|
Post by Optimus on Oct 20, 2018 1:04:33 GMT -5
I also think that, for the Democrat candidates who have flubbed their campaigns lately, they've done it by focusing on far(ther)-left "litmus test" type issues instead of focusing on core policy issues. This will always work out badly for them because no matter what side of the litmus issue they fall on, they will still turn off a large swath of voters. Better to stay away from this type of kryptonite altogether. I really like this analysis and terminology. To build on it: "Litmus test politics" is an excellent--imo--way to encapsulate what's going on with a good chunk of the left. It used to be that "single issue politics" was the driver, but now--thanks to the triumph of identity politics--it's no longer issue-driven, by and large. It is as you say, being able to past a litmus test in order to prove membership in or generate acceptance from one aggrieved group or another. Well, yes, it's because I'm a genius. Also, to the point I was making earlier with this, I saw a good article on Bloomberg today articulating a similar sentiment:
|
|
|
Post by Don on Oct 20, 2018 5:07:21 GMT -5
Well, people talk about an alternative to the Republicans and Democrats, but even the best attempts never get much traction. Maybe we're ripe for an actual paradigm-shift, but I don't think it will happen. It's happening, it's been happening for a while now, and it's accelerating. Christine Amanapour reported on it for CNN, but they've since taken down the video, I guess to save server space ( ), so I'll have to toot my own horn. Start with this article from 2012; the trends described there show no signs of slowing; indeed, the $15 minimum wage is encouraging participation. (Although why the "black market" in the headline when it's clearly grey market activity, I haven't a clue.) In the last six years, if anything the trends discussed there have accelerated. So, yeah, a paradigm shift is happening, it's just not from one political party to another. It's from one view of the "helpful and benevolent" government to another, and it seems from my experience that it's as much a one-way street as the move from religion to atheism. I don't see many people going backwards down that street. And the best part is it's not a left movement or a right movement. It's an away movement. Away from centralized control, toward people taking more control of their own destiny. And it's members come from all parts of the political spectrum. We "political atheists" and fellow economic travelers are a much bigger share of the population, and a much larger share of the economy, than most people imagine... even here in the highly-regulated "land of the free." And the draconian measures it would take to reverse the trend are long-term unsustainable. ETA: Here's a link to the Foreign Policy article mentioned in the columns, if you prefer original sources. The article has been relocated since the original post. I still can't find a copy of the Amanapour segment.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 20, 2018 19:04:18 GMT -5
Well, people talk about an alternative to the Republicans and Democrats, but even the best attempts never get much traction. Maybe we're ripe for an actual paradigm-shift, but I don't think it will happen. It's happening, it's been happening for a while now, and it's accelerating. Christine Amanapour reported on it for CNN, but they've since taken down the video, I guess to save server space ( ), so I'll have to toot my own horn. Start with this article from 2012; the trends described there show no signs of slowing; indeed, the $15 minimum wage is encouraging participation. Well, at least you found an "expert" whose opinions you can't shrug off.
9) Some members may write articles on other websites, may have blogs, or may otherwise contribute elsewhere. If a member wants to link to such a piece in a thread here because they believe it could be a good topic, that's okay. It's not like we're so large that we're a good site for getting clicks. That said, someone who does nothing but start threads with links to their own pieces will not be welcome here for very long. Message a mod if you're unsure about this.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 21, 2018 1:59:22 GMT -5
Sigh...it's like some of them truly can't help themselves*: Ugh, I really want that "blue wave" I keep hearing about, but some of these Democrat candidates in key state just can't seem to keep their damned mouths shut and not say really, really stupid things. *forgive the biased source, but it was the only one I could find that had a decent list of her transgressions as well as links to legit sources for those stories.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 21, 2018 8:30:21 GMT -5
You know, she kinda reminds me of the Repub candidate from Delaware in 2010...Christine O'Donnell? Except Sinema seems quite a bit angrier.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 21, 2018 8:35:20 GMT -5
Well, my question when someone digs up something stupid someone said over 10 years ago is, "What was the context, and do they regret it now?"
Krysten Sinema was apparently 30 years old in 2006, though, so she can't pass it off as being a young, dumb college student.
It appears she's an ex-Mormon, now an atheist, which might have something to do with her animosity towards the stay-at-home mom lifestyle.
I can't really get too worked up about this, though. Nothing she said rises to the level of what I am hearing from Republicans practically every day now.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 21, 2018 8:42:22 GMT -5
Holy shit, she (Sinema) seems to have been an utter moron for a while. I guess she probably still is. Look at this (from 2012):
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 21, 2018 8:45:18 GMT -5
Well, my question when someone digs up something stupid someone said over 10 years ago is, "What was the context, and do they regret it now?" Krysten Sinema was apparently 30 years old in 2006, though, so she can't pass it off as being a young, dumb college student. It appears she's an ex-Mormon, now an atheist, which might have something to do with her animosity towards the stay-at-home mom lifestyle. I can't really get too worked up about this, though. Nothing she said rises to the level of what I am hearing from Republicans practically every day now. She actually claims that the stay-at-home stuff was intentionally over the top, in a Daily Show sort of way. But from what I can see, she's the only one who was aware of the joke. She'd have been better served to allow she was just wrong, no?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 21, 2018 8:49:39 GMT -5
Yeah, the "It was satire/I was just kidding" defense never works.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 21, 2018 19:01:29 GMT -5
Same.
