Dem Post Mortem

[Derec]

Yes he was and Shapiro would have been as well.

So, you would be calling it DEI if she chose any man?

But I apologize for culturally appropriating your term. Clearly it bothers you. That wasn't my intention. Okay, maybe a little.

You did not "culturally appropriate" the term (which is a silly concept anyway), you misapplied it. Choosing somebody who is X is not DEI. Choosing them because they are X is. For example, you wanted Harris to chose another woman and have an all-female ticket, as you admit below. That is DEI.

I wanted Trump not to be President again, I think a dual-female ticket (including a popular Midwest governor) helped provide a 'go fuck yourself' anti-misogyny message about the first female President.

In other words, you admit Whitmer would have been a DEI choice for you, and yet you accuse any potential male pick of being a DEI pick. Make it make sense.

It might not have mattered in the end, but the Dems were limited on the playing field due to the circumstances at the time.

Yes, Biden fubared matters by not withdrawing earlier.

 

[Derec]

It looks like Justice Democrats are dusting off their post-2016 playbook and are trying to have a chistka, and purge more moderates from Congress.

Justice Democrats say primary challenges are back on the menu

A top progressive group has a plan to forge a way forward after Democrats’ brutal election cycle: a renewed push to primary members of its own party.
Justice Democrats, the organization that rose to prominence for its association with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), is launching a formal candidate recruitment effort on Tuesday. After spending the 2024 cycle chiefly focused on defending members of “The Squad” who were facing challenges funded in large part by the pro-Israel AIPAC, the group is turning its attention back toward ousting incumbents who are insufficiently liberal.
“There is something wrong with this party as a whole right now,” said Usamah Andrabi, a spokesperson for the group, “and it’s time to clean up shop in this Democratic Party.”

Apparently their first targets will be George Latimer and Wesley Bell, since they ousted "Fire Marshall" Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush.
I hope moderates resist these efforts better than in 2018.

 

[laughing dog]

My "white savior" was a little harsh. Here's why I used it: Sanders did very well in the NE part of the country (early in the primaries) against both HRC and Biden. But when it came to super Tuesday, when the south started voting, Sanders got beat. HRC beat him by 3.2 million votes; Biden beat him by 10 million votes.

But both Hillary and Biden are white. So your race-based quip was a bit strange.
That said, Bernie does well when it comes to retail politics of the traditional early states (that Biden sacrificed by foolishly moving SC first). When it comes to many large states voting, party machine has a lot more influence. Obama was similar. He was an upstart going against the party machine favorite.

That said, I think states like NH and Iowa have a Democratic primary electorate that is closer to the demographics of the US general election electorate than the SC Democratic primary electorate.

On what basis? The US is roughly 60% white, while both Iowa and New Hampshire are over 85% white. Iowa's age distribution is roughly the same as the US's while New Hampshire has a high median age and slightly larger share of the population over 64 (20% vs 17%) for the US.

SC is about 64% white, and has about 18% of its population over 64. Its median age of 40 is about the US's of 38,8.

I am not arguing which state should go first or not.

 

[Derec]

On what basis? The US is roughly 60% white, while both Iowa and New Hampshire are over 85% white. Iowa's age distribution is roughly the same as the US's while New Hampshire has a high median age and slightly larger share of the population over 64 (20% vs 17%) for the US.

Read more carefully. I was talking about the Democratic primary electorate. That is less white and more black than these states at large.
For example, more than half of the SC Democratic primary electorate is black. That is greatly out of kilter with the country at large, which is only ~13% black.

I am not arguing which state should go first or not.

Well, more than demographics should enter into consideration for that. For example, tradition of retail politics that allows less known candidates to get noticed. We got Bill Clinton and Barack Obama because Iowa and NH were allowed to go first.
I am just saying that demographics is not a good reason to prefer SC over Iowa and NH.

 

[laughing dog]

On what basis? The US is roughly 60% white, while both Iowa and New Hampshire are over 85% white. Iowa's age distribution is roughly the same as the US's while New Hampshire has a high median age and slightly larger share of the population over 64 (20% vs 17%) for the US.

