Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

What is beigeout? I tried googling it and nothing definitive except some sort of twitter tag, a book or two with the name and one persons project to bring color to a school that used an ugly and boring beige color scheme for indoors.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's like blackout, except instead of being unable to stay conscious you're unable to be interesting.

[smjjames]

They're definetly going through an identity crisis along with being split into at least two camps, that's for sure.

If there's anything to learn from the social dynamics of the Trump presidency it is that people prefer a villain to a bureaucrat. You need someone who is able to go beyond cynical memorization of facts and flaws in your opponent. You really, honestly need someone able to step into the narrative role of heroism if you want to split that difference and get people who don't give a shit about learning your website's fact checking on your side.

So, someone like Bernie Sanders? Or am I completely missing the point? This is probably why someone like Oprah is generating such fervor with 2020 prospects.

Only problem is, I don't know of anybody who would be like a hero or near complete opposite to Trump. Well, there was Obama, but the Democratic party atrophied during his admin. It's kind of the same issue in that Trump is his own unique person and there is nobody in the world, Democrat OR Republican that is a lot like him and is able to do things the way Trump does.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Oh, I definitely think Sanders is our man. And the importance of narrative resonance isn't an excuse to forget about policy, which is one of hundreds of reasons Oprah cannot be allowed to be the candidate. Or god forbid, Zuckerberg. If 2020 is Trump vs. Zuckerberg I might actually just join RedKing in Maoist guerilla insurgency.

[Frumple]

Still not actually sure about that villain vs bureaucrat thing. And by not sure I mean pretty damn certain otherwise. More of the goddamn country voted for the identified bureaucrat, and a good chunk that didn't were under the always delightful delusion trump was just going to fuck other people and come down on the side of whatever slice of the issues they cared about. They didn't want a villain, they just took one when they thought it would benefit them. Dash of the whole decades of media manipulation starting to pay bigger dividends did much of the rest of the work.

... also sanders can still fuck off. Let someone younger and less backstabby take whatever reigns are being passed around. Seem to recall at least some slices of the folks just starting to get old enough they're allowed to run for office are starting to get rolling. Probably about damn time, and it's pretty damn certainly about time we started nudging the old shits off the metaphorical benches. Gotta' keep some around 'cause our fucked up society means the elderly have disproportionate electoral weight, but voter demographics are finally building up steam to undermine that shit.

Meanwhile, Clinton can't seem to let go of the fact that she lost and a good chunk of it was due to her own failings.

If by can't seem to let go you mean she's repeatedly acknowledged that and largely stepped back for others to come in, I guess. Because that's been happening pretty steadily.

On that matter, I've yet to see anyone who was a major Hillary supporter take any responsibility for the loss. To hear it from them, she ran a flawless campaign, and it was just bigotry and corruption that lost her the election. It's just childish.

Then you've either been not looking for it or intentionally misreading stuff. The position major hillary supports have mostly taken is that the campaign did indeed fuck up in places, it's just that there was, you know, other shit involved than how the campaign was ran. Racism rearing its head (there was no better predictor of voting trump than racial animus), GOP voter suppression efforts paying off (last I noticed at least one state was flipped R by a smaller margin than they had disenfranchised/electorally cockblocked voters that pretty damn certainly would have voted otherwise), what amounts to blatant malfeasance on the part of certain government officials (comey, mostly), that whole "hostile foreign power" thing, the decades long defamation campaign mess, etc., etc.

Oddly enough, bigotry and corruption actually are significant chunks what got us the electoral college shitting on the popular vote again.

[smjjames]

I doubt Zuckerberg would run, he's too busy trying to fix things with Facebook and divesting from Facebook would be even more of a hassle because he is still 'Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook!' no matter how hard he severs ties from Facebook.

I was using Oprah as an example of the kind of 'heroic story/narrative/background resonance' that you were talking about.

Also, 'breaking news', Trump slams immigrants from 'shithole countries' (El Salvador and Haiti were being referred to) and said that we should get immigrants from countries like Norway (in apparent reference to the Prime Minister of Norway visiting). What's bleeping new.....

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Still not actually sure about that villain vs bureaucrat thing. And by not sure I mean pretty damn certain otherwise. More of the goddamn country voted for the identified bureaucrat, and a good chunk that didn't were under the always delightful delusion trump was just going to fuck other people and come down on the side of whatever slice of the issues they cared about. They didn't want a villain, they just took one when they thought it would benefit them. Dash of the whole decades of media manipulation starting to pay bigger dividends did much of the rest of the work.

"More of the country" that was enough to lose. It does not goddamn matter for electoral consequences that Clinton won the popular vote except to further prove the electoral college is our generational blood curse and should be abolished. Good job, but the Republicans will never let it go now that they rely on it for victory. Gonna have to defeat them by having Democrats who aren't just holding on for the Republicans to take back their Rightful Seats before you can take advantage of that.

