|
SKULL.GIF posted:What have people like Reid, Pelosi, and Feinstein given us? I'm sick of being governed by ancient wrinkled Methuselahs (obviously Reid is gone, but I have a political memory longer than a goldfish's) who will scold us for not building sufficient political capital in the face of goddamn fascism. Where the hell are the Gen X, where the hell are the Millennial politicians who will actually fight to improve the lives of all Americans instead of burning endless political capital on incrementalism? Why are they being locked out of the party?
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:"we're old farts, and that's just the way it is" Anyone seen Logan's Run ? Time to carousel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
Next protest I go to I'm gonna see if I can get people yelling "RENEW! RENEW! RENEW!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
gen x is a bunch of reactionary idiots, btw
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:What have people like Reid, Pelosi, and Feinstein given us? I'm sick of being governed by ancient wrinkled Methuselahs (obviously Reid is gone, but I have a political memory longer than a goldfish's) who will scold us for not building sufficient political capital in the face of goddamn fascism. Where the hell are the Gen X, where the hell are the Millennial politicians who will actually fight to improve the lives of all Americans instead of burning endless political capital on incrementalism? Why are they being locked out of the party? I agree 100%. I just don't think anyone and everyone who's ever worked with the Democratic establishment qualifies as a shitbag like Feinstein. While I'd much prefer Ellison or Buttigieg I don't think Perez qualifies as a fake leftist just because he had a position in the Obama administration. He might even be good in an organizational role like the DNC and I don't think he'd automatically be another Wasserman-Schultz. Of course this is all based on my understanding of the man and if you can point me at some reading about how lovely he is, I'd be willing to reassess him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:What have people like Reid, Pelosi, and Feinstein given us? I'm sick of being governed by ancient wrinkled Methuselahs (obviously Reid is gone, but I have a political memory longer than a goldfish's) who will scold us for not building sufficient political capital in the face of goddamn fascism. Where the hell are the Gen X, where the hell are the Millennial politicians who will actually fight to improve the lives of all Americans instead of burning endless political capital on incrementalism? Why are they being locked out of the party? Gen xers had Reagan squatting on their political revelatory period like a toad. Most of the ones with political ambition became Republicans and wear the exact same poo poo eating grin on their faces 24/7.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:well I don't know if that's such a good idea and perhaps we should try to elect more people like manchin *fartz* I'll take a million Joe Manchins over Mitch McConnells, Paul Ryans and Marco Rubios. SKULL.GIF posted:What have people like Reid, Pelosi, and Feinstein given us? I'm sick of being governed by ancient wrinkled Methuselahs (obviously Reid is gone, but I have a political memory longer than a goldfish's) who will scold us for not building sufficient political capital in the face of goddamn fascism. Where the hell are the Gen X, where the hell are the Millennial politicians who will actually fight to improve the lives of all Americans instead of burning endless political capital on incrementalism? Why are they being locked out of the party? Because running is expensive as gently caress and the Party has shown no willingness to start funding low level races. No one jumps from "John/Jane Smith, random employee at $CORP" to "Representative John/Jane Smith". They first end up on city councils, school boards or state legislatures. But when the party is doing almost nothing to fund/encourage people to run for that stuff, you don't have a crop of people who naturally want to move up to national office so you keep getting rich business owners or party insiders running for the House/Senate/Governor. It's why Run For Something is I think the best organization to emerge from the disaster that was last November. They're doing their best to fill up candidate slates for elections in VA and NJ and have actually managed to find a candidate for every single VA House of Delegates race where Hillary won the State House district. This is crucial because the GOP has a 33 seat majority (66 GOP, 33 Dem, 1 vacant) which is absurd for a state that Hillary won easily. Only the Governor's Mansion and a 19 Dem/21 GOP State Senate have kept VA from becoming the next North Carolina. The Dems only need to hold the Governor's Mansion, gain 1 Senate seat and 18 House seats to have control of everything but the Judicial Branch in VA. It's very doable, but the important thing is running candidates everywhere. Run for Something posted:Run for Something will recruit and support talented, passionate youngsters who will advocate for progressive values now and for the next 30 years, with the ultimate goal of building a progressive bench. https://www.runforsomething.net/ axeil fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Fados posted:the rise of islamo-fascism I'm honored that Tulsi has chosen to join our humble thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
axeil posted:I'll take a million Joe Manchins over Mitch McConnells, Paul Ryans and Marco Rubios. They'll all vote for Jeff Sessions, so I'm not sure why you think this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
