on the books. The architect of their SCOTUS argument, Ted Olson, had a personal conversion on the issue, but ultimately delivered a very logical explanation of why they have the right to marry.

Was there an underlying hearts and minds movement? Yes. But what amount of credit does it deserve in comparison to the legal and legislative strategy? Given the short time table from the movement's gaining initial traction to the SCOTUS ruling, I can't agree that it was the biggest factor. But yes -- it was most certainly an essential thing at the beginning.

Justice reform needs to succeed in putting laws on the books. I thought the dam burst opening with the coke/crack sentencing disparity repeal, and Booker and Paul's initiative, and then Ferguson. But then it just fizzled. It was lost in a flurry of murders and acquittals and raw understandable anger, countered with racism.

It's fine to have angry community reactions. How could these things not occur? But where's the legislative initiative? Where's the unified, organized movement? There needs to be a conflict like Prop 8 that focuses all of the nation's attention on the issue. I don't see that happening right now. The heat and anger is dissipated and splintered. And I think that's a situation the opponents of sentencing reform seek to perpetuate.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

My positions change because, as a moderate, I see both sides of every issue.

Now you're just trolling.

[Civil rights] is a political loser. That's not my opinion. It's fact. By definition, it separates people.

I changed your weasel words for you. Kinda clarifies things, imo.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Identity politics is a political loser. That's not my opinion. It's fact. By definition, it separates people. If one wants to win an election separating people, he ought to carry a copy of Sisyphus around in his pocket. Don;t get mad at me. I don't care how one wins an election, and I have no feeling one way or another on identity politics. I just don't see the math working if one uses it as an across-the-board strategy. I think it needs to be applied strategically, in a targeted fashion.

Your last sentence swallows your whole paragraph. And it was weird that you spent the time crafting that paragraph as a way to set up a strawman that consists of identity politics as an across-the-board strategy just so you could knock it down. So weird. Absolutely no one thinks that the broad range of what qualifies as "identity politics" (which is really just shorthand for "things white people don't care about that are important to non-white people") should be the main focus of any campaign.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No, you said there are "very few" moderates.

Yes

In fact, roughly 1/3 of voters identify as moderate.

You understand how this doesn't refute the statement above, right?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But what amount of credit does it deserve in comparison to the legal and legislative strategy?

Pretty much all of it? How do you think they got legislation passed and the court to decide in their favor? Certainly you don't think the court was ahead of political sentiment?

If you want to argue that they were also powered by conservative overreach - that was definitely what happened in Minnesota where voters rejected a ban which led directly to legislation - I'd agree. But Mr. Olson was not a primary driver of this change.

But then it just fizzled.

You mean Senator Sessions killed it dead.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is isn't right. Polls have margins of error, and shit happens -- people change or make up their minds at the last minute. The polls weren't that far off.

am I on ignore? THE POLLS were spot on.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The gay rights movement succeeded in getting laws on the books. The architect of their SCOTUS argument, Ted Olson, had a personal conversion on the issue, but ultimately delivered a very logical explanation of why they have the right to marry.

Was there an underlying hearts and minds movement? Yes. But what amount of credit does it deserve in comparison to the legal and legislative strategy? Given the short time table from the movement's gaining initial traction to the SCOTUS ruling, I can't agree that it was the biggest factor. But yes -- it was most certainly an essential thing at the beginning.

Justice reform needs to succeed in putting laws on the books. I thought the dam burst opening with the coke/crack sentencing disparity repeal, and Booker and Paul's initiative, and then Ferguson. But then it just fizzled. It was lost in a flurry of murders and acquittals and raw understandable anger, countered with racism.

It's fine to have angry community reactions. How could these things not occur? But where's the legislative initiative? Where's the unified, organized movement? There needs to be a conflict like Prop 8 that focuses all of the nation's attention on the issue. I don't see that happening right now. The heat and anger is dissipated and splintered. And I think that's a situation the opponents of sentencing reform seek to perpetuate.

Thank you for responding. But what are you trying to say? Previously you complained that those who are agitating around race and civil rights are not focused and sometimes say stupid things that turn other people off. Undeniably, this has been true of the gay rights movement. On some level, you understand that, so now you have shifted to using the narrow legal victories won by the gay rights crowd as some sort of model for civil rights. But here's the thing: The victory you tout for gay rights was getting the Supreme Court to treat gay rights like race -- in other words, a victory already won, decades ago, by the folks you are dumping on. If there is a lesson in gay rights about how to get social change around race, you have not found it. Instead, you have inadvertently pointed out that your complaints about the civil rights efforts are silly.

What you refer to as justice reform isn't a narrow legal or legislative issue. It goes to the way that the police and the justice system comprehensively, systematic preserve an unequal social order, a social order that benefits (I could say privileges but I didn't give you a trigger warning) some people and disadvantages other people. You know this because you've seen it. Not surprisingly, a lot of people who get relative benefits don't want it changed. You're cynical enough to get this, too. A unified, organized movement? Sure, that would be nice. If only it were that easy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

You understand how this doesn't refute the statement above, right?

I tend to agree with you as a matter of substance, but I have to say that when you adopt this tone with Sebby it makes me want to pound something with a two-by-four.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

am I on ignore? THE POLLS were spot on.

You have my proxy on this.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

You mean Senator Sessions killed it dead.

In Sebbyland, the right is never responsible for anything. What you mean is that lefties failed to persuade Sessions.