|
Majorian posted:That's not exactly the argument that a lot of Bernie Bros made here during and after the primaries, though. It wasn't just that Clinton is more corrupt than Sanders; at times, it seemed to be that she was, personally, the single most corrupt, dishonest, Wall Street-friendly person to ever run for office. Which, I think we should be able to agree, is a little bit overboard. I say that as someone who supported Sanders in the primary myself, and argued at the time a lot of what you're saying here. You, personally, may not have made these hyperbolic arguments, and if you didn't, good for you - you were honest in your assessment. But a lot of Bernouts weren't, choosing to adopt the weird caricaturing of Hillary Clinton as something uniquely and peculiarly evil, and that's why their viewpoints got dismissed so reflexively here. I also see this as honest: it had a lot to do with the fact that Clinton is a Clinton, and her political dynasty (which is associated with Third-Way moderation) had staffed the Democratic establishment with loyalists who seemed to have already made up their mind about this primary as a sort of resolution to the 2008 primary. When you're up against a firebrand outsider populist, this is not a good look. The Bushes had of course done the exact same thing, but Jeb! was uniquely awful and so he fizzled out
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
Venom Snake posted:A bunch of alt right crazies including O'keefe. Sorry, I meant "who is she" in this case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:even Howard Dean's argument for being DNC chair over Keith Ellison isn't a battle over ideology, it's literally just "it's a full time job and you are a current sitting house rep" which isn't wrong yeah, this is my one qualm with Ellison anyone know anything about Ray Buckley? he's the current chair of the New Hampshire Dems, who managed to gain 15 house seats and a senate seat on Tuesday, which makes me think he's worth considering
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
how useful of a site is this? http://my.democrats.org/page/s/help-elect-democrats
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Does anyone know why she was at that insane alt-right conference down in Florida? Looking to jump ship maybe 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Does anyone know why she was at that insane alt-right conference down in Florida? Because she's Donna Brazile, establishment knee bender.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:This isn't a defense of shutting down discussion by blaming concerns on sexism. No, but by the same token, there's nothing unfair about calling out the sexist roots of how Hillary Clinton has been caricatured over the past thirty years, both by the right and the left. One can call her a bad candidate without engaging in the Clinton Derangement Syndrome that we saw from Bernouts here. quote:And replaced with someone who supported everything she did, no? Did she? Donna Brazille's an idiot, and was the wrong person to replace DWS with, but I don't see any reason to believe that she fully supported everything DWS did. quote:You're attempting to minimize completely legitimate concerns expressed by the people who were explicitly targeted, on the grounds that "everyone is doing it", "other people did it worse", and "they're too emotional and hyperbolic in their argument that it was bad". If you're critiquing "tenor" in an attempt to shut down anger and disregard valid complaints, yeah, no, that's not a valid criticism, it's just an attempt to deflect. It's an entirely valid criticism. Your argument failed to persuade, because it came off as the ramblings of an out-of-touch conspiracy theorist who had a weirdly inflated view of how evil the first female major party nominee is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
loquacius posted:
a glimmer of solace in this clinton at least gave trump a run for his money people clapped of their own accord
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
With the exception of Donna's two short, interim leader stints, we haven't had someone who was also not serving as an elected official at the same time as being DNC chair since Dean (Kaine was wrapping up his time as governor before becoming chair. There was a year overlap).
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
howard dean will make the dean scream mandatory at all democratic events
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:y'all lusting for blood (which is understandable) but it's silly because all your supposed enemies literally bent the knee without you having to do anything. barring an act of god or keith ellison having a secret human trafficking operation in his basement, the progressives are going to own the DNC from the top down I dunno man, betting markets seem to think it's on like Donkey Kong  I would lol at this but I've been molested by so many monkey paws this year I don't even know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
in britain, they awkwardly mouth the red flag in america, they awkwardly mouth the yeeeargh
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
I can't argue with Dean's results in '06 and '08 but we can't rely on 2 unpopular wars helping advance a progressive agenda in 2 or 4 years from now. At least, I hope that's not the reason progressives get a shot at winning. Also, a good bit of the DNC chair's job is to make sure incumbents raise all the money, right? It's not a great position for anyone to be in...
