|
Cory Booker is a distraction and I think he's going to run in 2020 and get the nomination and frankly I'm fine with that. The last office in the land to by held be a progressive will be the office of the President, long after the statehouses and the governorships and the Senate and the House are filled with them. And by that point it won't particularly matter if it's Cory Booker or Karl Marx's ghost sitting at the Resolute desk. This is progressives doing same thing centrists do: focusing on national races. It's disheartening to see. Focus instead on local races, focus on the Senate and the House - do that and the Presidency will take care of itself.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Sanders ran in the Democratic primary and won it. It's part of his agreement to caucus with Democrats. Bernie ran as an independent in 2012, not as a Democrat. He got DSCC funding. He ran in the Democratic primary, after we cleared the field for him so that no one would run against him. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:So we're cutting Bernie off now and going to run someone against him? Cease to Hope posted:Sanders ran in the Democratic primary and won it. It's part of his agreement to caucus with Democrats. Point being that Democrats who break ranks too often need to be threatened with expulsion from the party. Ultimately it's the only threat a whip can deliver that has any teeth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:You already asked me that and I already said yes. That was before I read this: And what's the threshold for that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted: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. Yeah only the most blatantly pro wallstreet/pro police state dems want Rahm Emmanuel to have any more elected positions. Also preventing more Liberman's is easy. We don't back people in blue states that are in anyway neocons. Also for those wondering why I want to get rid of Corey. Well him getting forced out would be a pretty humiliating for the Centrists. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Bernie ran as an independent in 2012, not as a Democrat. He got DSCC funding. Sanders was funded by the Democrats, won their primary, caucuses with them, sits on a committee in one of their seats, and votes with them. Knock off this "not a REAL Democrat" garbage. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah only the most blatantly pro wallstreet/pro police state dems want Rahm Emmanuel to have any more elected positions. Also preventing more Liberman's is easy. We don't back people in blue states that are in anyway neocons. Grats! You've eliminated virtually no one currently in the Democratic Party apparatus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Grats! You've eliminated virtually no one currently in the Democratic Party apparatus. I should have also added, corporate sell outs. Like Booker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Sanders was funded by the Democrats, won their primary, caucuses with them, sits on a committee in one of their seats, and votes with them. I think you're misunderstanding the point. You've got Killroy saying that we should cut finding from actually registered Democrats because they don't hold their mouth right often enough and saying we should make them run as Independents. It's garbage loving idea, as would be cutting off Bernie and Angus King. Crowsbeak posted:I should have also added, corporate sell outs. Like Booker. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:So we're cutting Bernie off now and going to run someone against him? How about let's create a party where someone like Sanders doesn't feel like they have to run Independent to avoid the taint of corporatism. Kilroy posted:Cory Booker is a distraction and I think he's going to run in 2020 and get the nomination and frankly I'm fine with that. The last office in the land to by held be a progressive will be the office of the President, long after the statehouses and the governorships and the Senate and the House are filled with them. And by that point it won't particularly matter if it's Cory Booker or Karl Marx's ghost sitting at the Resolute desk. This circles back to the top down / bottom up discussion around the DNC chair position. I think we have to talk about both at once. Presenting a candidate as the de facto leader of the party, whether it's DNC chair now, or Presidential nominee in four years sends a message all the way down the line. It's a lot easier to build a progressive bench when you have, for example, Warren or Buttigieg as the mouthpiece of the party, and a lot harder when it's Booker or Cuomo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:And what's the threshold for that? Come the gently caress on. Obviously it's going to be case-by-case. If the Democrats lose a couple high-profile close votes because of idiot conservative Dems breaking ranks then they need to be tossed out. Already the Democrats are having a tough time selling themselves as reliable opposition to Trump because of people like Manchin and Heitkamp - that they're from red states doesn't mean poo poo. They're harming the Democratic party nationally and if the Democrats are going to go on as a political party and not a politicians' guild then people like them need to be thrown out on their fat asses. If the Democrats refuse to ever take action like that under any circumstances then the whip in each house is toothless and party unity doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Explain to how voting against alleviating prescription drug price gauging is acceptable for a dem? Especially one from a safe blue state?