|
Lightning Knight posted:I realize this is a joke post, but seriously, the National Front are gonna pull the rabbit out of the hate, Brexit-style, and their explicit plan is to suicide bomb the Euro and implicitly crash the global economy in the process, just as Bannon was alluding to at CPAC. Exactly. WTF is Trotsky 2012 thinking?
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:36 |
|
|
Harrow posted:That's why I'm worried. Again, I don't think Perez was a bad choice. He's not Chuck Schumer. But I think enough of the people that we need to win over see anyone but Ellison as a bad choice that I'm afraid the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot in a very public way here. Again, only 20% of Democrats knew that the DNC chair election was even going on. This is one case where I really do think we live in a bubble here in SA, where most of us are college educated, many of us are members of minority groups, and most of us are very, very left-wing compared to the US baseline. Your average Rust Belt voter gives zero fucks who the DNC chair is. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, but it doesn't matter in the same way it does to the political nerd class. quote:Exactly. WTF is Trotsky 2012 thinking? He's just trolling. Like seriously he's 80% troll account and it's hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
VROOM VROOM posted:It's really interesting to see people blaming millions of voters making their own individual decisions for Democratic losses, rather than the influential individuals or small groups who are or should be aware of how their decisions affect how they are perceived and how this will affect their support/turnout. Obama in 2008 was seen, at least by the average voter, as a progressive. Clinton in 2016 was not. Someone in this thread said before the vote that there wasn't that big a difference between Perez and Ellison. So, why not pick the one that was endorsed by the progressives in the party? If you can answer that, you might know what's really important to them as well as why they keep losing. They didn't see any reason to pay any attention to the endorsement of one particular progressive. Why would they? They've been shown no evidence that progressives are better at winning elections, nor have they seen any evidence to back up claims that the last few years of Democratic losses are due to fundamental ideological flaws rather than weak messaging and awful campaign strategies. If we want to convince the center that progressivism is better, we're going to have to prove it. Obama in 2008 didn't win because progressives projected their beliefs onto them, he won because he was an extremely charismatic campaigner who was very willing to make promises he couldn't keep, running against the successor of a guy who mired the US in an unpopular forever war and tanked the economy two months before the election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:That's what people who keep pointing out that Ellison and Perez aren't that far apart don't seem to get - Ellison was the compromise candidate for the left already. Yeah this is emblematic of the dishonest arguments put forth in this thread. Progressives are whiny babies throwing their toys out of the pram when they don't get everything they want: they need to compromise, work within the party, and find solutions that are acceptable to the establishment if they want to be taken seriously. So progressives put forward a compromise candidate from inside the party who is acceptable to the establishment, and "  oh see progressives are hypocrites who compromise their supposed principles. You should have nominated a wild-eyed outsider and given no quarter if you wanted us to take you seriously."There is no conceivable progressive candidate who would have been acceptable because conservatives aren't interested in compromise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Remember that one time Bernie marched for civil rights and then hosed off to Vermont and sat on his flabby white rear end for the rest of his life? Oh lol. Yes a man who has a 100% rating for the NAACP has never done one thing for black people after he marched for civil rights. I love the alternative reality you live in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:While I don't disagree that a lot of people don't understand the reality of how hard it is to sell leftist policy, I think that framing it as "if the left was so great, why don't they just win already" ignores the structural and systemic reasons why that hasn't happened and is in fact quite hard. Isn't that exactly what Clinton said about, say, health care? That single payer is great, but structural and systemic reasons on the ground prevent it from being a reality in 2016?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:He's in France, so he actually does have experience with national socialist parties. They are probably going to get into the run-offs in the next French election. there already is one, it's called the repub party. you know, the party you belong in? Oxxidation posted:Condiv is an expat waste of oxygen who, much like bad Dems, likes to put on the illusion of doing something without ever actually doing it. you've got a real chip on your shoulder about me being an expat. should i have stayed in the US so you could complain about me residing in a red state?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Foreploy posted:Isn't that exactly what Clinton said about, say, health care? I mean, she would know, considering that was her claim to fame in, what, 1993?  