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
loquacius posted:I also see this as honest: it had a lot to do with the fact that Clinton is a Clinton, and her political dynasty (which is associated with Third-Way moderation) had staffed the Democratic establishment with loyalists who seemed to have already made up their mind about this primary as a sort of resolution to the 2008 primary. When you're up against a firebrand outsider populist, this is not a good look. It's not, but bear in mind, more people felt Clinton was speaking for them than Sanders. Part of that is because Clinton had way more name recognition, but another part of it is that the Democratic base is a big, diverse coalition, and some of the major factions in that coalition felt that Sanders wasn't speaking for them adequately. You're right that Clinton was also Obama's heir-presumptive for years, and the DNC had a stake in her getting the nomination, but one can't simply reduce her winning the nomination to DNC corruption or whatever. In the end, more Democrats voted for her than for Sanders. There's a lesson in that: if left-wing economic populists want to take control of the DNC, and drive out enough votes to win in 2020 (and possibly 2018), they're going to have to do a better job of speaking to all the factions in the Dems' big tent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:I dunno man, betting markets seem to think it's on like Donkey Kong don't make me whip out predictit from the michigan primaries or from election day
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
loquacius posted:https://theintercept.com/2016/10/07/excerpts-of-hillary-clintons-paid-speeches-to-goldman-sachs-finally-leaked/ Jesus christ if even a third of this is true then lmao at anyone who decided to support and/or vote for this person
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Yeah in fairness it's really more of a Palace Coup than a civil war. We were just... really EXPECTING there to be any resistance whatsoever you know? I'd wait a few months before claiming victory there. A lot of connected people are licking their wounds right now and/or symbolically jumping on the bandwagon with the hope stuff dies down shortly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:don't make me whip out predictit from the michigan primaries or from election day Setting money on fire is my fetish. Don't kinkshame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
howard dean huh well since the dnc is ruled from hollywood it makes sense that theyre both really scared of trying now new intellectual property
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
it's possible that in a keith ellisson dnc, he'll just have senior advisors that take some of the work so he can do his congress job. or a co-chair model which i'm kind of warming up to or his big announcement today is that he's gonna resign to run the dnc full time To Save America mrmcd posted:I dunno man, betting markets seem to think it's on like Donkey Kong donna brazile is going to resign in month, the betting markets have no idea how the election works probably
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
iospace posted:Sorry, I meant "who is she" in this case. Donna! Kithkar posted:Because she's Donna Brazile, establishment knee bender. But bending the knee to loving O'keefe? mrmcd posted:I dunno man, betting markets seem to think it's on like Donkey Kong A betting market for an internal party conflict is the dumbest thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's not, but bear in mind, more people felt Clinton was speaking for them than Sanders. Part of that is because Clinton had way more name recognition, but another part of it is that the Democratic base is a big, diverse coalition, and some of the major factions in that coalition felt that Sanders wasn't speaking for them adequately. You're right that Clinton was also Obama's heir-presumptive for years, and the DNC had a stake in her getting the nomination, but one can't simply reduce her winning the nomination to DNC corruption or whatever. In the end, more Democrats voted for her than for Sanders. There's a lesson in that: if left-wing economic populists want to take control of the DNC, and drive out enough votes to win in 2020 (and possibly 2018), they're going to have to do a better job of speaking to all the factions in the Dems' big tent. sanders himself knows this and worked on his minority vote problems during the primary, but it wasn't feasible to turn something like that around in time the biggest reason he lost is large and obvious and not immediately reducible to election fixing, but it's also one sanderistas can identify and tackle and have done in the past
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Tim Kaine fun fact: He has never won an election by more than 1%
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's not, but bear in mind, more people felt Clinton was speaking for them than Sanders. Part of that is because Clinton had way more name recognition, but another part of it is that the Democratic base is a big, diverse coalition, and some of the major factions in that coalition felt that Sanders wasn't speaking for them adequately. You're right that Clinton was also Obama's heir-presumptive for years, and the DNC had a stake in her getting the nomination, but one can't simply reduce her winning the nomination to DNC corruption or whatever. In the end, more Democrats voted for her than for Sanders. There's a lesson in that: if left-wing economic populists want to take control of the DNC, and drive out enough votes to win in 2020 (and possibly 2018), they're going to have to do a better job of speaking to all the factions in the Dems' big tent. The thing Democrats have to overcome is the GOP multi-pronged spear into the heart of the Democratic coalition: Crush Unions - make sure young people can't rely on Unions for work so that the influence of union/teamster leadership doesn't get passed to the next generation (obviously there are other motivations) Continue to divide people with livable wages and people without - Keep offering tax cuts to rich people and middle class workers while shaking down people without a voice Suppress the vote - We've already seen the result of that So the idea of the Democratic party as the new Big Tent party is being upended by the general GOP strategy as they weed out voters from the "tent".