Read more carefully. I was talking about the Democratic primary electorate. That is less white and more black than these states at large.

Do you have any evidence that "closer to" is roughly "close to" in this case?

 

[ZiprHead]

The way the electorate snubbed Harris, makes me think it will be decades before the twice-burned DNC is going to support another female candidate for president. There are few, if any, better qualified, more articulate females anywhere in government, and yet, “the people” reacted with a big fat collective “meh!”

As I said before, Harris was qualified, but she lacks judgment.

What makes you say that?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

On what basis? The US is roughly 60% white, while both Iowa and New Hampshire are over 85% white. Iowa's age distribution is roughly the same as the US's while New Hampshire has a high median age and slightly larger share of the population over 64 (20% vs 17%) for the US.

Read more carefully. I was talking about the Democratic primary electorate. That is less white and more black than these states at large.
For example, more than half of the SC Democratic primary electorate is black. That is greatly out of kilter with the country at large, which is only ~13% black.

I am not arguing which state should go first or not.

Well, more than demographics should enter into consideration for that.

What a peculiar statement. Politics is the science of demographics.

Advisor: 50% of Democrat voters support the legislation.
Poltiician: Who do we need to convince that it is good then?
Advisor: Can't say, we don't do demographics anymore. It was morally unethical to take it into account, so we have no idea who is against the bill.

For example, tradition of retail politics that allows less known candidates to get noticed. We got Bill Clinton and Barack Obama because Iowa and NH were allowed to go first.
I am just saying that demographics is not a good reason to prefer SC over Iowa and NH.

So are you making an argument that the demographics in Iowa / NH are better for projecting national results or simply an argument of inertia?

 

[Bomb#20]

When people do this sort of thing it creates doubts about a person's sincerity in their stated dislike for Trump.

See, the really really important thing here isn't to approach the topic rationally, and with a degree of civility toward all parties, but rather to prove your dedication by making sure we spew enough hate to convince you of our political purity. Otherwise, we're apostates who need burning at the stake

So you think a parson who's done this:

He's a <f-bomb> traitor, he lead a <f-bomb> rebellion against the country, he's a fascist dictator wannabe, he tried to steal national secrets, and he's the biggest criminal who's ever run for office.

and wants to run our nation again, that hatred is unjustfied?

That being said, the statement taken out of context by you so you could attack a strawman was about Bomb's deletion of parts of the above quote. I guess if you believe deliberately changing the context of another persons words so you can "civilly" attack them, however politely, could be deemed rational and civil, no matter how much it makes you dishonorable. But you do you.

ZiprHead, the things you are saying about me and Emily are libelous. You are making baseless personal attacks on other posters with malice and with reckless disregard for the truth. She didn't strawman you; I hadn't attacked you; you'd attacked me; and you have no sane reason to accuse either of us of being dishonorable. You know perfectly well I edited my quote of your post because of your profanity, not in order to materially change your meaning, which I did not do. You had no reason in the first place to think the question of whether your hatred of Trump supporters was unjustified was relevant to our argument, and the notion that I was trying to show it was unjustified by leaving "fascist dictator", "steal national secrets", and "biggest criminal" in the quote is just ludicrous on its face. If those weren't enough to justify your hatred, adding "traitor", "rebellion" and two f-bombs wouldn't materially improve your case. You are trumping up ad hominems in order to give yourself permission not to think about the consequences of the sort of rhetoric you and an awful lot of other Democrats specialize in. If you want to shoot the messenger because you don't like hearing the message, that's your option. But it's reality avoidance, and the inclination of much of the Democratic Party to do likewise is helping it lose elections.

"Don't be a dick." isn't just moralizing. "Don't be a dick." is practical life advice. Exactly which part of "Don't be a dick." didn't you understand when you decided it was your basic belief?

 

[Bomb#20]

that hatred is unjustfied?

ALL hatred is unjustified. Civility is more important than truth, freedom or the price of eggs.

if you believe deliberately changing the context of another persons words so you can "civilly" attack them, however politely, could be deemed rational and civil…

Hey - better than calling a two-faced person two-faced. That kind of thing just puts up barriers to communication. Pointing out their two-facedness is unlikely to change their behavior, anyhow. So be civil; that way they can claim high ground and never have to address the REASON they were being called two-faced. Whatever that reason might be, it pales in importance next to the priority of “civility”*.

