|
Looks like the teachers' union is endorsing Ellison now too. vvvv NEA The Little Kielbasa fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Feb 17, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
Alter Ego posted:...yes? $15 is living wage adjusted for inflation. 12 polls around 60% and 15 polls around 50%. We need around 55% to overcome republican gerrymandering and take the house. If your position is that we should not consider the political consequences of policy and let our hearts be our guide, that's fine, but I don't agree. The Little Kielbasa posted:Looks like the teachers' union is endorsing Ellison now too. NEA or AFT?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
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? 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. people don't loving vote based on that level of granularity. that's the issue with your approach here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Fiction posted:people don't loving vote based on that level of granularity. that's the issue with your approach here. I don't put a lot of faith in your evidence-free assertions, that's the issue with your approach here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
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? 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. This is exactly the sort of spineless, data-driven waffling that loses elections and makes the public lose faith in the party. We've been fighting to compromise for what's possible for a decade, and we've lost horrendously as a result, and we've deserved it. Our opponents have been presenting a fascist, top-down vision of what the future should look like while we run around meekly taking the temperature of our constituents and trying to please every single member of the big tent, thereby pleasing nobody. We need to loving stand up for something. Leadership does not mean doing what's popular and polls well, it means presenting a clear vision for a better future and building a coalition around it. If we don't do it, the Republicans will and we know what their vision of the future looks like. So yes, any lower amount is a spineless compromise. You know how to get that to poll better? Stand up and loving fight for it, you pathetic coward.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:12 polls around 60% and 15 polls around 50%. We need around 55% to overcome republican gerrymandering and take the house. No, we need to stand for something, and that something should be a minimum wage that makes it so the single mother of 3 that lives in the lovely inner-city apartment only has to work one job instead of two or three. If it only polls at 50%, then that just means we haven't advocated for it hard enough or shown clearly enough how it would benefit everyone. We have dialed it back for far too long--it's time to crank up the volume and rip the loving knob off. Why you keep insisting that poll-tested bromides are the best way is beyond me. That way of thinking just lost an election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't put a lot of faith in your evidence-free assertions, that's the issue with your approach here. the evidence is the electoral success of an idiot with no plans and the abject electoral failure of this very type of tightrope politics that Clinton was attempting to turn into a wave.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Fiction posted:the evidence is the electoral success of an idiot with no plans and the abject electoral failure of this very type of tightrope politics that Clinton was attempting to turn into a wave. Trump had plans, we just didn't like them, and the problem with Clinton's focus on racism and sexism may well have been that they didn't poll test it, and instead relied on their heartfelt belief that America just wouldn't ever vote for a monster like trump. Alter Ego posted:No, we need to stand for something, and that something should be a minimum wage that makes it so the single mother of 3 that lives in the lovely inner-city apartment only has to work one job instead of two or three. If it only polls at 50%, then that just means we haven't advocated for it hard enough or shown clearly enough how it would benefit everyone. We have dialed it back for far too long--it's time to crank up the volume and rip the loving knob off. Its absurd to suggest that focusing on a 15 dollar minimum wage is only about wanting to help the poor and has nothing at all to do with political calculus. Expanding the welfare state would help the poor quite a lot more than increasing the minimum wage, because lots of poor people arent employed, and the ones that are would benefit from being able to work less, like the example you provide here. But we focus on raising the minimum wage because it polls well. We know raising the minimum wage is easier than expanding the welfare state because it's not vulnerable to the standard republican attacks on welfare queens and lazy poors. So we've already compromised our pure principles here, the minimum wage is good policy in part because it can win. But if your position on the minimum wage is so extreme and inflexible that it is no longer politically advantageous, what's the point? If you think all we need to do is stand for something and be loud and proud, why not fight for a guaranteed minimum income or any other serious socialist policy that might actually help all poor people? Because, whether you can admit it or not, you have already accepted how vital it is to pick policies that majorities of the population might reasonably support.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Really? Why did higher minimum wage referendums pass Show me one referendum that passed while including an explicit raising of taxes. Fiction posted:the evidence is the electoral success of an idiot with no plans and the abject electoral failure of this very type of tightrope politics that Clinton was attempting to turn into a wave. "This very type of tightrope politics" was Hillary going further left than anyone before.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Yeah minimum wage is a relic of a different age: campaign on abolishing it and replacing it with basic income IMO 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