Clinton would have buried Trump and Congress if she'd been compelling to people in the way Obama was. The heart of the "he's a bastard but he's our bastard" line you see (or the "he's an outsider to shake things up") is the villainous narrative strength, and the general thing that positions of open harshness rely upon.

Clinton did not even come to the table on this. She's the kind of person who stands up to a bully by saying "ACTUALLY, bullying just stems from your insecurities" and gets punched in the nose while everybody laughs because being right doesn't mean anything. Your facts are so much nerd bullshit in the judgement process of a human mind. Clinton failed by not making people want to stand up against Trump, and the Democrats as a whole have persistently failed in that way ever since triangulation.

[Frumple]

It does not goddamn matter for electoral consequences that Clinton won the popular vote except to further prove the electoral college is our generational blood curse and should be abolished. Good job, but the Republicans will never let it go now that they rely on it for victory. Gonna have to defeat them by having Democrats who aren't just holding on for the Republicans to take back their Rightful Seats before you can take advantage of that.

It kinda' does goddamn matter, considering it's a blatant sign (particularly considering the massive pile of bullshit that was going on during the election) the country does not actually want shit in trump's direction and is in fact pretty damn okay with a bureaucrat and nerd bullshit, or at the very least isn't the part of our population that's particularly impressed by conman/populist bullshit instead. EC may be a generational blood curse, but that don't mean we start up a new one by ignoring what massive chunks of the electorate are indicating they want, either.

the Democrats as a whole have persistently failed in that way ever since triangulation.

Yeeeaaah, except not. We'll have a better idea how much not come november-ish, but "democrats as a whole" have to all appearances been overperforming for a good chunk of last year and so far as I've noticed show little to no signs of slowing down. Given we're actually fucking hearing about stuff like the petition down here in florida to fix the bullshit that is lifelong disenfranchisement of ex-cons, it'll pretty damn unsurprising if it friggin' speeds up.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It kinda' does goddamn matter, considering it's a blatant sign (particularly considering the massive pile of bullshit that was going on during the election) the country does not actually want shit in trump's direction and is in fact pretty damn okay with a bureaucrat and nerd bullshit, or at the very least isn't the part of our population that's particularly impressed by conman/populist bullshit instead. EC may be a generational blood curse, but that don't mean we start up a new one by ignoring what massive chunks of the electorate are indicating they want, either.

I truly do not understand what this hyperreality of "Clinton really wins because of the popular vote" is, but it's ridiculous. If you repeat that election Clinton loses every time. There's no "secret actually", there is what goddamn happened. If losing to Trump can't be a wakeup call nothing is. If she and what she represents were what people wanted, you might think that they'd get off their asses to vote for it.

The Democrats don't need to ignore what people want, but they need to recognize a large part of what they advocate for, especially in the economic sphere, is a nothingburger. And until such a time that the Dems choose to stand with boldness instead of trying to negotiate with wolves, Republicans are gonna keep inexplicably winning the big prizes. Fortunately, I see more positive signs for that over this past year than on this forum.

[smjjames]

Fortunately, I see more positive signs for that over this past year than on this forum.

We're an extremely tiny sample of the whole anyway.

But yes, the Democrats are having a bit of a renaiisance here and the outcome of the midterms in November will certainly help show how to move forward. It's looking like an absolute tsunami in the House. Though considering how brutal the map is for 2018, just keeping the status quo in the Senate would be considered a victory.

[EnigmaticHat]

Angry baby boomers voted for Trump because they thought the government didn't represent them.  The truth is that the government represented no one but them.  Boomers are so entitled that everything going their way read like nothing going their way.

Example: Obamacare.  Southern and midwest voters were really, really mad about Obamacare and it brought them out to vote.  Now that Trump is president, same thing is true... its just the reverse.  Now voters come out to prevent the ACA from being repealed.  Because Obamacare WAS representing the interests of those voters.  Their perspective was so removed from reality that they couldn't see that.

Talk to a low-information Boomer and the same concept will come up again and again.  "Common sense."  When boomers say things like "government is inefficient, everyone knows that."  What they're actually saying is, "government is inefficient, baby boomers agree on that."  But the baby boomers are such a large and economically successful generation, and similar enough to GenX, that boomers have told themselves a story.  And that story is, that all Americans (or all "real" Americans) are on the same page, and kids are different but everyone starts out protesting Vietnam and then you grow up and get more conservative.  Right?  Right.

So when Obama got elected, it was the first president in... I want to say, 20 years?  That got elected by a generation other than boomers.  So to them, no one elected Obama, because there's only one perspective.  The "common sense" perspective.  AKA the baby boomer perspective.  So it must have been some kind of conspiracy or outside group that made this happen.  Fox News molded that sentiment into fear and hatred by giving a name to that conspiracy; usually muslims, varies by the day.  Left leaning boomers would have been vulnerable to the same tactics, but they don't generally watch fox news.

