|
Kilroy posted:Do you think the Democratic party is a lost cause? Should leftists shift their support elsewhere? As things stand right now I don't know what the left should do. Supporting another group is a non-starter who are we going to back. But the Democrats are dying, their "brand" is toxic and the people in change are even more toxic. Until they've shown a sign of learning how to appeal to actually appeal to people and not loving ghoul policy wonks that love rules, than well we're hosed. I don't think we'll gain jack poo poo in the coming years as Republicans make voting harder and harder. gently caress the Democrats can't even control New York loving state how do we expect them to control anywhere. Democrats had their shot and they hosed it up and now we're all going to suffer while the Clinton's, the Podesta's, the Obama's, the Schemer's, they get to live their lives of privilege and loving comfort.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:like why the gently caress, as a socialist, wouldn't you want the free party line voters?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Because the center-right idiots with a death grip on the party apparatus aren't even poor allies - they are vehemently anti-left and would rather see the GOP rule unchecked in perpetuity than an actual leftist party in this country with national influence. Exactly ideally we should just take over the party. But the people in change will do everything they can to stop that because raising taxes on them hurts their feelings. And in the off chance we actually did, we'd end up like what's happening in Labour right now where they've decided Tory rule is better than a socialist from the 70s. Or they'd all just back Bloomberg Independent types
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
dems need a tea party moment. They need a massive influx of new people from local levels on up who actually have conviction. People love to decry the "circular firing squad" but the Tea Party had a good bit of that and repubs ended up better positioned to take and hold power as a result. A recession is coming and the administration/congress will eat poo poo for it in the eyes of a lot of Americans. Need to have candidates running when/after it happens to take advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:As things stand right now I don't know what the left should do. The answer is be unreasonable, primary everyone, and never compromise. Force the third way to bend to our will in order to keep their jobs and then kick them out anyways. That is literally the only option left at this point Kilroy posted:Because the center-right idiots with a death grip on the party apparatus aren't even poor allies - they are vehemently anti-left and would rather see the GOP rule unchecked in perpetuity than an actual leftist party in this country with national influence. They will literally start undermining their own party if the Bernie wing takes over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:The answer is be unreasonable, primary everyone, and never compromise. Force the third way to bend to our will in order to keep their jobs and then kick them out anyways. That is literally the only option left at this point So do the first option, primary them. First primary Corey.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Exactly ideally we should just take over the party. But the people in change will do everything they can to stop that because raising taxes on them hurts their feelings. I dunno, I think people on the left can sometimes overestimate how hard it will be to take over the DNC. The centrists may be anti-left, but as Schumer has showed in his support for Ellison, they're also cowards who will bend with the wind. The left just needs to be unrelenting and loud.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Because the center-right idiots with a death grip on the party apparatus aren't even poor allies - they are vehemently anti-left and would rather see the GOP rule unchecked in perpetuity than an actual leftist party in this country with national influence. Exactly. For all the talk about economic leftists being sexist and racist, it's the party leaders and their supporters that seem to be willing to allow the GOP to have free reign over every disadvantaged group than change any of their clearly losing strategies. readingatwork posted:The answer is be unreasonable, primary everyone, and never compromise. Force the third way to bend to our will in order to keep their jobs and then kick them out anyways. That is literally the only option left at this point Yeah you saw this in England where the party took out the internal knives rather than attack the Tories after Brexit (to hilarious results). I think the only answer at this point is someone able to crowdfund a Bernie campaign amount of money into primaries to oust Democrats. The good thing is that Democrats are notoriously stupid about allocating money to elections so you could probably outspend their incumbents easily as they shove all the cash into Schumer's district. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah you saw this in England where the party took out the internal knives rather than attack the Tories after Brexit (to hilarious results). To be fair, that's an easier thing to do when you have more than two parties, and it's a parliamentary system where coalitions can be formed relatively easily.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Because the center-right idiots with a death grip on the party apparatus aren't even poor allies - they are vehemently anti-left and would rather see the GOP rule unchecked in perpetuity than an actual leftist party in this country with national influence. KomradeX posted:Exactly ideally we should just take over the party. But the people in change will do everything they can to stop that because raising taxes on them hurts their feelings. And in the off chance we actually did, we'd end up like what's happening in Labour right now where they've decided Tory rule is better than a socialist from the 70s. Or they'd all just back Bloomberg Independent types if you honestly believe this, you might as well give up on the electoral process: a third party is probably not getting control of the legislature any time soon, and if you're theory is that rump Dems would rather caucus with Republicans, you're giving Republicans the cover of a bipartisan supermajority to entirely gently caress over the country
