|
Typo posted:Support for free trade rise to new highs! That poll doesn't use the term "Free Trade"
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
Typo posted:Support for free trade rise to new highs! That is a misleading way to frame this graph. The question posed was about the opportunities presented by international trade, not necessarily "free trade." Besides that, I still don't think the problem is trade deals or even globalization. The problem is capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
So it's "ratfucking" now to attack your opponent on her loving garbage positions but not to collude with the media to bring down your opponent? Gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Fiction posted:So it's "ratfucking" now to attack your opponent on her loving garbage positions but not to collude with the media to bring down your opponent? Gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Believing that the magnitude by which people "fell for the ratfucking" isn't important, is incredibly dangerous because it leaves you vulnerable to focusing on the wrong problem. The numbers matter. You are asserting the problem was minuscule sans any evidence whatsoever, whereas we know that the actual content of the ratfucking--podesta emails-- were a massive issue in the election. Bury your head deeper if you want, clearly you have no interest in examining our failings in this past election with any sort of objectivity. Typo posted:Support for free trade rise to new highs! That's just democrats, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Fiction posted:So it's "ratfucking" now to attack your opponent on her loving garbage positions but not to collude with the media to bring down your opponent? Gotcha. No it's ratfucking to hack your opponents and leak information that will inflame tensions in your opponent's coalition. You can't be this obtuse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Fiction posted:So it's "ratfucking" now to attack your opponent on her loving garbage positions but not to collude with the media to bring down your opponent? Gotcha. This isn't what happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Well, probably that too, yeah. Not really. She was kind of a microcosm of everything wrong with the modern Democratic party. It's why criticism of her from the left has been so intense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Not really. She was kind of a microcosm of everything wrong with the modern Democratic party. It's why criticism of her from the left has been so intense. Maybe, but somebody like Cory Booker could probably win the presidency regardless. That isn't ideal and he'd probably suck but problems related to the specific reasons why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 elections. The point is that there's two separate arguments. How do we put a Democratic President in, in 2020, versus how do we marginalize the right and put progressives in every level of government for longer than a cycle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Typo posted:Support for free trade rise to new highs! That's a dumb loving question in terms of phrasing (it's not exports so much as comparative advantage  ) but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Maybe, but somebody like Cory Booker could probably win the presidency regardless. That isn't ideal and he'd probably suck but problems related to the specific reasons why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 elections. how are those not the exact same argument except for planning national debates for the primary candidates in 2020
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:how are those not the exact same argument except for planning national debates for the primary candidates in 2020 Because a neoliberal centrist Democrat not named Hillary Clinton could probably beat Donald Trump in 2020, even if in the long term that wouldn't help make the party less lovely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Hey look, NBC wrote a story about the lovely posters determined to turn this into the primary thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Politico reports that the UAW is going to endorse Ellison, and that the SEIU is going to informally encourage members to vote for him. The article has a good breakdown of which unions have endorsed who, so far. Something I missed from a couple weeks ago: Gloria Steinem endorsed Ellison. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No it's ratfucking to hack your opponents and leak information that will inflame tensions in your opponent's coalition. You can't be this obtuse. It was certainly an attempt at ratfucking Hillary, and it may have cost her the election. And that sucks. But we're here now, and the conversation that this started effectively deposed Schultz as the chair and started the Democrats down what could be the path to being the party that doesn't just offer up the least bad option, but actually presents candidates that can sell progressive policies to the working class. Being mad at Bernie bros for being lovely about identity politics and party solidarity is the least helpful response to any of this. What we should be doing is embracing the debate that's happening right now and encourage the Democratic party to finally, actually embrace and enforce the spirit of the New Deal. We can either do it now, or we can do it after the next Great Depression. Financial deregulation and climate change aren't going to wait for us to come to our senses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
I don't think it's self evident that the political strategy the left is outlining will make it easier to win the next election. I don't intend to mistake the things I want to be true for the things that actually are true, again, after making that mistake this past election. That's how I'm participating in that debate. It's also a bit galling to have people who just got ratfucked without batting an eye claim that the election somehow validates the sophistication of their politics. Like I don't necessarily think Bernie would have lost, but it seems like the height of naive hubris to be utterly convinced he would have won. And so insofar as the DNC election has been turned into a proxy battle for that argument, I'm not really excited for Ellison to win precisely because it would validate a strategy I think has significant risks. Which is not to say I don't think we should keep pushing democrats left or that we should never take risks. I do think it's really disingenuous to suggest a Perez win would signal a Democratic Party that has no interest in moving left.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm not really excited for Ellison to win precisely because it would validate a strategy I think has significant risks. We've lost 900+ seats over 8 years, and Republicans are about to hold all three branches of government. Why should the Democratic party be risk-averse in any way? What is there left to protect?