So when people said democrats/Hillary should have appealed to right leaning voters, I say, which right leaning voters?  Young right leaning voters?  Cause we do pretty well with that crowd.  Old right leaning voters?  Because there's nothing democrats could have done that would have helped there.  The ACA was pretty much a direct bribe to Republican voters, and not only did they ignore the benefits till after Obama left office, but the Republicans also deflected the bribe by opting out of various programs at the state level.  But sure, we can't help Republican voters at the federal level because of the state's rights dominated supreme court.  OK, we'll help them at the loc... oh wait we never win local elections in red states.  But that's OK, if we come up with an educated plan to help red states out, and we get experts saying that it will help them out, they'll vote blue.  When hell freezes over.

Face it, Hillary could have been Reagan Rand Christ and Republicans wouldn't have voted for her.  They were mad about Obama and they had to get it out of their system.   When bloggers tried to explain the right's perspective to the left they would say "we have to have a plan to help the forgotten man!"  And like... what does that even mean?  That's not an issue or a policy.  That's not legislation.  That's a wish.  They were calling Hillary out for not being a genie.

[smjjames]

While I agree that there was a generational split, blaming 2016 all on baby boomers is an extreme oversimplification because it doesn't explain the rural/urban divide.

If baby boomers alone really were the main driving force behind Trump, then we should have seen high amounts of votes for him in BOTH rural and urban areas. Yet we don't see that because in most places, the ratio between the generations is generally constant. Yes, I know there are exceptions like retirement communities and cities/suburbs tend to have more young people, but it's not like the generational ratio in Rural and Urban is an extreme one.

[Frumple]

I'unno, half decade gap in average age is pretty noticeable. Beyond that it'd be more than just age split involved. Boomers still have a notably disproportionate influence on media and political campaigns, near as I can recall. You maybe can't blame all of it on them but if you're feeling like it you can probably still manage a pretty huge amount.

I truly do not understand what this hyperreality of "Clinton really wins because of the popular vote" is, but it's ridiculous. If you repeat that election Clinton loses every time. There's no "secret actually", there is what goddamn happened. If losing to Trump can't be a wakeup call nothing is. If she and what she represents were what people wanted, you might think that they'd get off their asses to vote for it.

Third highest turnout in the last half-ish century, mate.* By the time everything finally got sodding counted it turned out a lot of people got off their asses and voted. Looks a helluva' lot like a lot of that has roughly jag all to do with messaging, though, and more to do with procedure -- some/most of the highest turnout areas were all same-day registration states, apparently.

Who the hell actually won isn't the point, the goddamn point is the message that was ran with seems to be what a sodding massive amount of people wanted, apparently enough to even cut through the shit shower that was being sprayed over everything at the time. More energy or whatev' is a pretty good thing regardless, but we seriously don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot by ignoring that shit like what clinton was running on is still pretty damn attractive to a lot of people.

* E: First was unsurprisingly obama's first go, but #2 was apparently friggin' kerry during bush's reelection back in '04. Bloody hell, I think I had forgotten that guy existed...

[smjjames]

I meant in the population, not among who voted, but it's still an oversimplification and ignores a whole host of reasons.

I'unno, half decade gap in average age is pretty noticeable. Beyond that it'd be more than just age split involved. Boomers still have a notably disproportionate influence on media and political campaigns, near as I can recall. You maybe can't blame all of it on them but if you're feeling like it you can probably still manage a pretty huge amount.

I truly do not understand what this hyperreality of "Clinton really wins because of the popular vote" is, but it's ridiculous. If you repeat that election Clinton loses every time. There's no "secret actually", there is what goddamn happened. If losing to Trump can't be a wakeup call nothing is. If she and what she represents were what people wanted, you might think that they'd get off their asses to vote for it.

Third highest turnout in the last half-ish century, mate.* By the time everything finally got sodding counted it turned out a lot of people got off their asses and voted. Looks a helluva' lot like a lot of that has roughly jag all to do with messaging, though, and more to do with procedure -- some/most of the highest turnout areas were all same-day registration states, apparently.

Who the hell actually won isn't the point, the goddamn point is the message that was ran with seems to be what a sodding massive amount of people wanted, apparently enough to even cut through the shit shower that was being sprayed over everything at the time. More energy or whatev' is a pretty good thing regardless, but we seriously don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot by ignoring that shit like what clinton was running on is still pretty damn attractive to a lot of people.

* E: First was unsurprisingly obama's first go, but #2 was apparently friggin' kerry during bush's reelection back in '04. Bloody hell, I think I had forgotten that guy existed...

Such is the dilemma that the Democrats have. They still want to do their usual policies, but at the same time are still figuring out how to win without stooping to the level that Trump did.

The midterms will certainly help show the best way forward, but I suspect that it's going to take more than two election cycles to fully internalize how best to move forward. It's possible that they might win the Presidency in 2020, but it's pretty hard pressed to see them winning in their current state.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Third highest turnout in the last half-ish century, mate.*

For Trump! Millions more Republicans came out to vote, because Trump was interesting to them! Clinton didn't even beat Obama's 2012 numbers!

Who the hell actually won isn't the point