[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Derek

It happened when Corbyn decimated May's majority at the snap election.

My honest view of that election is that May committed political suicide in the run up to it, effectively handing Labour an open goal that almost any leader but Corbyn would've tucked away comfortably. The country was absolutely sick and tired of the Tories at that point but too many people saw Corbyn and his cabinet (most obviously the prospect of Diane Abbott as Home Secretary and John McDonnell as Chancellor) as simply unelectable.

I know polls aren't everything but you could say the same thing's happening now. The Tories are in meltdown, with a lame duck leader and no credible replacement in the wings, and yet yougov still puts them ahead of Labour in the polls. Corbyn may have galvanised the youth vote but Labour should be miles ahead nationwide in the current situation.

Latest aggregate figures from YouGov 19th March: CON 35%, LAB 31%, LDEM 12%, UKIP 6%.

Corbyn has turned Labour into a party for activists in the same way that I see the Democrats becoming a party for activists so long as people like AOC, Ilhan Omar and Bernie Sanders are increasingly able to set the party agenda. The only difference is that they're facing another non-mainstream/anti-Establishment leader in Trump.

[Derek]

Bear in mind that Labour were like 24 points behind the Tories before the last election. Anything happens when Corbyn actually gets to put forth his ideas in a fair manner, which we saw last time. They are clearly not unelectable.

I don't believe at all that someone else would have won that election for them. Do you have any sort of evidence or study that shows this? It would have just been further apathy towards Labour since Ed Miliband's poor showing. No one is excited by centrism or liberalism and clearly its the unelectable thing in 2019 if Hillary Clinton can't take an easy victory over Donald Trump.

He hasn't turned it into a party of activists, he's helping give voice to people who have been shut out of politics for a long time or young people who never found a reason to care until his ideas spoke to them.

[Rob Instigator]

The USA is ever more full of people age 65 and over, and all of them vote, and the demographics of those 65 and up is FAR different from the demographics of those 18-45.

[!@#$%!]

Right Derek but you gotta understand the notion of...hedging, I guess? Meaning things never go too far.

Neither me nor Demonyo are “naive”.

Given the general political tendency of a society, there is always a counterbalance for any sort of movement to return it to... yes, the status quo.

For every excited person on one end, there is a scared person on the other.

Right or wrong, societies like their status quo. Just like you like your NHS and our seniors like their Social Security and Medicare.

There is aways a seesaw, a pendulum, that moves things back to some sort of center.

This center may shift over time, but for every revolution there is a counterrevolution.

Obama got everyone excited for change. Then bailed the auto industry and brought on a fair attempt at universal health care, the most successful in American history. Result? The Tea Party was born.

The Tea Partiers were activists and eventually took over Congress and blocked Obama at every step.

Yet for all of the Tea Party’s revolutionary or counterrevolutionary force (depends on your perspective), Paul Ryan was never gonna dismantle social security. Old people would never let him.

I get where you’re coming from, but you have to account for the equal and opposite reaction to every action and see how history operates.

The hippies begat Nixon, Carter begat Reagan, Obama begat the TP, globalization begat Trump, etc etc.

[Rob Instigator]

"the status quo" changes, but not too much..


The status quo in 1820 was that rich white MALES decided everyone's lives for them, and everyone else could go fuck themselves.


The status quo in 2019 is that rich white PEOPLE decide everyone's lives for them, and everyone else could go fuck themselves.


#progress

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

#progress

lmao yes

#apes

we’re apes!

i have to say though, as an ape, i like a stable currency.

hyperinflation = DO NOT WANT

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Derek

Bear in mind that Labour were like 24 points behind the Tories before the last election. Anything happens when Corbyn actually gets to put forth his ideas in a fair manner, which we saw last time. They are clearly not unelectable.

I don't believe at all that someone else would have won that election for them. Do you have any sort of evidence or study that shows this? It would have just been further apathy towards Labour since Ed Miliband's poor showing. No one is excited by centrism or liberalism and clearly its the unelectable thing in 2019 if Hillary Clinton can't take an easy victory over Donald Trump.