Universal non-profit healthcare in any form, whether it's single-payer or otherwise, is incredibly difficult to sell past the most vague terms because of perceived costs, i.e. people don't want to pay more taxes or lose their employer benefits even if the alternative is better because they don't have the information/knowledge/ability to work out that it's better, or it's scary, or they're selfish, or whatever. That doesn't mean it can't be done, it just has to be packaged and framed in very specific ways and then rammed pointy end first down the throats of conservatives in Congress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I realize this is a joke post, but seriously, the National Front are gonna pull the rabbit out of the hate, Brexit-style, and their explicit plan is to suicide bomb the Euro and implicitly crash the global economy in the process, just as Bannon was alluding to at CPAC. hopefully the socialist party wins. my coworkers aren't super hopeful, but who knows?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:He's just trolling. Like seriously he's 80% troll account and it's hilarious. hilarious ironic nazis hilarious!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Condiv posted:hopefully the socialist party wins. my coworkers aren't super hopeful, but who knows? You 100% know more about French politics than me, but everything I'm seeing combined with what's already happened leads me to believe that it's going to end real, real bad. Condiv posted:hilarious ironic nazis I mean, he's not a Nazi, he's calling you a Nazi, and it's working lmao. This is the guy who copy-pastes right wing comment section drivel unsourced just to gently caress with people. Edit: to be clear, I don't think you're a Nazi. I just think it's really funny he's getting a rise out of people from such a loving obvious gimmie troll.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If we want to convince the center that progressivism is better, we're going to have to prove it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah this is emblematic of the dishonest arguments put forth in this thread. Compromise? Who the hell was the non-compromise option to the left of Ellison? Clearly it wasn't Buttigieg, since he ran to Ellison's left and no one cared.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
Condiv posted:hopefully the socialist party wins. my coworkers aren't super hopeful, but who knows? I don't think Le Pen is going to win, but they are definitely going to make it to the second ballot. Just make sure your coworkers vote and they can be more hopeful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:You 100% know more about French politics than me, but everything I'm seeing combined with what's already happened leads me to believe that it's going to end real, real bad. well, the socialist party has already paid a lot more attention to their voters than the dems did, what with shooting down valls, the self-described clintonite. as i said, my coworkers are worried, but I'm holding out hope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I don't think Le Pen is going to win, but they are definitely going to make it to the second ballot. Just make sure your coworkers vote and they can be more hopeful. oh, le pen making the second ballot is a given what with fillon falling out of the race. hopefully people don't protest vote for her in the second ballot. as for my coworkers, they're voting far far left melenchon last i talked to them. i can understand them being for him instead of the socialists (especially since one of the directors at our labs is a higher rank member of the new left), but they'll prolly vote PS in the second ballot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
Isn't the current French president part of the socialist party and also widely despised?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They didn't see any reason to pay any attention to the endorsement of one particular progressive. Why would they? They've been shown no evidence that progressives are better at winning elections, nor have they seen any evidence to back up claims that the last few years of Democratic losses are due to fundamental ideological flaws rather than weak messaging and awful campaign strategies. If you're insistent on dishonestly singling out Sanders (leaving out, for one example, the current Senate Minority Leader), I suppose one way not working is not proof that another will. But maybe listening to the man who received 43% of the votes in the primary, and was saying the whole time that a different path needs to be taken, is worth a shot? (By the way, he's still saying it.) "Weak messaging and awful campaign strategies" is certainly one way to put it, I almost thought you were agreeing with me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, she would know, considering that was her claim to fame in, what, 1993? ...which would imply a united coalition of some sort able to slowly grind out that effort. Right. This is another thing I don't get. Centrists want to painstakingly grind out the path to, say, a better healthcare system, because it'll be more durable when it gets done; kind of like every other major social advance in the entire history of the U.S.; first small and inadequate, then better and better until it's next to untouchable. That's how things appear to work. Both sides want the same ultimate goal but disagree on procedure. Leftists are dissatisfied with that process, understandably. But you'd need a different political system to make things go faster. So why don't leftists hop on board and just constantly jam their foot down on the accelerator even as the centrists have the wheel? There's more than enough energy on the left to make it happen - there's so much energy it's scaring the Republicans into inaction. I can only imagine how good it would be if it were galvanizing Democrats into action. I get the frustration with everything being slow, but we can see that it's because all the decisions are being made by career Democrats ensconced in positions of power. The election of Perez and his immediate