* civility is now the refuge of scoundrels.

And you, you're libeling me too. You have no sane reason to think I'm "two-faced"; and I certainly addressed the reason ZH was accusing me of that. Get a goddamned clue.

As far as "civility" goes, this isn't about civility. This is about the Democrats' typical knee-jerk self-deception. You and ZH insult me and Emily all you please and it doesn't matter. ZH and other Democrats insult Trump supporters all you please and it doesn't matter. ZH and other Democrats insult Biden/Harris voters all they please and that matters. Trump's fortunes didn't change between 2020 and 2024 because of Trump supporters. Trump's support went up 1%. Harris's support went down 11%. Try focusing on that for a change instead of on how justified your hatred is. This is America. Elections are won and lost on turnout. All the Democrats seem to want from their post mortems is to ask "What's wrong with Trump voters?" so they don't have to swallow asking "What's wrong with us that not even our own people think we're worth voting for?". Here's a hint: it ain't lack of "civility" toward Trump supporters.

There are a lot of things Democrats keep doing that makes their own people think they aren't worth voting for, and one of them is saying stuff like "Yes, the working class wants dumb and simple. That is quite clear. They want to be directed and told what to do, just like at their jobs. Little thought needed. Then after work kick back at the bar and toss back a few PBRs and complain about how the big bad guvmint is out to get them because the high taxes on their employers keeps them from getting bigger wages. Sorry. I don't kowtow to the ignorant.", and then deceiving themselves that they only said it about Trump supporters.

 

[Elixir]

And you, you're libeling me too.

!
Pointing out the convenience of widespread misuse of “civility” to quell disagreement, is not libel. Are you trashing me either that accusation?!

 

[Bomb#20]

And you, you're libeling me too.

!
Pointing out the convenience of widespread misuse of “civility” to quell disagreement, is not libel. Are you trashing me either that accusation?!

Your gripes about "civility" weren't libel; your implying I'm "a two-faced person" and insinuating ZH had a "REASON" to call me that that I was ducking were libel.

 

[ZiprHead]

When people do this sort of thing it creates doubts about a person's sincerity in their stated dislike for Trump.

See, the really really important thing here isn't to approach the topic rationally, and with a degree of civility toward all parties, but rather to prove your dedication by making sure we spew enough hate to convince you of our political purity. Otherwise, we're apostates who need burning at the stake

So you think a parson who's done this:

He's a <f-bomb> traitor, he lead a <f-bomb> rebellion against the country, he's a fascist dictator wannabe, he tried to steal national secrets, and he's the biggest criminal who's ever run for office.

and wants to run our nation again, that hatred is unjustfied?

That being said, the statement taken out of context by you so you could attack a strawman was about Bomb's deletion of parts of the above quote. I guess if you believe deliberately changing the context of another persons words so you can "civilly" attack them, however politely, could be deemed rational and civil, no matter how much it makes you dishonorable. But you do you.

ZiprHead, the things you are saying about me and Emily are libelous. You are making baseless personal attacks on other posters with malice and with reckless disregard for the truth. She didn't strawman you; I hadn't attacked you; you'd attacked me; and you have no sane reason to accuse either of us of being dishonorable. You know perfectly well I edited my quote of your post because of your profanity, not in order to materially change your meaning, which I did not do.

No, I did not know perfectly well that you did not like to use quotes with profanity. Seems a little prudish to me but you do you. And when I said it "creates doubts" could hardly be considered an attack. When people selectively edit quotes, it makes other people wonder why it was done. That's all I said.

You had no reason in the first place to think the question of whether your hatred of Trump supporters was unjustified was relevant to our argument, and the notion that I was trying to show it was unjustified by leaving "fascist dictator", "steal national secrets", and "biggest criminal" in the quote is just ludicrous on its face. If those weren't enough to justify your hatred, adding "traitor", "rebellion" and two f-bombs wouldn't materially improve your case. You are trumping up ad hominems in order to give yourself permission not to think about the consequences of the sort of rhetoric you and an awful lot of other Democrats specialize in. If you want to shoot the messenger because you don't like hearing the message, that's your option.