But only joe manchin will vote against DeVos. A guy who votes with you 75% of the time is better than one who never does. But more importantly, replacing him with someone better isn't plausible, both because WV is so conservative and because Manchin is so popular there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:But only joe manchin will vote against DeVos. A guy who votes with you 75% of the time is better than one who never does. But more importantly, replacing him with someone better isn't plausible, both because WV is so conservative and because Manchin is so popular there. I can say that this is true. You're not going to find anyone who's better than him who can also beat him and then beat dumb rear end Evan Jenkins or Patrick Morrisey.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:But only joe manchin will vote against DeVos. A guy who votes with you 75% of the time is better than one who never does. But more importantly, replacing him with someone better isn't plausible, both because WV is so conservative and because Manchin is so popular there. As I've said, you don't want the Democrats to be a political party, you want them to be a politicians' guild. Good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
I don't believe that they can't find anybody better for a state that's taking a massive beating from the opioid epidemic than the guy who's completely in with Big Pharm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Fiction posted:I don't believe that they can't find anybody better for a state that's taking a massive beating from the opioid epidemic than the guy who's completely in with Big Pharm. Be my guest. Find a democrat who can beat him and can win the general. Please do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
So this is encouraging. Dems will be challenging 45 (out of 66) House of Delegates districts held by the GOP, including 17 where Hillary won. They need 18 seats for a majority. If the Dems can manage to take the House of Delegates and State Senate in VA it'll be a really encouraging sign for 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...fb61_story.html Washington Post posted:Buoyed by a wave of progressive activism that began after the election of President Trump, Virginia Democrats plan to challenge 45 GOP incumbents in the deep-red House of Delegates this November, including 17 lawmakers whose districts voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Until no one knows what the gently caress the party stands for anymore because a third of them are voting with Republicans every other time something comes up for a vote, and voters in every district kinda lose interest and who can blame them? Literally no one in the Democratic Party is voting with republicans half the time. Manchin is the worst in terms of voting against the party line and he still votes with the party 75% of the time. And he's an outlier, not a third of the party. I think the best way to ensure people don't get confused about the actual composition of the party would be to make sure democrats like you aren't disseminating a bunch of bullshit about the composition of the party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Fados posted:I do agree with you on this point. To me this does indicate, not just some miscalculation in the polling techniques, but that the system which we use to predict political results is no longer accurately describing reality. In some sense our (political) ground is changing, might Hillary's campaign have looked to Europe and she would've found multiple polling upsets in various parliamentary elections and other plebiscites in favor of populism: Brexit, Syriza in Greece and Podemos and Spain with meteoric rises at the cost of the fall of center-left liberal parties. The very fact that some obscure senator from Vermont ended being a significant challenge to her primary might've indicated that something was amiss. In the US, there really haven't been a lot of recent opportunities to test those assumptions and systems on a national scale. 2012 and 2008 were overshadowed by the Great Recession, and in 2004 Bush was a wartime president whose war was still fairly popular. A lot has changed since 2000, and a lot of the modern data-driven strategies Clinton relied on are only a few years old. In particular, I think there was a tendency to look at things that worked for Obama in 2008 and assume that his win was an indication that they were good tactics...without accounting for the fact that Obama was a very charismatic and effective speaker and campaigner whose opposition was deeply tied to a very unpopular war and an economic meltdown just months before the election. And the Democratic president before Obama was Bill Clinton, a centrist triangulator who swung right in his second term. SKULL.GIF posted:What have people like Reid, Pelosi, and Feinstein given us? I'm sick of being governed by ancient wrinkled Methuselahs (obviously Reid is gone, but I have a political memory longer than a goldfish's) who will scold us for not building sufficient political capital in the face of goddamn fascism. Where the hell are the Gen X, where the hell are the Millennial politicians who will actually fight to improve the lives of all Americans instead of burning endless political capital on incrementalism? Why are they being locked out of the party? That's not really an accurate portrayal of either Reid or Pelosi. As for the millenials, the only things locking them out of Congress are the minimum ages imposed by the Constitution for Congressional seats and their own failure to win elections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
Also funding. Millennials on the whole don't have a lot of money and you need money to run.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
stone cold posted:gen x is a bunch of reactionary idiots, btw I feel like it is impossible to ever maintain a good society for the long term, because it seems like any time quality of life becomes particularly good (on average) people become less empathetic and more reactionary/conservative. So even if things becoming bad might lead to people pushing for positive social change, if things actually manage to become too good as a result people flip back into "gently caress you got mine" mode.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