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I don't know I guess you feed their voting record into a computer and... Yet none of that has happened yet with either of the two people you're talking about; but again be my guest to go find someone who can beat them. Crowsbeak posted:Explain to how voting against alleviating prescription drug price gauging is acceptable for a dem? Especially one from a safe blue state? It was a meaningless vote, but by all means go find someone to challenge him. Dr. Fishopolis posted:How about let's create a party where someone like Sanders doesn't feel like they have to run Independent to avoid the taint of corporatism. Oh come the gently caress on. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah only the most blatantly pro wallstreet/pro police state dems want Rahm Emmanuel to have any more elected positions. Also preventing more Liberman's is easy. We don't back people in blue states that are in anyway neocons. Also for those wondering why I want to get rid of Corey. Well him getting forced out would be a pretty humiliating for the Centrists. Because gently caress accomplishing anything, gently caress preventing Republicans destroying the world, the number one priority is getting that pound of flesh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted: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. Really? I thought Dean's fifty-state strategy was based around building up the party at the state and local levels, leading to gains not only in Congress (where the Dems were able to pick up districts in places like Kansas and Arizona) but also in governorships and state legislatures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:This circles back to the top down / bottom up discussion around the DNC chair position. I think we have to talk about both at once. Presenting a candidate as the de facto leader of the party, whether it's DNC chair now, or Presidential nominee in four years sends a message all the way down the line. It's a lot easier to build a progressive bench when you have, for example, Warren or Buttigieg as the mouthpiece of the party, and a lot harder when it's Booker or Cuomo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Yet none of that has happened yet with either of the two people you're talking about; but again be my guest to go find someone who can beat them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Really? I thought Dean's fifty-state strategy was based around building up the party at the state and local levels, leading to gains not only in Congress (where the Dems were able to pick up districts in places like Kansas and Arizona) but also in governorships and state legislatures. It was. People don't seem to grasp that it also means you get blue dog dems in blood red states which is still infinitely better than literally any Republican or their dumb ideological purity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:They've already made the Dems look like a bunch of idiots during the cabinet hearings, and I expect more of the same during their tenure in office. Oh no, our fee-fees. BUt again, you keep acting like there's some magical challenge out there that can be Joe Manchin and win the Senate Race and Be Some How Not Also Centerish. Let's see, we can either have someone who votes with us most of the time on anything where it matters, or we can have another Tom Cotton. Gosh. Hard choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Can the people saying that the number one enemy is Corey Booker at least call themselves the Peoples Front of the Democrats?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Like re: Booker, I am not going to support him in the primary in 2020 unless my only option were like Andrew Cuomo, but if's the nominee then fine, what the gently caress ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Because gently caress accomplishing anything, gently caress preventing Republicans destroying the world, the number one priority is getting that pound of flesh. Well as this elections showed. Going with you guys doesn't actually do any of those things. Also, yes we'll take a pound of flesh off of people like you who literally say that we should never attempt to run on any economic changes. Then claim we can somehow win on unspecified social issues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well as this elections showed. Going with you guys doesn't actually do any of those things. Also, yes we'll take a pound of flesh off of people like you who literally say that we should never attempt to run on any economic changes. Then claim we can somehow win on unspecified social issues. Oh good, we're back to this poo poo again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:This circles back to the top down / bottom up discussion around the DNC chair position. I think we have to talk about both at once. Presenting a candidate as the de facto leader of the party, whether it's DNC chair now, or Presidential nominee in four years sends a message all the way down the line. It's a lot easier to build a progressive bench when you have, for example, Warren or Buttigieg as the mouthpiece of the party, and a lot harder when it's Booker or Cuomo. Top down and bottom up can't really coexist that well, because they're inherently contradictory. It eventually comes down to one basic question: when it comes time for Congressional Dems to decide how to cast their vote, are they going to go talk to their constituents and figure out what the Dems in their own community want, or is the national party leadership halfway across the country going to dictate a one-size-fits-all policy to districts all over the country? An organization can mix and match the two strategies to some extent, but at some point they will come into conflict, particularly on the growing wedge issues within the Democratic Party (like guns and Israel).
