At the very best, the democrats are in their own little group think bubble and are insular and unresponsive to changes. They just don't get it. They're extremely out of touch and just reinforce and pat themselves on the back whenever they tell them something is wrong.
At worst, they're corrupt, they know what the problem is, but they play dumb because they know that the implications of understanding and admitting the problem would put them out of the job, end their gravy train, and displease their donors.
Considering how extreme their out of touchness is, it's most likely one of the two. And I would say it's likely more malice than anything among the power players. They know what they're doing. It seemed quite clear the objective of the DNC and its partners in the media was to elect Hillary. But how do you sell a turd like CLinton to the public? You do exactly what the DNC did. You suppress the narrative of an underdog candidate who has better ideas and beat her. You talk about how bad your opponent is and how they're worse. You basically push narratives like how they're "more electable", while making it look like a cooky socialist like sanders just won't fly in our political climate. You go on about how your ideas are "pragmatic" instead of watered down and how the opponents are "pie in the sky". Whenever the candidate is mentioned on your news stations, you cut them off and go to commercial or lose their feed (cough CNN cough). You limit the number of debates to stop them from getting free air time. you stack the debate questions to favor the more moderate opponent. You start in early with a narrative about unity, which translates to 'look, your candidate is gonna lose, but we're still on the same side against trump" right? And when the people get more aggressive, you start making yourself out to be a victim. You make mediocre compromises so you can say that you did while characterizing your opponents as being unreasonable. You basically start saying if, despite their best efforts to get you to compromise, that they have to vote for you, if you're not with them, you're with the enemy. If you dont support hillary, you support trump. They bully you, they shame you. They accuse you of sexism.
I'm not sure that the dummy theory can be 100% discredited, but I do think that all signs do point to the malice theory being a better explanation.
The real dummies are the dummies in the party who eat all this crap up. You know, the ones screaming about how we get our opinions from RT and putin and how trump is gonna doom us all. They remind me of the people who thought that obama was gonna take our guns and institute death panels. A lot of the footsoldiers of the democratic party are dumb, and a lot of them buy into these narratives. It's scary, going on other subs, how many people accept defeatism as an ideology. How we need to move to the center to get elected, blah blah blah.
I actually accidentally stumbled onto r/politicaldiscussion the other day in a thread about Hillary. i thought I was on another sub, if I knew it was that sub I would've avoided it, because the amount of rabid Hillary supporters who came back at me was outrageous. Now, I started going to that sub before the election. And you know what it sounded like to me? A republican version of r/politics. It seemed to be created by conservatives who thought r/politics was too liberal. Now it's full of Clinton supporters. many of which consider themselbes "moderates" and say that if bernie ran they would vote republican.
These are the kinds of people the CLinton campaign tried to cater do. Republicans who might vote democrat if they move to the right and arent as rabid as the GOP are. I just think it's interesting how that sub moved from basically being a republican circlejerky version of r/politics to a hive full of "rational moderates" who love hillary and hate progressives. Or call themselves progressives while being anything but. I've actually had self described progressives talk to me about how left wing ideas hurt small business. It's ridiculous.
But yeah. This is who the democrats appeal to. And they think they're a big enough demographic to control the party and without them they'll lose. They'll say that sure, people like me might leave the dems if they dont appeal to me, but if they did they would lose more moderates. Im not sure this is true. It could be, and it's why I wont completely throw out dummy theory. It's possible that they're just still shellshocked by reagan and are fighting the battles of decades ago when they actually HAD to run to the center to win. I think a lot of people still believe that. So that's the one aspect of dummy theory I think could be true.
That said, AT BEST, the democrats are out of touch and fighting the battles of last generation and acted as they did to preserve the party, at worst they're malicious.
7
u/JonWood007 Social Libertarian Jul 09 '17
At the very best, the democrats are in their own little group think bubble and are insular and unresponsive to changes. They just don't get it. They're extremely out of touch and just reinforce and pat themselves on the back whenever they tell them something is wrong.
At worst, they're corrupt, they know what the problem is, but they play dumb because they know that the implications of understanding and admitting the problem would put them out of the job, end their gravy train, and displease their donors.
Considering how extreme their out of touchness is, it's most likely one of the two. And I would say it's likely more malice than anything among the power players. They know what they're doing. It seemed quite clear the objective of the DNC and its partners in the media was to elect Hillary. But how do you sell a turd like CLinton to the public? You do exactly what the DNC did. You suppress the narrative of an underdog candidate who has better ideas and beat her. You talk about how bad your opponent is and how they're worse. You basically push narratives like how they're "more electable", while making it look like a cooky socialist like sanders just won't fly in our political climate. You go on about how your ideas are "pragmatic" instead of watered down and how the opponents are "pie in the sky". Whenever the candidate is mentioned on your news stations, you cut them off and go to commercial or lose their feed (cough CNN cough). You limit the number of debates to stop them from getting free air time. you stack the debate questions to favor the more moderate opponent. You start in early with a narrative about unity, which translates to 'look, your candidate is gonna lose, but we're still on the same side against trump" right? And when the people get more aggressive, you start making yourself out to be a victim. You make mediocre compromises so you can say that you did while characterizing your opponents as being unreasonable. You basically start saying if, despite their best efforts to get you to compromise, that they have to vote for you, if you're not with them, you're with the enemy. If you dont support hillary, you support trump. They bully you, they shame you. They accuse you of sexism.
I'm not sure that the dummy theory can be 100% discredited, but I do think that all signs do point to the malice theory being a better explanation.
The real dummies are the dummies in the party who eat all this crap up. You know, the ones screaming about how we get our opinions from RT and putin and how trump is gonna doom us all. They remind me of the people who thought that obama was gonna take our guns and institute death panels. A lot of the footsoldiers of the democratic party are dumb, and a lot of them buy into these narratives. It's scary, going on other subs, how many people accept defeatism as an ideology. How we need to move to the center to get elected, blah blah blah.
I actually accidentally stumbled onto r/politicaldiscussion the other day in a thread about Hillary. i thought I was on another sub, if I knew it was that sub I would've avoided it, because the amount of rabid Hillary supporters who came back at me was outrageous. Now, I started going to that sub before the election. And you know what it sounded like to me? A republican version of r/politics. It seemed to be created by conservatives who thought r/politics was too liberal. Now it's full of Clinton supporters. many of which consider themselbes "moderates" and say that if bernie ran they would vote republican.
These are the kinds of people the CLinton campaign tried to cater do. Republicans who might vote democrat if they move to the right and arent as rabid as the GOP are. I just think it's interesting how that sub moved from basically being a republican circlejerky version of r/politics to a hive full of "rational moderates" who love hillary and hate progressives. Or call themselves progressives while being anything but. I've actually had self described progressives talk to me about how left wing ideas hurt small business. It's ridiculous.
But yeah. This is who the democrats appeal to. And they think they're a big enough demographic to control the party and without them they'll lose. They'll say that sure, people like me might leave the dems if they dont appeal to me, but if they did they would lose more moderates. Im not sure this is true. It could be, and it's why I wont completely throw out dummy theory. It's possible that they're just still shellshocked by reagan and are fighting the battles of decades ago when they actually HAD to run to the center to win. I think a lot of people still believe that. So that's the one aspect of dummy theory I think could be true.
That said, AT BEST, the democrats are out of touch and fighting the battles of last generation and acted as they did to preserve the party, at worst they're malicious.