Right Wing Discussion Thread IX: The Right Man's Burden

[Conserative Morality]

Then like I said, your party will continue to fare poorly during elections.

If what you're offering is eliminating their jobs with no immediate alternative for employment, you evidently cannot expect them to vote for you. So good luck ever beating the Republican domination of Congress.

We already can't expect them to vote for us. So what's the difference?

The only difference I'm proposing in political realities is breaking the economic and political power of those who've proven they've no intention of voting for sense time and time again.

[Sanctissima]

Yeah, and your side has been losing bigly for several years now. The Dems lost over a thousand seats under Obama and even managed to lose the presidency to some random TV star jackass who has never held office. By actively attacking people in the Midwest you might as well just dissolve the party because the GOP is going to win every single time.

Pretty sure you lot said the same thing about slavery, the New Deal, desegregation, and globalization.

Well, Democrats tried to secede from the country last time the whole slavery issue came up, so not sure what your point is there.

And in terms of desegregation, while the Civil Rights Act did gain many new Black voters for the Democrats, it lost them the entirety of the South, which was previously its stronghold.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If that's sarcasm, it's a poor issue to challenge. You really want me to show you the long history of people saying "THIS latest change will lose you elections FOREVER if you do it!"

Most of those latest changes don't actively involve attacking the voters you need to get in order to win.

People opposed to the latest changes in the political alignment. It's not a coherent group so much as it is a post-hoc classification based on resistance to progress.

What exactly are these latest changes in the political alignment?

We already can't expect them to vote for us. So what's the difference?

Bullshit. They voted Obama. If you find some candidates that aren't ass you can probably get their votes again.

[Conserative Morality]

Well, Democrats tried to secede from the country last time the whole slavery issue came up, so not sure what your point is there.

If anything, that proves my point considering that they didn't have the manpower or economic standing to do so and ended up with their asses beat like a redheaded stepchild.

And in terms of desegregation, while the Civil Rights Act did gain many new Black voters for the Democrats, it lost them the entirety of the South, which was previously its stronghold.

And yet we still won election after election. These doomsayers crying "This will destroy all your political pull!" are almost always wrong, and when they have an interest in their opposition believing an incorrect supposition, that goes double.

[Sanctissima]

Then like I said, your party will continue to fare poorly during elections.

If what you're offering is eliminating their jobs with no immediate alternative for employment, you evidently cannot expect them to vote for you. So good luck ever beating the Republican domination of Congress.

We already can't expect them to vote for us. So what's the difference?

The only difference I'm proposing in political realities is breaking the economic and political power of those who've proven they've no intention of voting for sense time and time again.

Because you offer them nothing except unions they don't need and regulations that impede their companies' growth and surviveability.

Maybe offer them some actual incentive to vote Democrat.

[Conserative Morality]

Most of those latest changes don't actively involve attacking the voters you need to get in order to win.

I'm sure the slaveholders et co, anti-big gubmint, segregationists, and regionalists all would disagree on the notion of feeling actively attacked by the changes they suffered.

What exactly are these latest changes in the political alignment?

What I outlined. It's a proposed change, not one in the works.

Bullshit. They voted Obama.

Bullshit. They didn't. Traditional Dem voting blocs voted Obama. Obama's share of votes among workers in rural primary industries was unremarkable.

[Sanctissima]

Well, Democrats tried to secede from the country last time the whole slavery issue came up, so not sure what your point is there.

If anything, that proves my point considering that they didn't have the manpower or economic standing to do so and ended up with their asses beat like a redheaded stepchild.

And in terms of desegregation, while the Civil Rights Act did gain many new Black voters for the Democrats, it lost them the entirety of the South, which was previously its stronghold.

And yet we still won election after election. These doomsayers crying "This will destroy all your political pull!" are almost always wrong, and when they have an interest in their opposition believing an incorrect supposition, that goes double.

Because it did lose you a shit ton of your political pull. You sacrificed your strongholds in the South for temporary gains elsewhere. Hell, all you've got left nowadays is the Pacific and Northeast, interspersed with varying degrees of support in the Great Lakes region.

And considering how your party's influence in Congress has been almost nil since mid-way through Obama's first term, I think it goes without saying that the DNC sucks ass at political strategy.

[Conserative Morality]

Because you offer them nothing except unions they don't need

Yeah, because they already have unions, and their attitude is "fuck everyone who doesn't already have one lol".

and regulations that impede their companies' growth and surviveability.

lol

Maybe offer them some actual incentive to vote Democrat.

Already tried that fam. Time's up. No more sucking dick while getting spat on. Not really my thing.

[Conserative Morality]

Because it did lose you a shit ton of your political pull. You sacrificed your strongholds in the South for temporary gains elsewhere.

Right, that's why New England and the West Coast still vote GOP right?

Hell, all you've got left nowadays is the Pacific and Northeast, interspersed with varying degrees of support in the Great Lakes region.

Yet we still win the popular vote. It's almost like we're losing regions instead of people.