And just to note, three out of four of those "legit sources" mentioned as linked to in the admittedly biased source were: the biased source itself, the Washington Examiner, and the Federalist.
So much taken out of context. "Summoned witches." LOL. It was a women's event and many groups of women were invited (as opposed to "summoned").
The joke of Arizona being "the meth lab of democracy" disingenuously translated to "mocking Arizona meth addicts." Clearly, Sinema is neither an SJW nor overly concerned with being "PC" - guess it's a good thing her critics are cool with hypocritically fake-crying "PC."
Essentially the whole article was a GOP smear campaign. I'm disappointed it showed up here.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 21, 2018 19:32:15 GMT -5
Same. And just to note, three out of four of those "legit sources" mentioned as linked to in the admittedly biased source were: the biased source itself, the Washington Examiner, and the Federalist. So much taken out of context. "Summoned witches." LOL. It was a women's event and many groups of women were invited (as opposed to "summoned"). The joke of Arizona being "the meth lab of democracy" disingenuously translated to "mocking Arizona meth addicts." Clearly, Sinema is neither an SJW nor overly concerned with being "PC" - guess it's a good thing her critics are cool with hypocritically fake-crying "PC." Essentially the whole article was a GOP smear campaign. I'm disappointed it showed up here. Well, admittedly, I clicked on and read the NYT link and mistook the Washington Examiner link for a Washington Post link when I hovered over it. Also, to be clear since you seem to be interpolating arguments/claims that I didn't make, I feel I should point out that I never claimed Sinema was an SJW or that she was in any way concerned about being PC. And neither did the article I linked to, or the article Rob linked to. Seems to be an objection you're raising to an argument/accusation that was never made. However, because I'm concerned that your hand might severely cramp from clutching those pearls so tightly over how "disappointed" you are that such an article "showed up here," here are some sources that you'll hopefully consider more legitimate that also talk about some arguably questionable, or at least "very odd for a Democrat," things she's said/claimed: NYT: www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/us/politics/kyrsten-sinema-arizona.htmlNYT #2: www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/10/11/us/ap-us-elections-2018-arizona-senate-recording.htmlVox: www.vox.com/2018/10/10/17924008/kyrsten-sinema-arizona-senate-racePolitico: www.politico.com/story/2018/07/02/krysten-sinema-democrats-senate-chuck-schumer-687120CNN: www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/politics/kfile-kyrsten-sinema-activist-past/index.htmlCNN #2: www.cnn.com/2018/10/18/politics/kfile-kyrsten-sinema-proud-democrat/index.html
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 21, 2018 19:46:29 GMT -5
However, because I'm concerned that your hand might severely cramp from clutching those pearls so tightly over how "disappointed" you are that such an article "showed up here," No pearls were being clutched, but, sadly, it's so like you, to make this sort of snide remark. I'd also just like to point out that if, in the future, you feel the need to make such baseless claims regarding the intent behind perfectly rational comments in response to poorly cited posts, you also have the option of fucking off. ETA: I briefly read your additional links. What they contained, with the exception of the original NYT article, was not anywhere within the vicinity of the same stratosphere of what the Townhall article contained.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 22, 2018 8:14:41 GMT -5
This isn't--in my mind--about getting "worked up" over Sinema. It's about Dem candidates possible fucking up to the extent that there isn't any "blue wave."
I think Opti aptly captured a reality here--the litmus test stuff--that is causing various Dem candidates serious problems. From Heitkamp torpedoing her own campaign because of a need to identify with women who are victims of sexual assault, to past comments from Sinema--where she was apparently "proving" her hardcore feminism--there seem to be real examples of this.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 22, 2018 8:44:24 GMT -5
Okay, well, pointing out that Dems run terrible campaigns is like pointing out that the Republicans run terrible candidates. What else is new? It's a manifestation of the same problem - both sides are prone to gaffing (or letting the mask slip, depending on how you see it), but as much as I hate the identity politics stuff, and enjoy griping about it, I find "stay-at-home moms are stupid" a bit less offensive than "sexual harassment is no big deal and neither is a Washington Post journalist getting cut up in our ally's embassy."
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 22, 2018 8:56:17 GMT -5
Almost nothing we post here--when it comes to the reasons for posting it--is "new."
Regardless, this thread is about the supposed "blue wave" that's heading our way in a matter of weeks. As I said much earlier in the thread, if there isn't a blue wave, the Dems have serious problems. And they've pretty much screwed themselves out of control of the Senate now, haven't they? Will they still take the House? I think so, but my doubt is edging up.
|
|