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Part of why Trump won is because people felt that they could see some change after 8 years. People felt this way because Obama was not a good enough president. If Obama had been a truly great president, people would have been tripping over themselves to vote for his alleged successor. Even if it was Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Part of why Trump won is because people felt that they could see some change after 8 years. People felt this way because Obama was not a good enough president. I'm not so sure that's accurate. The fact of the matter is, Hillary Clinton's been hated by about half the country with the fire of a thousand suns since long before anyone ever heard of Barack Obama.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This didn't work in 2016; why should it work in 2020? The Dems need to propose a concrete alternative. Trump didn't have a record. Now he will. This ain't hard. readingatwork posted:So no actual policy or priority changes are needed? I'd be open to some incremental movement left from the 2016 platform but I don't think that's necessary. Didn't you just argue that policy doesn't matter and voters just want a strong man of action? Majorian posted:"Job killing" regulations and taxes. He promised different regulations and taxes, because he knew his base supported protectionism - which requires government intervention. Lol this is a pathetic attempt to rewrite history. Trump talked about gutting regulations, not making new ones. He talked about privatizing public works and services. He talked about cutting corporate taxes. You can't pretend these things didn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Trump talked about imposing new, stronger regulations that would cut down on who could compete for jobs and expand the number of jobs available. He promised to use the power of the office to economically help the (white) working class, while Clinton was ultimately in favor of reducing regulations that would arrest capital's ability to move around or out of the country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:if you're theory is that rump Dems would rather caucus with Republicans, you're giving Republicans the cover of a bipartisan supermajority to entirely gently caress over the country
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
You've spent the past few pages bitching about back stabbing leftists and have been prone to blaming the election loss on them altogether. Why the gently caress are you so resistant to throwing them a bone so that they don't "back stab you" as you see it? How is that not necessary?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Didn't you just argue that policy doesn't matter and voters just want a strong man of action?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:You've spent the past few pages bitching about back stabbing leftists and have been prone to blaming the election loss on them altogether. Why the gently caress are you so resistant to throwing them a bone so that they don't "back stab you" as you see it? How is that not necessary? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:You've spent the past few pages bitching about back stabbing leftists and have been prone to blaming the election loss on them altogether. Why the gently caress are you so resistant to throwing them a bone so that they don't "back stab you" as you see it? How is that not necessary? I said they were too dumb to realize they were being ratfucked and fell for it. Throwing them a bone won't make them any smarter-- indeed it will teach them they need only gently caress up a presidential election to get what they want. I wasn't making the argument that they lost the election on purpose because the 2016 platform wasn't leftist enough. Is that the case you're making? Ferrinus posted:Trump talked about imposing new, stronger regulations that would cut down on who could compete for jobs and expand the number of jobs available. He promised to use the power of the office to economically help the (white) working class, while Clinton was ultimately in favor of reducing regulations that would arrest capital's ability to move around or out of the country. Only if you completely ignore environmental, labor, and tax policy. Your argument is obviously nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'd be open to some incremental movement left from the 2016 platform but I don't think that's necessary. Didn't you just argue that policy doesn't matter and voters just want a strong man of action? I've never argued policy doesn't matter. However I do believe that the appearance of strength can override contradictory policy positions. That said how do you intend to signal that Democrats are the party of change if the party refuses to make any real changes internally? I don't think that's as easy of a sell as you think it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:You've spent the past few pages bitching about back stabbing leftists and have been prone to blaming the election loss on them altogether. Why the gently caress are you so resistant to throwing them a bone so that they don't "back stab you" as you see it? How is that not necessary?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I said they were too dumb to realize they were being ratfucked and fell for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Only if you completely ignore environmental, labor, and tax policy. Your argument is obviously nonsense. No-oo, because "government intervention" is not some kind of undifferentiated fluid resource such that wanting more of some type and less of another type adds up to not caring about it. Trump's platform was not "I will stop government intervention in the market" - that was the collective platform of the interchangeable nerds he goomba stomped in the Republican primary. Trump's platform specifically promised certain kinds of interventions that America had heretofore not been engaging in, interventions at odds with hardcore laissez-faire market principles. Interventions particularly at odds with the laissez-faire market principles Clinton of the hemispheric common market stood for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:JeffersonClay believes the American left exists in a quantum superposition of states: simultaneously few in number, unreliable as a voting bloc, incapable of leadership, and able to bring down establishment Presidential candidates on a whim.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
on a whim? No. in an election which hinged on .01% of the vote? It's just as plausible as "neoliberalism made people stay home".