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Can the people saying that the number one enemy is Corey Booker at least call themselves the Peoples Front of the Democrats? You ever figure out what a fish fry was?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well as this elections showed. Going with you guys doesn't actually do any of those things. Also, yes we'll take a pound of flesh off of people like you who literally say that we should never attempt to run on any economic changes. Then claim we can somehow win on unspecified social issues. A huh. Wanna reveal how infighting and bloodletting and not beating loving Republicans gets us economic change?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
One thing we should definitely take away from this election is that Republicans' ability to close ranks around their nominee, ignoring policy differences by focusing solely on lesser-evilism, is a significant strength.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:A huh. Wanna reveal how infighting and bloodletting and not beating loving Republicans gets us economic change? Oh I get it. So if you just don't listen to us. Actively undermine are candidates by calling them racist and sexist, and then go on to lose elections. Thats not infighting or incompetence. Thats good. When we do unseat centrists who sell out the the GOP though, now thats really bad. Also what were your social policies that are going to win dems all the elections? Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:One thing we should definitely take away from this election is that Republicans' ability to close ranks around their nominee, ignoring policy differences by focusing solely on lesser-evilism, is a significant strength. That's driven mostly by white supremacy so Democrats will never recreate it. But the # of people who didn't vote was much higher than the R or D turnout, so that's who democrats need to motivate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
You are never going to even attempt to get over Sanders losing to Hillary fair and square, are you? Also, jog my memory, the challengers Bernie endorsed, how many beat Republicans? Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Still not going to explain how social policies are the only thing dems need to win? You claimed you had some surefire ones that were better then pro worker policies that pass in red states. I am starting to wonder if its just smoke and mirrors. Also I don't answer your questions until you answer mine. Not that I expect you to do. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Really? I thought Dean's fifty-state strategy was based around building up the party at the state and local levels, leading to gains not only in Congress (where the Dems were able to pick up districts in places like Kansas and Arizona) but also in governorships and state legislatures. We are standing in the remains of that strategy. Fighting in Kansas and Arizona and Virginia and Ohio is important, but "a Democrat is anyone who isn't a Republican" is not an inspiring rallying cry. I am curious to see how Ellison and Perez plan to expand the party out of the cities without electing more Manchins that undercut everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Still not going to explain how social policies are the only thing dems need to win? You claimed you had some surefire ones that were better then pro worker policies that pass in red states. I am starting to wonder if its just smoke and mirrors. Also I don't answer your questions until you answer mine. Not that I expect you to do. Protecting gay marriage, trans equality, abortion rights, opposing police brutality. The things that won the North Carolina governorship. Now once again, name the Bernie backed challengers who beat the Republican incumbents in 2016. Come On, show these unstoppable True Leftist dems who easily smashed Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
snyprmag posted:That's driven mostly by white supremacy so Democrats will never recreate it. But the # of people who didn't vote was much higher than the R or D turnout, so that's who democrats need to motivate. If there was ever an opportunity for it to work for us, this election was it. I don't know if the attacks on lesser evilism from the left made any difference this election, but they were obviously counterproductive. And yet we're still arguing about whether we should support lesser-evils like Manchin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Protecting gay marriage, trans equality, abortion rights, opposing police brutality. The things that won the North Carolina governorship. Reminder that Zephyr Teachout under performed Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:We are standing in the remains of that strategy. Fighting in Kansas and Arizona and Virginia and Ohio is important, but "a Democrat is anyone who isn't a Republican" is not an inspiring rallying cry. I don't think its going to happen. I mean if they are going to cede control of that stuff to local people, then the kind of people that spring up from that are going to be quite different for the most part. Crowsbeak posted:Still not going to explain how social policies are the only thing dems need to win? You claimed you had some surefire ones that were better then pro worker policies that pass in red states. I am starting to wonder if its just smoke and mirrors. Also I don't answer your questions until you answer mine. Not that I expect you to do. I don't think it is the only thing that the Democrats need to win. But keep in mind, Trump ran on pretty much NO economic policy and won. I think Democrats are much stronger on social issues than economic ones because the economic messages being pushed are in many cases closely tied with racial messaging that works. It's similar to how welfare began to lose a bunch of support when it became tied to helping minorities by the media.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Protecting gay marriage, trans equality, abortion rights, opposing police brutality. The things that won the North Carolina governorship. why would there have been a lot of those in 2016 you doofus bernie came virtually out of nowhere, no one knew that he would be as popular as he was, why would there be a glut of similar candidates at that time? first chance for an even slightly representative look at candidates riding his coattails is congressional races in 2018
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:We are standing in the remains of that strategy. Fighting in Kansas and Arizona and Virginia and Ohio is important, but "a Democrat is anyone who isn't a Republican" is not an inspiring rallying cry. What remains? Most of the senators who won seats in the 2006 wave still hold their seats, and while I haven't run the numbers for the 2006 House freshmen, it's not even slightly surprising that the Dems would lose seats in red areas after they dumped Dean and the fifty-state strategy and abandoned those Dems to fend for themselves with minimal funding or support. Most of the prominent centrists who caused problems for the Dems, like Lieberman and Feinstein, date back to 2000 or earlier. Manchin, on the other hand, was elected in 2010.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
emdash posted:why would there have been a lot of those in 2016 you doofus There was a yearlong primary. You think that this happened in a vacuum? And what exactly do you call an OWS law professor named Zephyr Rain who was the first candidate that Bernie endorsed, other than a Bernie endorsed candidate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If there was ever an opportunity for it to work for us, this election was it. I don't know if the attacks on lesser evilism from the left made any difference this election, but they were obviously counterproductive. And yet we're still arguing about whether we should support lesser-evils like Manchin. We can go on about if one has a moral obligation to support a lesser evil candidate, but we shouldn't count on it working.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 23:09
|
|