4 ms·

Clinton was centrist, not a leftist. Same with Obama. The left didn't abandon the working class, they were abandoned by the centrists who were trying fruitlessl

Clinton was centrist, not a leftist. Same with Obama. The left didn't abandon the working class, they were abandoned by the centrists who were trying fruitlessly to appeal to the right. For every step the democrats took to the right, the republicans took two, and by the time the working class had been abandoned by both parties Trump was able to swoop in and point at how the democrats had failed them. He wasn't wrong, but the democrats did so in their effort to be centrist. Continuing to do so is suicide, there's a political vacuum created by the extinction of the left as a political force. The party that fills it will win, and it's obvious that the republicans can't fake their love of the working class forever.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
The Democrats have not been moving right (except perhaps briefly during Reagan). Obama was not to the right of Clinton; Clinton was not to the right of Carter; and Carter was not to the right of Kennedy. And Clinton and Obama were left of center, within the context of US politics. (And since this is a discussion of US politics, US definitions are the normal ones to use.) > it's obvious that the republicans can't fake their love of the working class forever. "We love you, vote for us" beats "you're deplorable, vote for us", even when nobody believes that the love actually exists. But yes, the Democrats could win if they recover their concern for the working class. (I presume that's what you meant by "the left as a political force".)
- mullingitover 7y ago
  “ You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it.” I agree it was a bad move to assume that republicans would not enthusiastically self-identify as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic”.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    That wasn't the problem. The problem was that it implied that if you supported Trump for whatever reason, then you were "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic". Bluntly, that's not how you persuade people on the other side to support you.
    - mullingitover 7y ago
      It implied that half of his supporters were (and given that his stance is racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic, it was a completely fair assessment). Who could've known that all his supporters would happily label themselves as such?
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        They don't. You are either misinformed or lying. You are also breaking the site guidelines (against political flamebait and also against personal attacks). Please stop. You are also repeating Hillary's mistake.
        mullingitover 7y ago
        I'm not running for office, I'm free to call things as I see them. This isn't political flamebait or a personal attack, it's well-documented that Trump supporters have embraced the label.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        It isn't a personal attack to say that all Trump supporters have embraced the label of racism? BS! (It's also inaccurate.)
        mullingitover 7y ago
        Clinton said deplorables were "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic". Trump supporters promptly embraced that label and started wearing t-shirts about it. So yeah, it’s not a personal attack to observe that they embraced the label of racism.
- mullingitover 7y ago
  > And Clinton and Obama were left of center, within the context of US politics. (And since this is a discussion of US politics, US definitions are the normal ones to use.) Even the Cato Institute thinks Clinton was to the right of Bush[1]. Meanwhile, sorry, but I'm going to stick with the real meaning of the terms. By the time Obama was elected, the democrats so far to the right they were simply trying to offer republicans the very health care policy that they themselves crafted (in Nixon's era) and implemented (in Mass under Romney) and by that time republicans had gone so far right that even that was intolerable. Democrats weren't even considering single payer as an opening bargaining position. [1] https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/was-clinton-more-conservative-bush https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/was-clinton-mor...
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    I never said that Clinton was to the left of Bush. I said that he was to the left of Carter. [Edit: I actually said "not to the right", which left open the possibility of a tie.] And, by sticking to the "real" definition of the terms, you are hindering your ability to communicate to the people you're trying to talk to. Your choice, but I don't think you're making a wise one.
    - mullingitover 7y ago
      > And, by sticking to the "real" definition of the terms, you are hindering your ability to communicate to the people you're trying to talk to. I mean, I established definition of terms early on in this conversation, not my fault if reading comprehension isn't strong with those following the thread.
- bediger4000 7y ago
  > The Democrats have not been moving right (except perhaps briefly during Reagan). Obama was not to the right of Clinton; Clinton was not to the right of Carter; and Carter was not to the right of Kennedy. Honestly, I think that's untrue, except perhaps the Carter/Kennedy comparison.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

The Democrats have not been moving right (except perhaps briefly during Reagan). Obama was not to the right of Clinton; Clinton was not to the right of Carter; and Carter was not to the right of Kennedy. And Clinton and Obama were left of center, within the context of US politics. (And since this is a discussion of US politics, US definitions are the normal ones to use.) > it's obvious that the republicans can't fake their love of the working class forever. "We love you, vote for us" beats "you're deplorable, vote for us", even when nobody believes that the love actually exists. But yes, the Democrats could win if they recover their concern for the working class. (I presume that's what you meant by "the left as a political force".)

mullingitover 7y ago
“ You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it.” I agree it was a bad move to assume that republicans would not enthusiastically self-identify as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic”.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  That wasn't the problem. The problem was that it implied that if you supported Trump for whatever reason, then you were "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic". Bluntly, that's not how you persuade people on the other side to support you.
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    It implied that half of his supporters were (and given that his stance is racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic, it was a completely fair assessment). Who could've known that all his supporters would happily label themselves as such?
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      They don't. You are either misinformed or lying. You are also breaking the site guidelines (against political flamebait and also against personal attacks). Please stop. You are also repeating Hillary's mistake.
      - mullingitover 7y ago
        I'm not running for office, I'm free to call things as I see them. This isn't political flamebait or a personal attack, it's well-documented that Trump supporters have embraced the label.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        It isn't a personal attack to say that all Trump supporters have embraced the label of racism? BS! (It's also inaccurate.)
        mullingitover 7y ago
        Clinton said deplorables were "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic". Trump supporters promptly embraced that label and started wearing t-shirts about it. So yeah, it’s not a personal attack to observe that they embraced the label of racism.
mullingitover 7y ago
> And Clinton and Obama were left of center, within the context of US politics. (And since this is a discussion of US politics, US definitions are the normal ones to use.) Even the Cato Institute thinks Clinton was to the right of Bush[1]. Meanwhile, sorry, but I'm going to stick with the real meaning of the terms. By the time Obama was elected, the democrats so far to the right they were simply trying to offer republicans the very health care policy that they themselves crafted (in Nixon's era) and implemented (in Mass under Romney) and by that time republicans had gone so far right that even that was intolerable. Democrats weren't even considering single payer as an opening bargaining position. [1] https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/was-clinton-more-conservative-bush https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/was-clinton-mor...
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I never said that Clinton was to the left of Bush. I said that he was to the left of Carter. [Edit: I actually said "not to the right", which left open the possibility of a tie.] And, by sticking to the "real" definition of the terms, you are hindering your ability to communicate to the people you're trying to talk to. Your choice, but I don't think you're making a wise one.
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    > And, by sticking to the "real" definition of the terms, you are hindering your ability to communicate to the people you're trying to talk to. I mean, I established definition of terms early on in this conversation, not my fault if reading comprehension isn't strong with those following the thread.
bediger4000 7y ago
> The Democrats have not been moving right (except perhaps briefly during Reagan). Obama was not to the right of Clinton; Clinton was not to the right of Carter; and Carter was not to the right of Kennedy. Honestly, I think that's untrue, except perhaps the Carter/Kennedy comparison.