UBI as a real social policy is already being cautiously floated by rich Silicon Valley techlords, and before that by Richard Nixon. Of course, in Nixon's case it was intended to be an unlivable pittance that would act as a cover for the total destruction of the welfare state. In the case of the SV techlords I think they feel like the only alternatives for them are paying the undeserving lazy non-computer-touching poor (ugh) a UBI, or turning the United States into a Brazilian hellhole where everybody who isn't dirt poor lives under siege in walled compounds surrounded by armed guards. And even then they expect the actual paying for the UBI to be somebody else's problem; they've got tax shelters for avoiding that sort of thing. I don't think it's so outlandish these days to incorporate UBI into the platform as something we should maybe think about working towards. Sure it's extremist crazy leftist crap, but the extremist crazy rightist crap of the 1960s is already mainstream political orthodoxy for economic, social, and foreign policy. So much the worse for the facts if they show that most if it has been an unmitigated disaster in practice. The bigger problem is that what people are actually in favor of is UBI for white people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah minimum wage is a relic of a different age: campaign on abolishing it and replacing it with basic income IMO My point is that supporting a 15 dollar minimum wage isn't spineless compromising bullshit just because a superior but less achievable option exists, and the same thing is true for a 12 dollar minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Wherein you treat Hillary and Bill as the same person and also get your history wrong about Bill "stabbing the left in the back" (He didn't, because he never ran on a promise to do anything for the left.) From a while back but holy poo poo, you are absolutely shameless. Hillary was an active proponent of her husband's policies ("superpredators"), more so than a regular first lady. She also defended them during her 2007 campaign, and has actively worked to link herself to her husband's politics (because she thought that would benefit her). These are decisions Hillary personally made to link herself to her Bill. No use crying about it now. This is also disregarding that Hillary has her own conservative record in the Senate, where she voted for the Iraq war, among other things. Or her time at the state department where she pushed for intervention in Libya. She has always been rightly known as a conservative Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:From a while back but holy poo poo, you are absolutely shameless. Hillary was an active proponent of her husband's policies ("superpredators"), more so than a regular first lady. She also defended them during her 2007 campaign, and has actively worked to link herself to her husband's politics (because she thought that would benefit her). These are decisions Hillary personally made to link herself to her Bill. No use crying about it now. Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton is running for DNC chair, nor are any of these policies major topics of debate in the DNC chair race.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton is running for DNC chair, nor are any of these policies major topics of debate in the DNC chair race.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:From a while back but holy poo poo, you are absolutely shameless. Hillary was an active proponent of her husband's policies ("superpredators"), more so than a regular first lady. She also defended them during her 2007 campaign, and has actively worked to link herself to her husband's politics (because she thought that would benefit her). These are decisions Hillary personally made to link herself to her Bill. No use crying about it now.  You're an idiot.(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:My point is that supporting a 15 dollar minimum wage isn't spineless compromising bullshit just because a superior but less achievable option exists, and the same thing is true for a 12 dollar minimum wage. Moving to 12 dollars after writing 15 down in big bold letters in the party platform would be a clear and obvious message that you're a spineless coward, regardless of whatever polling data you think justifies it. Moreover, gently caress polls. Please god, just stop with the loving polls. Using polls as an indicator of public support for something you haven't even campaigned for yet is just depressing. You're admitting right out of the gate that your party has zero ability to swing public opinion and your only hope is to support whatever the cool kids think is the right thing to do. You're operating from a desperate fear that people won't like you. It's bad strategy, bad optics, and bad for morale. Stop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:You're right, we should tolerate people trying to whitewash or rewrite history provided that the facts in question are only tangentially related, as opposed to directly related, to the topic at hand. Are you saying we shouldn't have dedicated thread topics? Because that's where this logic leads.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:You're right, we should tolerate people trying to whitewash or rewrite history provided that the facts in question are only tangentially related, as opposed to directly related, to the topic at hand. It's not like there's a shortage of threads to argue about the Clintons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Moving to 12 dollars after writing 15 down in big bold letters in the party platform would be a clear and obvious message that you're a spineless coward, regardless of whatever polling data you think justifies it. What if actual economics tell us that 15 nationally might not be a very good idea?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:What if actual economics tell us that 15 nationally might not be a very good idea? please do not encourage jeffersonclay to post about economics