The definition of trumping up is "fraudulently concocted". Was there anything specific of what I said about Trump that was fraudulently concocted, untrue, a lie?

Who's libeling who now?

But it's reality avoidance, and the inclination of much of the Democratic Party to do likewise is helping it lose elections.

I'd like to see some proof of that. Both that it was done and that it helped to lose the election.

"Don't be a dick." isn't just moralizing. "Don't be a dick." is practical life advice. Exactly which part of "Don't be a dick." didn't you understand when you decided it was your basic belief?

I reserve the right to be a dick to those who are willful dicks to others, like many Trump supporters and Trump himself.

Oh, and finally, Emily did use my quote to straw man me. Others noticed it too.

Your pretentiousness is undeserved.

 

[Elixir]

And you, you're libeling me too.

!
Pointing out the convenience of widespread misuse of “civility” to quell disagreement, is not libel. Are you trashing me either that accusation?!

Your gripes about "civility" weren't libel; your implying I'm "a two-faced person" and insinuating ZH had a "REASON" to call me that that I was ducking were libel.

Well, I apologize. Not sure why, and and not willing to go figure it out. So I’ll figure you’re right since you’ve been as forthright as one might hope and I have no wish to impugn your intent.

 

[Derec]

Well, more than demographics should enter into consideration for that.

What a peculiar statement. Politics is the science of demographics.[/quote]
Why is it peculiar? I did not say demographics should be ignored, but that it isn't the whole picture.

I am just saying that demographics is not a good reason to prefer SC over Iowa and NH.

So are you making an argument that the demographics in Iowa / NH are better for projecting national results or simply an argument of inertia?

I think the demographics of Democrats in Iowa and NH, while far from being a perfect match, is still a better proxy for the national population than the demographics of Democrats in SC, which was 56% black in the 2020 primary.
There are other advantages. You may dismiss it as "inertia", but the tradition for Iowa and NH to go first, together with their small sizes, means that they have a culture of retail politics. Candidates can reach the voters independent of the party machine. That allows lesser known candidates to get their due. No Iowa/NH retail politics, and no Bill Clinton or Barack Obama either.
SC electorate on the other hand is much more machine-dependent, and that will be to the detriment of the Democratic Party going forward unless they reverse course.

With Obama there is yet another issue. I think had SC gone first, Hillary would have been favored because of the machine. But even if Obama had managed to win SC in that scenario, it would not have helped him nearly as much as winning Iowa and coming a close second in NH. These two states showed that he can do well with white voters, which was crucial in making him a viable to win the white house as the first (half) black president.

 

[Derec]

What makes you say that?

I already explained it other threads and probably this one too. But briefly, she showed poor judgment throughout her career.
Take the 2020 race. She was positioned very well, attracting many donors early on. Then came the attack on Biden over forced bussing, trying to run with Bernie and Liz in the far left lane (pledging to ban fracking and offshore drilling in the process). In 2024 she also made some questionable choices, like relying too much on "vibes" and celebrities, and eschewing most interviews. Her running mate choice was also pretty lackluster.

 

[Bomb#20]

When people do this sort of thing it creates doubts about a person's sincerity in their stated dislike for Trump.

See, the really really important thing here isn't to approach the topic rationally, and with a degree of civility toward all parties, but rather to prove your dedication by making sure we spew enough hate to convince you of our political purity. Otherwise, we're apostates who need burning at the stake

So you think a parson who's done this:

He's a <f-bomb> traitor, he lead a <f-bomb> rebellion against the country, he's a fascist dictator wannabe, he tried to steal national secrets, and he's the biggest criminal who's ever run for office.

and wants to run our nation again, that hatred is unjustfied?

That being said, the statement taken out of context by you so you could attack a strawman was about Bomb's deletion of parts of the above quote. I guess if you believe deliberately changing the context of another persons words so you can "civilly" attack them, however politely, could be deemed rational and civil, no matter how much it makes you dishonorable. But you do you.