And considering how your party's influence in Congress has been almost nil since mid-way through Obama's first term, I think it goes without saying that the DNC sucks ass at political strategy.

No argument there.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'm sure the slaveholders et co, anti-big gubmint, segregationists, and regionalists all would disagree on the notion of feeling actively attacked by the changes they suffered.

I'm one of those anti-big gubmint people and while I certainly disagree with a lot of big gubmint policies I don't feel "attacked".

What I outlined. It's a proposed change, not one in the works.

It's also fringe as shit.

Bullshit. They didn't. Traditional Dem voting blocs voted Obama. Obama's share of votes among workers in rural primary industries was unremarkable.

It was enough to win, which is all that matters. This defeatist attitude a lot of Dems seem to have really needs to go if you want to win again.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm one of those anti-big gubmint people and while I certainly disagree with a lot of big gubmint policies I don't feel "attacked".

Yet many of your peers did and still do. You're in the minority.

It's also fringe as shit.

Certainly.

It was enough to win, which is all that matters. This defeatist attitude a lot of Dems seem to have really needs to go if you want to win again.

We lost by the population of a small city regionally while winning by millions nationally in a year running a historically unpopular candidate while demographics continuously change in our favor. We don't need to shift to fit your views.

This delusion that not bowing down to the opposition is defeatism needs to go if you ever want to create a bipartisan government again.

[Sanctissima]

Because you offer them nothing except unions they don't need

Yeah, because they already have unions, and their attitude is "fuck everyone who doesn't already have one lol".

and regulations that impede their companies' growth and surviveability.

lol

Maybe offer them some actual incentive to vote Democrat.

Already tried that fam. Time's up. No more sucking dick while getting spat on. Not really my thing.

Like I said, you offered them fuck-all that they didn't already have or actually want.

Factory workers don't care about the Dems' social justice crap, they want other stuff. It's like trying to sell non-kosher meat to Jews and wondering why nobody's buying your product.

Because it did lose you a shit ton of your political pull. You sacrificed your strongholds in the South for temporary gains elsewhere.

Right, that's why New England and the West Coast still vote GOP right?

Hell, all you've got left nowadays is the Pacific and Northeast, interspersed with varying degrees of support in the Great Lakes region.

Yet we still win the popular vote. It's almost like we're losing regions instead of people.

And considering how your party's influence in Congress has been almost nil since mid-way through Obama's first term, I think it goes without saying that the DNC sucks ass at political strategy.

No argument there.

Like it or not, the US is a federation and you need to win states if you want the presidency, let alone Congress. Your competition this time around was a washed-up celebrity billionaire who ostracized entire voting blocks and had the media almost unanimously opposing him. The election was handed to you on a silver platter and you still managed to botch it.

You party sucks at politics. It can either recognize this and fix the error or continue to blame all its woes on Republicans and continue to lose elections to fucking TV-personalities.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yet many of your peers did and still do. You're in the minority.

Ima need some sauce

We lost by the population of a small city regionally while winning by millions nationally in a year running a historically unpopular candidate while demographics continuously change in our favor. We don't need to shift to fit your views.

This delusion that not bowing down to the opposition is defeatism needs to go if you ever want to create a bipartisan government again.

You could win by 40 million votes nationally and it still wouldn't mean a damn thing if you can't win enough states. Lets go with your ideas and start attacking Rust Belt voters, what states can the Dems win to make up for the losses in the Midwest? There's no real path to 270 for the Dems (barring a complete blowout if they get the greatest candidate ever of course) if the Midwest becomes nice and red.

[Conserative Morality]

Like I said, you offered them fuck-all that they didn't already have or actually want.

Factory workers don't care about the Dems' social justice crap, they want other stuff. It's like trying to sell non-kosher meat to Jews and wondering why nobody's buying your product.

Social justice was fringe in the Dem party until recently; we've been offering education, new jobs, a new future, and all they had to do was not screw over everyone else in exchange for a perpetuation of their lifestyle, but we get rejected time and time again.

Why bother?

Like it or not, the US is a federation and you need to win states if you want the presidency, let alone Congress.

Like it or not, one person one vote is a constitutional principle according to SCOTUS, and more and more people are getting upset that it's not being applied.

Your competition this time around was a washed-up celebrity billionaire who ostracized entire voting blocks and had the media almost unanimously opposing him.

lol

The election was handed to you on a silver platter and you still managed to botch it.

Yeah, we ran a legendarily shitty candidate.

You party sucks at politics. It can either recognize this and fix the error or continue to blame all its woes on Republicans and continue to lose elections to fucking TV-personalities.

What do you think I'm proposing? A change in my party's politics.

[Conserative Morality]

Ima need some sauce

What exactly would you prefer? I can give you types complaining about how big gubmint is attacking their religious/economic/personal freedom, anything, really. I just need a topic.

You could win by 40 million votes nationally and it still wouldn't mean a damn thing if you can't win enough states.

Which is a blatant violation of the principles that this country is supposed to abide by.