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:...yes? $15 is living wage adjusted for inflation. No it isn't; it's too low
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:No, we need to stand for something, and that something should be a minimum wage that makes it so the single mother of 3 that lives in the lovely inner-city apartment only has to work one job instead of two or three. If it only polls at 50%, then that just means we haven't advocated for it hard enough or shown clearly enough how it would benefit everyone. We have dialed it back for far too long--it's time to crank up the volume and rip the loving knob off. Living wage for a single parent of three is on the order of $30
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Show me one referendum that passed while including an explicit raising of taxes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
How many said the words "X% tax increase to pay for it"? Americans are pro these things right up to the second you mention that someone has to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:How many said the words "X% tax increase to pay for it"? Americans are pro these things right up to the second you mention that someone has to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted: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. people didn't believe hillary, why don't you understand that. people looked at her platform and then looked at what she was saying, like: "i'm realistic. i'm a progressive who likes to get things done. i'm a pragmatist and support incrementalism" and they realized that hillary clinton would not be pushing real change anytime soon. for fucks sake, her response to questions about what she wanted to do was "check out my website!" she was in no way convincing people that she would be a torchbearer for progressive change. she provided no leadership or vision. i'm sorry if you believed her and fell for an obvious act, but hillary clinton was not running on radical change in any way. as for "most left democrat in 40 years, i would say politics has experienced a radical shift since 9/11 and the 2008 crash. at america's peak it made more sense to push unrestrained capitalism because it seemed to be working. nowadays people are realizing how hosed the system is and want something different. different policies for different eras. but once again, lol if you believed hillary. you got "ratfucked," or would have provided she ran any sort of competent campaign. Chelb posted: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 consider John Kerry: a war hero with virtually no negative history. they tore him down just as effectively, if not more so, than "the decades long campaign to smear hillary." the years of priming are inconsequential. if you are not charismatic or likable, if you are not strong enough and provide a clear vision of what you're really about, then you're susceptible to smears. hillary was the very definition of a gilded politician. she was whatever the crowd wanted her to be, an empty vessel you got to fill yourself. when the smearing started people just filled that vessel with the crap other people were peddling, true or not. the point is, decorated war hero john kerry was just as effectively smeared in a very short period of time. tsa posted:Uh it's actually the literal exact opposite according to all the data. according to the data, hillary should have just won an historic landslide election against the clown donald trump. people need to stop putting so much faith in polling. it provides only a model. an incredibly selective snapshot. it can be a useful tool, but it is no way definitive or concrete. it doesn't tell nearly the whole story and all the results should be taken with a more than healthy helping of salt. change polls poorly because people are primed to fear change. that's why we need a leader with an incredibly strong vision who actually sells their policy and makes people believe in it. "check out my website" isn't going to cut it. there's a reason people like bernie and trump and other outspoken leaders across the globe are gaining popularity. they have a vision and they say "gently caress what you heard, this is how its gonna be" and people believe it. and gently caress, look at trump. he's actually making poo poo happen. terrible, deplorable bullshit that no one likes, but he's loving doing things. it blows the whole argument of pragmatism and incrementalism out of the water. poo poo can get done. on topic: i think ellison should win the election
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't put a lot of faith in your evidence-free assertions, that's the issue with your approach here. As I think I've mentioned before, you have a strong irrational bias in favor of centrist liberal (or more accurately "whatever happens to be the next 'step' to the right of what left-leaning liberals support") positions and take them as the default position that other people have to prove is wrong. This is not logical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:please do not encourage jeffersonclay to post about economics i just fuckin mite