ZiprHead, the things you are saying about me and Emily are libelous. You are making baseless personal attacks on other posters with malice and with reckless disregard for the truth. She didn't strawman you; I hadn't attacked you; you'd attacked me; and you have no sane reason to accuse either of us of being dishonorable. You know perfectly well I edited my quote of your post because of your profanity, not in order to materially change your meaning, which I did not do.

No, I did not know perfectly well that you did not like to use quotes with profanity. Seems a little prudish to me but you do you.

You didn't know why when you originally accused me in post #1222, true; but then I told you why in post #1257, and you'd evidently made it past that point in the thread when you brought it up the second time, when you replied to post #1263 in post #1285. However, if you want to accuse me of prudishness, knock yourself out. That won't be libel.

And when I said it "creates doubts" could hardly be considered an attack. When people selectively edit quotes, it makes other people wonder why it was done. That's all I said.

You make a habit of inaccurately passing off your statements as innocuous. If wondering why it was done were all you said then you'd have asked why it was done, instead of running straight to accusations of insincerity and liking Trump -- an absurd hypothesis given I'd left in fascist, dictator, spy and criminal. Of course it was an attack -- worse than the one in post #1204 where you first personalized what had up to then been a discussion of the issues.

You had no reason in the first place to think the question of whether your hatred of Trump supporters was unjustified was relevant to our argument, and the notion that I was trying to show it was unjustified by leaving "fascist dictator", "steal national secrets", and "biggest criminal" in the quote is just ludicrous on its face. If those weren't enough to justify your hatred, adding "traitor", "rebellion" and two f-bombs wouldn't materially improve your case. You are trumping up ad hominems in order to give yourself permission not to think about the consequences of the sort of rhetoric you and an awful lot of other Democrats specialize in. If you want to shoot the messenger because you don't like hearing the message, that's your option.

The definition of trumping up is "fraudulently concocted". Was there anything specific of what I said about Trump that was fraudulently concocted, untrue, a lie?

Who's libeling who now?

Not ad hominems against Trump! You trumped up ad hominems against me and Emily! Good grief! You accused me of being insincere and you accused her of being dishonorable. I don't give a rat's ass what you say about Trump -- even if you manage to say something untrue he's no doubt guilty of worse -- but Emily deserves better.

"Don't be a dick." isn't just moralizing. "Don't be a dick." is practical life advice. Exactly which part of "Don't be a dick." didn't you understand when you decided it was your basic belief?

I reserve the right to be a dick to those who are willful dicks to others, like many Trump supporters and Trump himself.

And here you are again, making believe "Yes, the working class wants dumb and simple. That is quite clear. They want to be directed and told what to do, just like at their jobs. Little thought needed. Then after work kick back at the bar and toss back a few PBRs and complain about how the big bad guvmint is out to get them because the high taxes on their employers keeps them from getting bigger wages. Sorry. I don't kowtow to the ignorant." is an innocuous attack on many dickish Trump supporters, rather than a dickish attack on the entire working class whether they were dicks to others or not.

Oh, and finally, Emily did use my quote to straw man me.

How do you figure what you quoted is a strawman? Do you think the context in which you insinuated I like Trump doesn't include the fact that you were already excoriating me for not focusing on how hateworthy he is before I'd ever failed in my supposed duty to recite your entire list of charges verbatim? At worst she misunderstood you.

(And if misunderstanding were grounds for a strawman accusation then " So you think a parson who's done this: <list> and wants to run our nation again, that hatred is unjustfied?" would have been a strawman too. She in no way indicated your hatred of Trump is unjustified -- that was your poor reading comprehension.)

 

[ZiprHead]

Not ad hominems against Trump! You trumped up ad hominems against me and Emily! Good grief! You accused me of being insincere

This was the exchange:

I find it quite interesting that you snipped out this:
"He's a fucking traitor, he lead a fucking rebellion against the country"

When people do this sort of thing it creates doubts about a person's sincerity in their stated dislike for Trump.

This is politics. Are you saying that doing selective editing would not or should not cause doubts? It's standard practice in yellow journalism used to attack an opposed subject.