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't think it's self evident that the political strategy the left is outlining will make it easier to win the next election. I don't intend to mistake the things I want to be true for the things that actually are true, again, after making that mistake this past election. That's how I'm participating in that debate. So no, this election did not validate my sophisticated politics at all, and before it happened you and I would have probably agreed on basically everything. What this election did was destroy my politics and, since I happened to be in the middle of a move at that time and at my in-law's house overseas with nothing to do for most of November but dwell on the loss, also forced me to pretty much reevaluate from first principles everything I believe about policy and about what makes for a convincing message and winning candidate. So while you might disagree with me, don't think that any of this is some kind of ultimate "I told you so" coming from me at least - maybe for others but most definitely not for me. I didn't tell anyone poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't think it's self evident that the political strategy the left is outlining will make it easier to win the next election. Um, you do realize that some people want these changes because they think they are good things for reasons other than helping to win elections, right? People are not advocating for leftist policy just because they think it is a pragmatic strategic decision that will get more votes; they're advocating for it because they think it will help people. You're free to disagree with that, but you keep trying to recast things in terms of "are you literally 100% sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that moving to the left will help win elections?!" when people are just saying they think it's a good idea because they think such policy will help people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
The argument for moderate centrism was always a pragmatic one that it may not help anyone but it could win against the Republicans' actively harmful policies. But it can't even do that at any level of government so there's nothing left to recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
Typo posted:Support for free trade rise to new highs! Well duh. Free Trade is universally good. Protectionism is about as a dumb as Mercantilism in the modern world. Cease to Hope posted:Politico reports that the UAW is going to endorse Ellison, and that the SEIU is going to informally encourage members to vote for him. The article has a good breakdown of which unions have endorsed who, so far. In actual news, that appears to be a big blow to Perez. If you're the former Labor Secretary and can't snag the UAW or SEIU you're in a bit of trouble. JeffersonClay posted:I don't think it's self evident that the political strategy the left is outlining will make it easier to win the next election. I don't intend to mistake the things I want to be true for the things that actually are true, again, after making that mistake this past election. That's how I'm participating in that debate. I hate this whole DNC election bullshit because it's forcing us to succumb to the bullshit "feels not reals" things the Republicans have been stuck in since the Bush era. If we're going to make policy and have internal party elections based on not the reality on the ground but what people feel like is true, how the hell can we claim to be the adults in the room? axeil fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:We've lost 900+ seats over 8 years, and Republicans are about to hold all three branches of government. Why should the Democratic party be risk-averse in any way? What is there left to protect? I don't disagree that democrats need to do something different. I don't think it's self evident that the only reasonable choice is to take a hard left. Looking at the clusterfuck trump is managing to create in the whitehouse, I think democrats are going to have the easiest path by focusing their efforts on being anti-trump, tying the republicans to trump, and making smart marginal improvements to the 2016 platform. This strikes me as significantly less risky than a strategy where we take a hard left and find out that welp, Americans do really have an irrational opposition to socialism, and the republicans really are good at weaponizing it. Ytlaya posted:Um, you do realize that some people want these changes because they think they are good things for reasons other than helping to win elections, right? People are not advocating for leftist policy just because they think it is a pragmatic strategic decision that will get more votes; they're advocating for it because they think it will help people. You're free to disagree with that, but you keep trying to recast things in terms of "are you literally 100% sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that moving to the left will help win elections?!" when people are just saying they think it's a good idea because they think such policy will help people. We need to win the next election. That matters more than anything else. I don't need 100% proof, but you're deluding yourself if you have anything approaching that level of certainty that leftist policy is going to help us in 2 years. VitalSigns posted:The argument for moderate centrism was always a pragmatic one that it may not help anyone but it could win against the Republicans' actively harmful policies. It's obviously not the only variable, and it's silly to think one data point can disprove the entire trend. We know Bill Clinton and Obama were able to win big by appealing to the middle. And I don't necessarily agree with your premise. Hillary ran a campaign further left than any other democrat in 40 years, its not obvious that the problem was not being far enough left. I'm not willing to ignore all the other possibilities because I really want the US to be ready for actual leftism. I just mistook the things I want to be true for the things that are true, and I'm not keen to repeat the error.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Right I think the problem is the left assumes that veering harder left will somehow rouse people or turn people away from Republicans to vote for Democrats and I am just really not convinced that you can make that case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Right I think the problem is the left assumes that veering harder left will somehow rouse people or turn people away from Republicans to vote for Democrats and I am just really not convinced that you can make that case. Economicly yes. People want better wages. They want control of their schools. They like big money out of politics. They want refs So they don't get poisoned. Now on social issues is where the debate lies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
