Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cookester15

Mike Gravel endorses Tulsi Gabbard as president

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Cookester15 said:

Lmao "that mayor from Indiana has no views except for being gay". He's very right. The guy has no platform whatsoever. 

Have you seen his Vice interview where he said the left has been too policy driven lately and he wants to be more philosophical? Was good for a laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

Have you seen his Vice interview where he said the left has been too policy driven lately and he wants to be more philosophical? Was good for a laugh.

Isn't that what the Republicans successfully accomplish with their voting base?  They don't actual detail any specific policy to their voters (because their policies always change based on what suits them at the time), but they have been vastly successful at convincing their base about certain core values that they represent. America First, Pro-military, Pro-Business, Pro-Family.

 

Like a lifestyle choice, an identity.  And its effective (even if its a whole bunch of bull).

 

I don't see how Buttigieg is wrong on that one, alot of people have been saying for years that the Democrats need to streamline their messaging and "keep it simple" to combat the Republicans in all states.  The closest we have to that is Bernie Sanders and his unapologetically earnest FDR-style of populism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Isn't that what the Republicans successfully accomplish with their voting base?  They don't actual detail any specific policy to their voters (because their policies always change based on what suits them at the time), but they have been vastly successful at convincing their base about certain core values that they represent. America First, Pro-military, Pro-Business, Pro-Family.

 

Like a lifestyle choice, an identity.  And its effective (even if its a whole bunch of bull).

I don't think looking to the Republican playbook for inspiration is a commendable idea and I don't really think "it works" is much of a defense, especially when we both agree that the 2016 election wasn't particularly indicative of Republican popularity and that Democrats crushed the 2018 election.

 

I also disagree that you have to choose between mantras and policies. You can have both and Pete's problem is that he has none of the latter. In my opinion, his comments aren't born out of any kind of legitimate opposition to a policy focus, but a convenient way to dismiss criticisms of his lack of policy.

 

31 minutes ago, jehurey said:

I don't see how Buttigieg is wrong on that one, alot of people have been saying for years that the Democrats need to streamline their messaging and "keep it simple" to combat the Republicans in all states.  The closest we have to that is Bernie Sanders and his unapologetically earnest FDR-style of populism.

A pretty core criticism of Democrats is that they're more concerned with touting values than implementing policy to make it happen, which is what makes Pete's comments so funny. 

 

I don't disagree that another criticism of Democrats recently is their focus on the wrong issues and on too many issues, when they should be focusing on a subset of issues that have widespread support and benefit. I don't think that's an issue of complexity as a breadth problem doesn't imply a depth problem nor does it excuse an anti-policy stance even if it were, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hot Sauce said:

I don't think looking to the Republican playbook

It's not the Republican's playbook, its every single successful era that any modern political party has ever had's playbook.

 

Unless there's a large demographic of non-voting policy wonks out there that I am unaware of, this has always been the strategy to get mass amounts of people to vote.

 

Tell me, circa 2007-2008, what specific policies do you remember Barack Obama having?

 

Or do you just remember the word "Change"?

 

2 hours ago, Hot Sauce said:

I also disagree that you have to choose between mantras and policies. You can have both and Pete's problem is that he has none of the latter. In my opinion, his comments aren't born out of any kind of legitimate opposition to a policy focus, but a convenient way to dismiss criticisms of his lack of policy.

That's true. Pete may be saying this because it suits him best to say it at this time.  But like I said, he's not wrong.

 

Hillary Clinton is a very smart candidate. I was just watching a couple of weeks ago on Maddow, and remembered just how sharp she CAN BE when answering pointed question on specific issues.

 

On the campaign trial, she's a totally different beast and she sounds like she's trying to sell you shit from Gwenyth Paltrow's website, Goop.  She made a decision a long time ago to not talk specific policy points on the campaign trial.

 

You know WHY? Because she ends saying shit like "those mining jobs aren't coming back."  Which is 100%, but also 100% toxic on the campaign trial.  The problem with Hillary is, nobody believes her when she's trying to be cheerful and motivational.

 

Elizabeth Warren is a little bit better in this regard. HOWEVER, Elizabeth Warren almost trapped herself when she said "You did not build this by yourself".  To people who know the context of what she is saying, she's 100% correct. But you don't ever get caught saying that shit on the campaign trial, or it could sink you.

 

2 hours ago, Hot Sauce said:

A pretty core criticism of Democrats is that they're more concerned with touting values than implementing policy to make it happen, which is what makes Pete's comments so funny.

And that criticism should be directed to the Clinton-era of Third-Way Democrat/Neo-Liberal Democratic Party from 1992-2016. Their playbook was "Sound very progressive in speeches, maintain the status quo in Washington."

 

Fucking Joe Biden is trying to attempt right now. He's saying that the 1994 Criminal Reform bill wasn't a bad thing for black communities, and that he did it "to combat the NRA". He's trying to retcon us to think that thing was more progressive than we realized.

 

It worked for 20 years. But you do understand that the voting base, either consciously or subconsciously, will realize the gimmick and it no longer works anymore.

 

I, personally, blame Barack Obama, because you can't do it any better than he did it. He fucking BROKE the gimmick for anybody else after him.

Edited by jehurey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×