Now I suppose I shall have to come right out and say I'm not accusing you of yellow journalism.

and you accused her of being dishonorable. I don't give a rat's ass what you say about Trump -- even if you manage to say something untrue he's no doubt guilty of worse -- but Emily deserves better.

Really? So when Elixer also noticed what she did was he wrong too?

that hatred is unjustfied?

ALL hatred is unjustified. Civility is more important than truth, freedom or the price of eggs.

if you believe deliberately changing the context of another person's words so you can "civilly" attack them, however politely, could be deemed rational and civil…

Hey - better than calling a two-faced person two-faced. That kind of thing just puts up barriers to communication. Pointing out their two-facedness is unlikely to change their behavior, anyhow. So be civil; that way they can claim high ground and never have to address the REASON they were being called two-faced. Whatever that reason might be, it pales in importance next to the priority of “civility”*.

* civility is now the refuge of scoundrels.

And here you are again, making believe "Yes, the working class wants dumb and simple. That is quite clear. They want to be directed and told what to do, just like at their jobs. Little thought needed. Then after work kick back at the bar and toss back a few PBRs and complain about how the big bad guvmint is out to get them because the high taxes on their employers keeps them from getting bigger wages. Sorry. I don't kowtow to the ignorant." is an innocuous attack on many dickish Trump supporters, rather than a dickish attack on the entire working class whether they were dicks to others or not.

When I was working I wanted to just do my job and go home or go to the bar. Others here have expressed that same sentiment. I didn't complain about taxes but many do. It's a hallmark of right wingers. That part should have given you a clue I meant right wing working class people. But I will accept the responsibility for not being clear on that.

How do you figure what you quoted is a strawman? Do you think the context in which you insinuated I like Trump doesn't include the fact that you were already excoriating me for not focusing on how hateworthy he is before I'd ever failed in my supposed duty to recite your entire list of charges verbatim? At worst she misunderstood you.

(And if misunderstanding were grounds for a strawman accusation then " So you think a parson who's done this: <list> and wants to run our nation again, that hatred is unjustfied?" would have been a strawman too. She in no way indicated your hatred of Trump is unjustified -- that was your poor reading comprehension.)

Emily has a long and well recognized habit of using straw men extensively. But she's polite when she does so so that's a point in her favor. Right?

 

[Emily Lake]

You have no sane reason to think I'm "two-faced"

You are one of a very few posters here whose views are extraordinarily internally consistent across all topics. I don't think I've observed you holding contradictory positions on anything.

That said... the posters here who seem to have the highest degree of principled integrity are also frequently unpopular.

 

[Elixir]

the posters here who seem to have the highest degree of principled integrity are also frequently unpopular.

…sayeth the self-appointed arbiter of others’ principled integrity.

Where would we be without such guidance?

 

[Emily Lake]

the posters here who seem to have the highest degree of principled integrity are also frequently unpopular.

…sayeth the self-appointed arbiter of others’ principled integrity.

Where would we be without such guidance?

Not a self-appointed arbiter, merely an observer over a rather long period of time. Looking at the positions that posters express in various different topics, and the way those positions align with the values to which they claim to adhere. Some posters hold policy and debate positions that are consistent and uncontradictory based on their espoused values in way that spans many topics. They walk the walk. Others claim to hold certain values, but they take policy and debate positions that are at odds with those expressed values.

Bomb#20 has been extraordinarily consistent in how he expresses his values and the positions he holds, across many topics, over a long period of time. I don't believe I have ever observed any contradiction or hypocrisy in his posts. There are a very select few others, but not many. Most people - including me - have generalized value sets, and where those values overlap, they get messy and can end up in contradictory positions. I'll pat myself on the back a bit here, in that I think I'm usually aware of situations in which my own values are in conflict or in which I hold a contradicting position.

Some posters, on the other hand, quite regularly take positions that end up being "do as I say, not as I do". There are some that, for example, get bent out of shape if someone is rude or disrespectful to them... but feel that they are entitled to be rude and disrespectful to others that they disagree with on a regular basis. That's not a principled position, and it indicates a lack of integrity.

For clarification, I'm not using integrity in the sense of adhering to a moral code. I'm using it in the mathematical sense, of demonstrating internal consistency and completeness.