The left turn is more about turning out people who don't vote, rather than appeal to people who vote republican. I don't think it's enough to be not-Trump. Kerry was not-Bush and look how that turned out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Right I think the problem is the left assumes that veering harder left will somehow rouse people or turn people away from Republicans to vote for Democrats and I am just really not convinced that you can make that case. because not doing that has worked oh so well
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
If there's anything the left and right can agree on its that when you lose it was because you weren't extreme enough. Though I guess that did work for the Republicans in the end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Economicly yes. People want better wages. They want control of their schools. They like big money out of politics. They want refs Uh it's actually the literal exact opposite according to all the data.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Right I think the problem is the left assumes that veering harder left will somehow rouse people or turn people away from Republicans to vote for Democrats and I am just really not convinced that you can make that case. You continue to conflate "being true to the principles of actual liberalism" with "veering harder left". Aggressively selling good policy with a clear, well-defined message will work just as well as the aggressive sale of lovely policy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
tsa posted:Uh it's actually the literal exact opposite according to all the data. Really? Why did higher minimum wage referendums pass In red states? Why did South Dakota pass a anti corruption referendum. Why did Michigan and Ohio pass referendums against right to work and charter schools. Must be because people want libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Economicly yes. People want better wages. They want control of their schools. They like big money out of politics. They want refs Yes, people want these things. No, it's not clear they think the means to get them is leftist policy. Trump promised better wages by kicking out immigrants, cutting regulations, and protectionism. local control of schools is very often in service of conservatism. Alter Ego posted:You continue to conflate "being true to the principles of actual liberalism" with "veering harder left". Aggressively selling good policy with a clear, well-defined message will work just as well as the aggressive sale of lovely policy. If you're claiming all we have is a marketing problem, I dont think you're necessarily wrong. But I don't think most of the die hard Ellison supporters would agree that all we have is a marketing problem. snyprmag posted:The left turn is more about turning out people who don't vote, rather than appeal to people who vote republican. Bush was much more popular in 2004 than Trump is now. If he gets his poo poo together and his approval rating is at or above 50%, maybe making the election a referrendum on Trump won't work, but that's not the trend we're seeing now. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
"Don't talk policy, just trash Trump" is literally the exact strategy that lost Hillary the election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Honestly, I almost feel charisma is more important than ideology no matter how much people complain. Bill Clinton and Obama won handily while Kerry and Hillary Clinton lost and the main difference between Bill and Obama and Kerry and Hillary is that the former two have charisma, while the former two while they'd have probably made fine presidents don't really have that type of charisma that works for big crowds and presidential campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Gorelab posted:Honestly, I almost feel charisma is more important than ideology no matter how much people complain. Bill Clinton and Obama won handily while Kerry and Hillary Clinton lost and the main difference between Bill and Obama and Kerry and Hillary is that the former two have charisma, while the former two while they'd have probably made fine presidents don't really have that type of charisma that works for big crowds and presidential campaigns. While I don't necessarily disagree with this, I also don't want people to dismiss the decades-long criticism and smear campaigns the Republican party attached to Hillary. Those preconceived prejudices were real important imo edit: not to mention her long and rocky relationship with the media Chelb fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
GHWB was able to ride Reagan's coat tails to one term despite having way less charisma. 2000 and 2016 were both really close, and if the Clinton and Obama administrations had better legacies I think the dem candidates could have overcame the outside poo poo that swung it. A little more charisma and better messaging probably could have done it too. But outside of winning elections, they need to build institutions and policies people actually like and associate with the democrats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:"Don't talk policy, just trash Trump" is literally the exact strategy that lost Hillary the election. Before, Trump was a blank slate; some voters projected their hopes onto him rather than see him for what he was. Next time, he'll have a (historically terrible) record and won't be able to run on empty anti-establishment platitudes. He and the Republican Party are the establishment now, and they'll own the disaterous consequences of letting him into power. There's no reason to think making elections into referendums on unpopular incumbents doesn't work anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes, people want these things. No, it's not clear they think the means to get them is leftist policy. Trump promised better wages by kicking out immigrants, cutting regulations, and protectionism. local control of schools is very often in service of conservatism. People in red states just voted for this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
For what? A higher minimum wage? That's great! Does that mean that democrats should fight for 15 and reject any lower amount as a spineless compromise? I don't think so. A 10 dollar federal minimum has more support than a 12 dollar minimum, and they both have more support than a 15 dollar minimum, which polls below 50% often enough to worry me. 12 looks like the best in terms of risk/reward.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:For what? A higher minimum wage? That's great! Does that mean that democrats should fight for 15 and reject any lower amount as a spineless compromise? ...yes? $15 is living wage adjusted for inflation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
Alter Ego posted:...yes? $15 is living wage adjusted for inflation. you're talking to everything wrong with the democrats made flesh
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 20:45
|
|