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:What if actual economics tell us that 15 nationally might not be a very good idea? It's not, it's too low. But it's a start, at least. edit: And moreover, it's in the loving platform, so the debate is over. If you genuinely want to try and walk that number down after it's been campaigned on you deserve the political shitstorm that ensues. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Feb 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Moving to 12 dollars after writing 15 down in big bold letters in the party platform would be a clear and obvious message that you're a spineless coward, regardless of whatever polling data you think justifies it. RaySmuckles posted:people didn't believe hillary, why don't you understand that. people looked at her platform and then looked at what she was saying, like: "i'm realistic. i'm a progressive who likes to get things done. i'm a pragmatist and support incrementalism" and they realized that hillary clinton would not be pushing real change anytime soon quote:Moreover, gently caress polls. Please god, just stop with the loving polls. Using polls as an indicator of public support for something you haven't even campaigned for yet is just depressing. You're admitting right out of the gate that your party has zero ability to swing public opinion and your only hope is to support whatever the cool kids think is the right thing to do. You're operating from a desperate fear that people won't like you. It's bad strategy, bad optics, and bad for morale. Stop. I'm not suggesting public support for 15 will never change, or that campaigning for something is incapable of shifting public opinion. I'm saying it's obviously going to be harder to get 15 than 12 because polls uniformly show higher support for 12 than 15. And having just lost an election at every level, I'm not sure we're in a position to be taking on positions that make it harder to win. Too late for the minimum wage, but the same dynamic is at play across the policy landscape. And when we're making decisions about what policies we should advocate for, how hard it's going to be to win, and in turn how much we're risking a loss, should be at least half of the conversation. The other half should obviously be what policies are good. But a conversation that only includes the latter is a recipe for disaster. Ytlaya posted:As I think I've mentioned before, you have a strong irrational bias in favor of centrist liberal (or more accurately "whatever happens to be the next 'step' to the right of what left-leaning liberals support") positions and take them as the default position that other people have to prove is wrong. This is not logical. I have a bias towards arguments that are made with some kind of evidence. I have a bias against evidence-free, question-begging arguments like "polls don't matter". This bias is not irrational.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
The theory of politics where political parties do everything is a pretty bad one for having a responsive government. If you want to shift people's opinions to support a $15/hr, or $20/hr, minimum wage, or basic income, you should probably do that directly so that you can put pressure on politicians to support it. poo poo like Fight For Fifteen. I mean, it's understandable given how unbelievably lovely our civics education is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Didn't Australia just raise their minimum wage to $18/hr or so? I mean sure that requires living on an island that is nature's own hellish revenge against humanity, but still.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Minimum wage and union rights cost taxes? Also if you say you'll go after the financiers people support you. They get hit with the " all prices will go up by $X" talking points, so to voters, yes. It's utterly, utterly irrelevant how full of poo poo the argument is as the right has demonstrated that voters will lap up their lies eagerly. And no they don't! They never once join with you for "go after the bankers", because the exact same "class warfare" line gets trotted out every. Single. Time. And Americans remember they are temporarily embarrassed millionaire's who will totally strike it rich this time, and punish the Dems for going after financiers. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Feb 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:You're useless You think Gadhafi was left-wing, so uh your house is looking pretty glassy about now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
I don't think Gaddafi was left wing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:I don't think Gaddafi was left wing. So you oppose popular uprisings against right-wing and liberal dictatorships. I mean, you could just drop the loving Libya thing because it's a case where intervention was directly requested by a revolutionary government. You could admit wrongdoing, or ignorance. But you won't, and you'll continue spewing anti-materialist bullshit, comrade. Unless you care to prove me wrong?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The theory of politics where political parties do everything is a pretty bad one for having a responsive government. If you want to shift people's opinions to support a $15/hr, or $20/hr, minimum wage, or basic income, you should probably do that directly so that you can put pressure on politicians to support it. poo poo like Fight For Fifteen. Fight for 15 only worked because of union pressure in democratic strongholds. Issue advocacy is great but only allows for limited change, not major reforms to the economic system of the country. No republican in the country will vote for a raise in the minimum wage in 2017/2018, regardless of the pressure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
NNick posted:Fight for 15 only worked because of union pressure in democratic strongholds. I'm talking about shifting political opinions so that Democrats consider raising the minimum wage to be something they will be pressured on constantly and so some people will vote Democrat and tilt narrow districts. Bottom-up action, instead of the "leftism" of whining and crying about how Uncle Keith is the only one who can do this for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 06:48
|
|