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Peel posted:a glimmer of solace in this Jeb failed immediately, despite the fact that he was basically indistinguishable from HRC and a dude. Maybe Trump really was a better campaigner than Sanders. Majorian posted:It's not, but bear in mind, more people felt Clinton was speaking for them than Sanders. Part of that is because Clinton had way more name recognition, but another part of it is that the Democratic base is a big, diverse coalition, and some of the major factions in that coalition felt that Sanders wasn't speaking for them adequately. You're right that Clinton was also Obama's heir-presumptive for years, and the DNC had a stake in her getting the nomination, but one can't simply reduce her winning the nomination to DNC corruption or whatever. In the end, more Democrats voted for her than for Sanders. There's a lesson in that: if left-wing economic populists want to take control of the DNC, and drive out enough votes to win in 2020 (and possibly 2018), they're going to have to do a better job of speaking to all the factions in the Dems' big tent. An interesting inversion of my main thesis, but not ultimately contradictory with it. We can say that the DNC has to appeal more to the rural working class AND that the demsoc wing has to appeal more to the coastal liberal slash minority blocs. I'm okay with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Tim Kaine fun fact: He has never won an election by more than 1% having a great time with this fact, wish you were all here
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINDtlPXmmE
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Peel posted:sanders himself knows this and worked on his minority vote problems during the primary, but it wasn't feasible to turn something like that around in time  And the fact that Sanders got so little credit for working on his minority vote problems from either the media or the Hillfolk here is one of the things that still pisses me off about the primary, so many lifetimes ago.loquacius posted:An interesting inversion of my main thesis, but not ultimately contradictory with it. We can say that the DNC has to appeal more to the rural working class AND that the demsoc wing has to appeal more to the coastal liberal slash minority blocs. I'm okay with that. Awesome. Yeah, the Dems need to keep in mind that they are, in fact, a coalition, first and foremost. All cylinders need to be firing for this to work. Clearly, the one that was firing the least this time around was the white working class vote/demsoc wing. But my point, as I think you understand, is that we can't tend to this one load-bearing pillar to the exclusion of the others, because the roof will still come down on us that way too. Majorian has issued a correction as of 19:50 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Peel posted:sanders himself knows this and worked on his minority vote problems during the primary, but it wasn't feasible to turn something like that around in time Slimy poo poo like trying to say he lied about attending civil rights protests didn't help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
loquacius posted:An interesting inversion of my main thesis, but not ultimately contradictory with it. We can say that the DNC has to appeal more to the rural working class AND that the demsoc wing has to appeal more to the coastal liberal slash minority blocs. I'm okay with that. The good news (okay "good news" for the progressive wing) is that I'm getting the impression that a lot of the dumb center-left wing has decided that their solution to losing 2016 is to appeal to white people by throwing minorities under the bus In which case the progressive wing is probably pretty set to take the reins because this is probably the dumbest lesson you could actually learn Even dumber than "if it wasn't for our bad luck and a hostile news media we would have won so nothing needs to change."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
reminder this is not the time, place, or forum to air primary grievances
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
sanders also kind of had to throw his whole thing together from protest candidate who literally announced it in a random field in washington dc in front of a group of reporters and onlookers to the voice of american progressives and the left https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOIirPta4h4
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
MJ12 posted:The good news (okay "good news" for the progressive wing) is that I'm getting the impression that a lot of the dumb center-left wing has decided that their solution to losing 2016 is to appeal to white people by throwing minorities under the bus My general impression from the election fallout is that politically involved black people people are convinced they are going to have to save our dumb white asses, again, and I don't disagree. I think we've proved we don't know anything about anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Awesome. Yeah, the Dems need to keep in mind that they are, in fact, a coalition, first and foremost. All cylinders need to be firing for this to work. Cylinders firing to what end? Increasing the social welfare of all citizens, or appealing to corporate interests well enough to secure more funds than your opponent?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
"Poor whites are all stupid" just lost you the election, yet here you are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
ur in my world now posted:"Poor whites are all stupid" just lost you the election, yet here you are. tadashi's post sounded to me more like "establishment dems (who are mostly white) don't know anything about anything so it's up to black politicians (who are generally not establishment dems) to save our asses by actually knowing what the gently caress they're doing" versus "poor whites are all stupid."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
I don't understand how you can lose with guys like this by your side. I legit hope their books get opened though. We need the Mitt Romney truth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Mr. Jive posted:Cylinders firing to what end? Increasing the social welfare of all citizens, or appealing to corporate interests well enough to secure more funds than your opponent? Winning control of all three branches of government, hopefully with the aim of increasing the social welfare of all citizens. (but right now I'm focusing on how to win)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
MJ12 posted:tadashi's post sounded to me more like "establishment dems (who are mostly white) don't know anything about anything so it's up to black politicians (who are generally not establishment dems) to save our asses by actually knowing what the gently caress they're doing" versus "poor whites are all stupid." If that was the point, nothing more than "establishment" had to be said. Because it sounded way closer to the second.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
Thoguh posted:I'd wait a few months before claiming victory there. A lot of connected people are licking their wounds right now and/or symbolically jumping on the bandwagon with the hope stuff dies down shortly. Yeah the problem isnt getting them to bend the knee, its preventing them from weaseling their way back to the top as soon as eyes are off them. And Ellison as DNC chair is hardly a magic bullet, its just potentially an okay first step. Theres lots more barriers to dem success than dnc chair I think the criticism of him based on dem house members having actual work to do is pretty funny considering the circumstances. What is it he would be doing? GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 20:09 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:07
|
|