25 year olds can run for congress, but uh, good loving luck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I feel like it is impossible to ever maintain a good society for the long term, because it seems like any time quality of life becomes particularly good (on average) people become less empathetic and more reactionary/conservative. So even if things becoming bad might lead to people pushing for positive social change, if things actually manage to become too good as a result people flip back into "gently caress you got mine" mode. WEll you need something constant in the background to make them want to improve their society. We got that for at least a century now. Global Warming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Part of our problem recruiting good candidates is systematic. If you're a smart, charismatic, motivated young person from rural nowheresville, after you graduate college are you likely to go back home and start your career? Your job prospects are probably better if you move to a large metro area, along with other benefits, so relatively few of these people end up coming home. The ones that do come home are likely to have more conservative views because those views inform where you'd choose to live in the first place; there's ideological sorting going on here. So part of our strategy might need to be identifying smart young liberals from targeted districts when they're young and encouraging them to go home after college so we have a better set of possibilities when we're looking for candidates. Ugh that sounds like a shitload of work for a payoff that's a long way off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Jefferson Clay maybe restricting yourself to only people with graduate degrees doesn't actually help in relating to people in poor rural areas. Maybe look for people who support left wing ideas and don't care what their education background is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Acting like every establishment Democrat is Joe Manchin is a huge part of the pickle we're in now actually. Like Perez isn't Captain Full Communism Now but he's hardly some sort of vile "centrist" technocrat either. Perez is further to the left than probably 90% of America but for that remaining 10% he's just barely to the left of GW Bush. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I don't think anyone here is saying we need more Joe Manchins, dude. If having a few more Joe Manchins meant Supreme Court Justice Merrick Garland then I'd have absolutely taken that over running people further left who couldn't win their respective states. Having the majority and positions of power in the Senate while relying on people who only vote with you sometimes is infinitely better than being the party out of power and who ultimately has no say influence whatsoever, as we saw with the GOP ignoring Garland's nomination. This is something the "boooo blue dogs, gently caress them all, political purity now" people seem to forget. Yeah it ultimately meant having lovely people like Joe Lieberman but even that rear end in a top hat was preferable to literally any Republican and if Dean's 50 state strategy hadn't been abandoned then maybe the Democrats would have a couple extra seats in the Senate and majority control, meaning they could actually block Trump's insane bullshit instead of cry about it and keep saving the filibuster for the SCOTUS nomination while the GOP just confirms everyone else first.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Literally no one in the Democratic Party is voting with republicans half the time. Manchin is the worst in terms of voting against the party line and he still votes with the party 75% of the time. And he's an outlier, not a third of the party. I think the best way to ensure people don't get confused about the actual composition of the party would be to make sure democrats like you aren't disseminating a bunch of bullshit about the composition of the party. It's like the loser stink of the Democratic party became powerful enough to take on a corporeal form and buy an account.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Jefferson Clay maybe restricting yourself to only people with graduate degrees doesn't actually help in relating to people in poor rural areas. Maybe look for people who support left wing ideas and don't care what their education background is. Less than 5% of congress doesn't have an undergrad degree. I don't think we should disqualify candidates without one but clearly people with degrees are the large majority of successful candidates. I'm also assuming the population of people who are rural, without a degree, and with impeccable leftist views is pretty drat small. If we find people like that, great, but we'd obviously benefit from having more plausible candidates to choose from. Kilroy posted:Okay well then why don't you outline what the Democratic party stands for aside from "we want incumbent Democrats to win elections" because any time anyone suggests any policy which sounds like it might be coming from a frame of reference somewhere slightly to the left of John McCain, you immediately jump in with "hmmm I don't think that can win elections, let's wait until..." The Democratic Party is a coalition of groups with aligned but not identical views. I supported the 2016 platform and still think it could win, despite minor disagreements I have with it. I think democrats should do things that make it more likely that the platform becomes law, which at this point in time does require incumbent democrats win elections. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Less than 5% of congress doesn't have an undergrad degree. I don't think we should disqualify candidates without one but clearly people with degrees are the large majority of successful candidates. I'm also assuming the population of people who are rural, without a degree, and with impeccable leftist views is pretty drat small. If we find people like that, great, but we'd obviously benefit from having more plausible candidates to choose from. I am just suggesting that if populist sentiment can be rallied that be given a boost. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I am just suggesting that if populist sentiment can be rallied that be given a boost. gently caress populism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Having Manchin types deep red states (or House districts) is reasonable, and probably necessary to get the 60 Senate votes you need to actually govern. But there needs to be change in the kinds of senators sitting in blue (e.g. Delaware) and purplish-blue (e.g. Virginia) seats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