Lets go with your ideas and start attacking Rust Belt voters, what states can the Dems win to make up for the losses in the Midwest? There's no real path to 270 for the Dems (barring a complete blowout if they get the greatest candidate ever of course) if the Midwest becomes nice and red.

You're kidding, right? Illinois is the only part of the Midwest we'd need to keep, and Chicago basically guarantees that since Chicago is both:

A. Huge

B. Not dependent on dying industries

[Washington Resistance Army]

Which is a blatant violation of the principles that this country is supposed to abide by.

If you feel that way maybe you should try and change the Constitution and not attack the people you need to win. That would make a bit more sense.

You're kidding, right? Illinois is the only part of the Midwest we'd need to keep, and Chicago basically guarantees that since Chicago is both:

A. Huge

B. Not dependent on dying industries

Illinois isn't enough to win. Even if we give the Dems Florida, Minnesota, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire and all of Maine you still come up to only 262.

[Conserative Morality]

If you feel that way maybe you should try and change the Constitution and not attack the people you need to win. That would make a bit more sense.

You see, if the Constitution were changed, those people would certainly not be needed to win. I don't understand the point of your approach.

Illinois isn't enough to win. Even if we give the Dems Florida, Minnesota, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire and all of Maine you still come up to only 262.

CO, NM, FL, IL, NV, NH, MA, PA, and VA are enough to win, no MN needed. This is even assuming TX and the Carolinas don't continue their current trends.

[Northern Davincia]

Like I said, you offered them fuck-all that they didn't already have or actually want.

Factory workers don't care about the Dems' social justice crap, they want other stuff. It's like trying to sell non-kosher meat to Jews and wondering why nobody's buying your product.

Social justice was fringe in the Dem party until recently; we've been offering education, new jobs, a new future, and all they had to do was not screw over everyone else in exchange for a perpetuation of their lifestyle, but we get rejected time and time again.

Why bother?

You haven't offered new forms of any of those things. Hillary's message was the same as Obama's in 2008, and the people knew what the status-quo entailed.
As for your complaints on the popular vote, remember that more people voted Republican in congressional elections than elsewhere. The people just didn't anticipate Trump.

[Conserative Morality]

You haven't offered new forms of any of those things. Hillary's message was the same as Obama's in 2008, and the people knew what the status-quo entailed.
As for your complaints on the popular vote, remember that more people voted Republican in congressional elections than elsewhere. The people just didn't anticipate Trump.

Congresscritters have a very high incumbency rate on both sides of the aisle.

[Northern Davincia]

You haven't offered new forms of any of those things. Hillary's message was the same as Obama's in 2008, and the people knew what the status-quo entailed.
As for your complaints on the popular vote, remember that more people voted Republican in congressional elections than elsewhere. The people just didn't anticipate Trump.

Congresscritters have a very high incumbency rate on both sides of the aisle.

Nevertheless, it's a signifier that the people as a whole have rejected your solutions to the country's problems. Doing the same thing over and over again for 30 years quickly becomes tiring.

[Conserative Morality]

Nevertheless, it's a signifier that the people as a whole have rejected your solutions to the country's problems. Doing the same thing over and over again for 30 years quickly becomes tiring.

If that were the case, you'd think doing the same thing over and over again for 50 years would be even more tiring. Perhaps at that point it just becomes numbing.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If you feel that way maybe you should try and change the Constitution and not attack the people you need to win. That would make a bit more sense.

You see, if the Constitution were changed, those people would certainly not be needed to win. I don't understand the point of your approach.

Illinois isn't enough to win. Even if we give the Dems Florida, Minnesota, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire and all of Maine you still come up to only 262.

CO, NM, FL, IL, NV, NH, MA, PA, and VA are enough to win, no MN needed. This is even assuming TX and the Carolinas don't continue their current trends.

I'm just saying this is a bad idea and I don't know why you seem to like it given you're normally a pretty smart person.

PA isn't going to be reliable enough for the Dems, all those people in dying industries in western PA could very well keep it red if they jump ship and abandon the Dems entirely. Florida and NH will continue to be swing states and that one district in Maine will likely continue to go red. Texas and the Carolinas might very well turn nice and purple in a few decades, that'll do nothing for your party here and now. All this idea would do is set you up for failure when it comes to the presidency.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm just saying this is a bad idea and I don't know why you seem to like it given you're normally a pretty smart person.

Bitterness.

[Northern Davincia]

Nevertheless, it's a signifier that the people as a whole have rejected your solutions to the country's problems. Doing the same thing over and over again for 30 years quickly becomes tiring.

If that were the case, you'd think doing the same thing over and over again for 50 years would be even more tiring. Perhaps at that point it just becomes numbing.

Concussions start to settle in at that point, but regardless, at least Sanders tried something new and didn't patronize everyone who wasn't totally loyal.

[Conserative Morality]

Concussions start to settle in at that point, but regardless, at least Sanders tried something new and didn't patronize everyone who wasn't totally loyal.

That's the thing: Sanders didn't try something new. He tried something old, for the most part. His platform was pre-New Dem with a touch of social justice.