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I said they were too dumb to realize they were being ratfucked and fell for it. Throwing them a bone won't make them any smarter-- indeed it will teach them they need only gently caress up a presidential election to get what they want. I wasn't making the argument that they lost the election on purpose because the 2016 platform wasn't leftist enough. Is that the case you're making? Your characterization of what I was saying is weird. How about this:What harm does throwing them a bone cause? Doesn't it strengthen the party's message and broad appeal?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Wait, are you talking about the primary, and we "fell for it" by voting for Clinton in the general? Or, are you talking about the general, and we "fell for it" by not voting? Fell for it by going into a tizzy every time putin pushed out another hacked document that suggested to the dimmest among us the democrats stole the election from Bernie. Ferrinus posted:No-oo, because "government intervention" is not some kind of undifferentiated fluid resource such that wanting more of some type and less of another type adds up to not caring about it. Trump's platform was not "I will stop government intervention in the market" - that was the collective platform of the interchangeable nerds he goomba stomped in the Republican primary. Trump's platform specifically promised certain kinds of interventions that America had heretofore not been engaging in, interventions at odds with hardcore laissez-faire market principles. Interventions particularly at odds with the laissez-faire market principles Clinton of the hemispheric common market stood for. He advocated both protectionism and gutting the regulatory state. And privatization. And massive tax cuts. He is absolutely an advocate for laissez-faire domestic economic policy. So it's incredibly disingenuous to call him an advocate for more government intervention in the economy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:on a whim? No. in an election which hinged on .01% of the vote? It's just as plausible as "neoliberalism made people stay home". It's not about "X makes people stay home" since Obama is a centrist[1] and people came out to vote for him. But they didn't come out to vote for him because he's a centrist, they came out to vote for him because he manages to be charismatic despite having few strong convictions of his own. Rather it's about what gets people out to vote other than charisma. Bernie Sanders isn't terribly charismatic, yet he gave the preordained establishment candidate a run for her money in the primary because he actually had, you know, ideas of his own that he credibly believed in. You want to talk about dressing up centrism with a more charismatic candidate because it worked for Obama and you think it can work again. You might be right. The Democrats might squeak out a narrow win with a run-of-mill centrist candidate who has a nice voice, can work a crowd, and think on his feet in a debate. I think what you're failing to realize though, is the left has some very recent experience with charismatic centrist candidates who talk a good game during the election season and fail to deliver. They might not fall for that again for a while. You might consider supporting a leftist candidate who is also charismatic to shore up the left and secure the party line folks along with the people who just blindly vote for the more charismatic candidate. [1] I'm not saying "neoliberalism" anymore since it triggers folks who like to dust off the dictionary and link endlessly to Wikipedia over it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Fell for it by going into a tizzy every time putin pushed out another hacked document that suggested to the dimmest among us the democrats stole the election from Bernie. You mean by releasing actual emails revealing things the DNC and the Hillary camp actually did like helping Hillary cheat during the town halls?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Fell for it by going into a tizzy every time putin pushed out another hacked document that suggested to the dimmest among us the democrats stole the election from Bernie. Leftists who pay close attention to politics and don't want the country going full fascist did turn out to vote for Clinton. Ordinary voters with vaguely leftist opinions and who are maybe uncertain what fascism is, especially in a few crucial swing states, did not. That's who the leftists here want to appeal to - not the people arguing about socialism on the internet all day. Understand that most / many of the leftists you're arguing with on this board will probably turn out to vote for whatever lovely candidate your peers in the DNC party apparatus conspire to put forward in 2020, including probably myself  . That alone is not going to win elections though - and the leftists in your party have better ideas about what will win elections than you do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:He advocated both protectionism and gutting the regulatory state. And privatization. And massive tax cuts. He is absolutely an advocate for laissez-faire domestic economic policy. So it's incredibly disingenuous to call him an advocate for more government intervention in the economy. He is not an advocate for laissez-faire domestic policy because he is an advocate for protectionism. Now, protectionism is a bad response to the problems facing the American worker. Even if it wasn't, any good it might do would certainly be undone by the catastrophic damage arising from the destruction of all other regulation. But that isn't the point! The point is that Trump wants something none of the other Republicans wanted - to intervene in the markets in a novel and unsubtle way - and it propelled him ahead of the other Republicans. Wanting to use the power of government to screw around with the markets just isn't a poison pill in American politics. In fact, being too craven and