The problem with Manchin types - and the 50 state strategy that installed others like him - is that installing conservative Democrats creates the illusion that a Democratic majority can do anything but fend off Republicans, which just generates more disillusionment when they can't. This is less about Manchin than it is about Lieberman, but it's even worse at the state and city level, where conservative Democrats - especially mayors - are often openly campaigning on stymying any leftward shift.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
There seems to be a significant overlap between the people who are concerned about the existence of conservative democrats creating an anti-progressive distortion of the party and the people who actively spread that distortion. Like the first line from the Justice Democrats platform isquote:It’s time to face the facts: the Democratic Party is broken and the corporate, establishment wing of the party is responsible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
I see nothing wrong with that quote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The problem with Manchin types - and the 50 state strategy that installed others like him - is that installing conservative Democrats creates the illusion that a Democratic majority can do anything but fend off Republicans, which just generates more disillusionment when they can't. The thing is that you could instead go for people who are less republican lite. But still not be fully in support of the democratic party line if only there was more attempts to interact with the rural states populations this would be pretty obvious. Also Clay I think the fianancier dems their worried about is financier golden boy Corey Booker. Who should be primaries if he continues to be a obvious stooge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
You mean the only charismatic young and widely liked Dem out there? I mean you can try and primary the guy who ran into burning houses to rescue his constituents, or maybe you could try and beat Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:The thing is that you could instead go for people who are less republican lite. But still not be fully in support of the democratic party line if only there was more attempts to interact with the rural states populations this would be pretty obvious. Are you like, alright dude?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:The thing is that you could instead go for people who are less republican lite. But still not be fully in support of the democratic party line if only there was more attempts to interact with the rural states populations this would be pretty obvious. The real question isn't "should we primary Cory Booker", it's "who, specifically, should run against Cory Booker in the primary". He's beaten people in primaries before without the help of incumbency advantage, and now he's an incumbent with a solid approval rating and a poo poo-ton of campaign money and donor ties. Is there any rising star in New Jersey politics who wasn't around in 2013 but is now up to challenge him? It's ultimately up to the voters to decide who holds these seats, and the Bookers and Feinsteins seem to have no problem winning election after election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:Having Manchin types deep red states (or House districts) is reasonable, and probably necessary to get the 60 Senate votes you need to actually govern. But there needs to be change in the kinds of senators sitting in blue (e.g. Delaware) and purplish-blue (e.g. Virginia) seats. JeffersonClay would retort "that's why we needed to keep Lieberman in the fold instead of primarying him" conveniently ignoring that Lieberman was a shithead before he ever got primaried by Lamont. Where the Democratic party failed there was not in allowing Lieberman to lose a primary challenge but in losing against him in the general election. So it goes with the Manchins of the party now - let them run as independents if that's what they want to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:The thing is that you could instead go for people who are less republican lite. But still not be fully in support of the democratic party line if only there was more attempts to interact with the rural states populations this would be pretty obvious. I am referring specifically to Dean's 50 State Strategy, which did seek to elect blue dog Democrats on the presumption that they were the only ones who could get elected in "red" states. Those Democrats didn't stick, and they depressed Democratic support and turnout in the states where any Democratic role in government was most at risk. I think supporting Democrats everywhere is important, but I haven't yet seen how either Ellison or Perez plan to gain ground and prevent more Liebermans and Manchins. That's why all of this noise about not giving in to the "hard left" is so obnoxious: one of the would-be Democratic rising stars is running black sites for the city police to torture people. There does need to be a reckoning, for justice, for optics, and so Democrats can govern at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:So it goes with the Manchins of the party now - let them run as independents if that's what they want to be. So we're cutting Bernie off now and going to run someone against him?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:So we're cutting Bernie off now and going to run someone against him? Sanders ran in the Democratic primary and won it. It's part of his agreement to caucus with Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:37
|
|