He hasn't turned it into a party of activists, he's helping give voice to people who have been shut out of politics for a long time or young people who never found a reason to care until his ideas spoke to them.

My point is that although Corbyn did a great job of attracting young and first time voters he did nothing to attract disenfranchised Tories. That's the big difference between him and Trump. Almost 10% of voters who backed Obama in 2012 switched to Trump in 2016. But I seriously doubt if anything like that number of voters who'd previously identified as Conservatives were tempted by Corbyn.

[!@#$%!]

so corbyn led the children’s crusade?

 

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Derek

How will he unite the opposition? He is an establishment liberal with a shoddy record and will most likely get metoo'd to hell. The idea of "crazy uncle joe who eats ice cream and pretends he's the hypeman to lovable Obama" will disappear with his candidacy once his ideology is put in full view.

If the candidates remain as it stands, I can see Biden getting the nomination just because the progressive wing of the party will all be taking votes from one another while Biden will be the sole beneficiary of the party's more mainstream support. And I don't think Biden will have a chance in hell of beating Trump.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

If the candidates remain as it stands, I can see Biden getting the nomination just because the progressive wing of the party will all be taking votes from one another while Biden will be the sole beneficiary of the party's more mainstream support. And I don't think Biden will have a chance in hell of beating Trump.

on the grounds of basic decency maybe he could.

i mean... lol... i don’t know what to make of the presidential circus anymore

-

many republicans are superfedup with trumpetta and biden has a history of bipartisanship

his embarrassing anita hill history to wit xD

[demonrail666]

All I know is if the #MeToo movement had its work cut out with Trump, it's gonna be working around the clock with Ol' Creepy-Joe

https://joebiden.info/

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

All I know is if the #MeToo movement had its work cut out with Trump, it's gonna be working around the clock with Ol' Creepy-Joe

https://joebiden.info/

lmfao

those pics

i dont know what to tell you

he’s an affectionate guy

im laughing so hard

part is despair!

but bernie is not even a democrat

if he becomes the nominee im quittin’

bernie leading the children’s crusade

 

if a decent candidate can’t survive the primaries maybe i’ll take a good look at howard schultz as an independent. i don’t know...

fucking catch 22 lmao

thank fuck i have a sense of humor... and gin!

that will see me through...

[Derek]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

My point is that although Corbyn did a great job of attracting young and first time voters he did nothing to attract disenfranchised Tories. That's the big difference between him and Trump. Almost 10% of voters who backed Obama in 2012 switched to Trump in 2016. But I seriously doubt if anything like that number of voters who'd previously identified as Conservatives were tempted by Corbyn.

Why would a left wing Labour want to attract Tory voters? The small amount of potential swing voters versus the massive amount of non-voters makes the latter a better and more achievable strategy (it's also more honourable trying to get more people into the political process and told that they have a voice).

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Derek

Why would a left wing Labour want to attract Tory voters?

BECAUSE HE/SHE/THEY WANTS TO BE PRIME MINISTER

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Derek

Why would a left wing Labour want to attract Tory voters?

To win an election so it can actually change things rather than complain about them.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

To win an election so it can actually change things rather than complain about them.

ding ding ding ding ding ding ding

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

All I know is if the #MeToo movement had its work cut out with Trump, it's gonna be working around the clock with Ol' Creepy-Joe

https://joebiden.info/

The one where he tries to kiss the kid and she visibly moves away still makes me cringe all these years after.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

The one where he tries to kiss the kid and she visibly moves away still makes me cringe all these years after.

i was that kid many times growing up

https://www.cntraveler.com/story/a-g...ound-the-world

it’s not what you puritans think though

 

[!@#$%!]

“don’t make health care a purity test”

paul krugman on the many paths to universal health care and what is likely to pass in ‘merica:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/o...democrats.html

[!@#$%!]

krugman’s critique of “fanatical centrism”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/o...president.html

ouch! ok, ok... lol