spineless to even consider the idea is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:if you honestly believe this, you might as well give up on the electoral process: I kind if have. Just beyond that the Democrats don't really want to change anything, what with Jim Crow 2.0 and more voter suppression going on in this country what does the electoral process do besides give legitimacy to regressive gently caress sticks bent on Gilded Age 2: Now with more child slave labor. Look at Michigan, what is the point of even electing a city government if that government has no power because the governor has appointed economic dictators to run all of its local government. And the Democrats still can't unseat Snyder, they couldn't even unseat Brown in Kansas who's run the state directly into the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:on a whim? No. in an election which hinged on .01% of the vote? It's just as plausible as "neoliberalism made people stay home". Kinda unfortunate that there was absolutely nothing Clinton and her campaign could have done themselves to swing 0.01% of the vote.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Your characterization of what I was saying is weird. How about this:What harm does throwing them a bone cause? Doesn't it strengthen the party's message and broad appeal? Who the hell throws a bone to a dog that doesn't bark? Seriously that's the establishment calculus and if you're expecting them to look at the vote results in the general and think "hmm, maybe we should pivot leftward to pick up non-voters" you're pushing against a hell of a lot of precedent. The GOP is the raving horde it is today because their moderate boring establishment kept losing primaries to nutters who think legitimate rapes just automatically miscarry. They didn't lean rightward out of the blackness of their hearts, they followed the votes. You want to fire a shot across the SS Milquetoast? Send someone to primary DiFi. Feinstein might win through sheer inertia but much like Hillary's reversal on the TPP the pressure will magically cause them to shapeshift into something less grotesque. Send someone to primary Booker from the left with a big plank about busting up banks, batting at Booker for his donors and graft. He might win but with a solid showing it'll probably scare him away from banks a bit. Sitting elections out and removing your sole point of data from their idiot panopticon isn't going to make things go your way because they don't work that way. It took a generation of massive donor checks and huge 'bipartisan' giveaways to break the party so expecting the clouds to part in 2 years is hilariously misguided. E: think of the party from head to toe as an old blind mule. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:You mean by releasing actual emails revealing things the DNC and the Hillary camp actually did like helping Hillary cheat during the town halls? We have evidence from the DNC emails of exactly one question from exactly one town hall being leaked to the Clinton camp. Not a great thing to be sure but it's not exactly something I can get worked up about. I mean, it's not like I would have expected Clinton to not have a canned answer to a death penalty question ready to recite from memory in the event that one gets asked. I just can't see it materially affecting anything, so I just can't care.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Schpyder posted:We have evidence from the DNC emails of exactly one question from exactly one town hall being leaked to the Clinton camp. Not a great thing to be sure but it's not exactly something I can get worked up about. I mean, it's not like I would have expected Clinton to not have a canned answer to a death penalty question ready to recite from memory in the event that one gets asked. I just can't see it materially affecting anything, so I just can't care. You should care because it exemplifies the lazy incompetence of the New Democrat establishment. The only thing worse than cheating is cheating when you're going to win anyway, because that makes you dumb as well as corrupt. It was absolutely a self-inflicted wound for the Democrats, and over time those things pile up until you get humiliatingly defeated by a cheeto golem. So unless you want more of that in the future, the Democrats kinda need to find new leadership and fast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
The fact that she was in a situation where cheating was pointless and nevertheless chose to cheat is itself a bit concerning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Like I said, ratfucked and proud of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Schpyder posted:Not a great thing to be sure but it's not exactly something I can get worked up about. The problem is 'not a great thing, to be sure' is something you can say about hundreds of Clinton's problems. We can rationalize away a lot of Clinton's flaws, but of 10 people that need to vote for her in order for her to win, maybe only 9 rationalize away and vote for her; 1 stays home.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
Schpyder posted:We have evidence from the DNC emails of exactly one question from exactly one town hall being leaked to the Clinton camp. Not a great thing to be sure but it's not exactly something I can get worked up about. I mean, it's not like I would have expected Clinton to not have a canned answer to a death penalty question ready to recite from memory in the event that one gets asked. I just can't see it materially affecting anything, so I just can't care. And what happened to Donna Brazile because she was willing to cheat for Hillary? Hillary as the de-facto head of the Democratic Party gave her a cushy job as the DNC chair. Do you not see how the Democratic Party could be seen as corrupt and how that would register with voters, or is it just fine for you because it was your side that did the cheating?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 00:04
|
|