signal that Ellison is going to be his working partner should be taken as a signal that the lockout of the left is ending, I think. It's not fast, but heck, if everyone's right that the modern DNC is a product of Clintonite policies, well, that's nearly thirty years of inertia that was only meaningfully challenged in the last two. I think that kind of turnaround should be heartening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Isn't the current French president part of the socialist party and also widely despised? Yes, but he got kind of Jimmy Carter-ed where he mildly hosed up, but global events happened at the same time that made his mild gently caress ups much more glaring + anti-incumbent fever has led to multiple left-wing parties competing for viability and it is killing the socialists. There is a good chance that the 2nd round choice is between the center-right party and Le Pen. Le Pen also has a weird amount of crossover with the far-left anti-EU segment and ultra-atheist/secularist lefties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
I think Tom Perez with Ellison as deputy is honestly a pretty good result. Maybe I'll eat my words when Tom Perez completely ignores Ellison and doubles down on being a corporate democrat or whatever but I really don't think that will be the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
I mean, is Perez a corporate Democrat? Honest question. I remember that people were generally positive on him when he was floated as a possible running mate for Clinton, much more so than Tim Kaine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
Harrow posted:I mean, is Perez a corporate Democrat? Honest question. I remember that people were generally positive on him when he was floated as a possible running mate for Clinton, much more so than Tim Kaine. yes, insofar as some labor unions are corporations
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Isn't the current French president part of the socialist party and also widely despised? yep. he's a centrist in the vein of obama (made lots of nice promises, did almost nothing when he got power), and people hate him for it. His successor valls was shaping up to be similar in the way hillary was a follow up to obama (he's a self-styled clintonite in his own words). the guy who ended up winning the primary, benoit hamon, is a bernie fanboy though. again, not an easy win, but they're not going with tonedeaf centrism like the dems in the US did, so we'll see if leftism wins against fascism or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah this is emblematic of the dishonest arguments put forth in this thread. Fulchrum doesn't even acknowledge that there was a compromise in Ellison in the first place. Since there wasn't some all-hands-on-deck meeting of American progressives where we first agreed on the ghost of Friedrich Engels before walking it back a bit and putting forward Ellison, we're whiny pissbabies if we don't like the Dem establishment swatting us on the hand. It's loving diabolical where right after November 9 Ellison was put forward as someone the whole party could get behind and you've got Sanders and Schumer endorsing the guy - oh but that's not good enough too many progressive bonafides and too close to Sanders, better put our guy in there and pretend he's the compromise. And they pulled it off: they were able to cast progressive support of Ellison as a liability and make the Perez out to be the adult in the room, and he won. And then you've got fuckers in like that Vox article gloating over it basically saying the left doesn't have a choice but to support Democrats. It's just the smuggest and most disingenuous poo poo I've seen on this board in a long time. They've got a snappy retort for everything and it doesn't seem to bother them if they contradict themselves on the same loving page.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
Foreploy posted:I get the frustration with everything being slow, but we can see that it's because all the decisions are being made by career Democrats ensconced in positions of power. The election of Perez and his immediate signal that Ellison is going to be his working partner should be taken as a signal that the lockout of the left is ending, I think. It's not fast, but heck, if everyone's right that the modern DNC is a product of Clintonite policies, well, that's nearly thirty years of inertia that was only meaningfully challenged in the last two. I think that kind of turnaround should be heartening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
I guess my whole thing is that I think people are overreacting to Perez's election. He isn't as progressive as Ellison, but he also isn't, for example, Chuck Schumer. It seems like a lot of more progressive Democrats who were paying attention see this as a disastrous choice and I really don't. Someone let me know why I'm wrong if I am, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah I'm optimistic about Perez himself. I think he realizes he's got his work cut out for him uniting the party and his appointment of Ellison to deputy chair signifies that. It's not Perez I'm worried about so much as the people who voted for him - the Democratic party is still filled with triangulating nihilists and this elections bears that out. That might mean the death of the party regardless of what Perez does (or for that matter Ellison as deputy chair). They'll be gone soon. If this election had happened in two years Ellison would have won.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
Lol I think its funny how divided the Democrats are parallels with what's going on in the Republican Party. Like you got your far-right types who love Bannon as the anti-globalist but hate Reince calling him an "establishment weasel" to Paul Ryan. They are just as fractured as we are currently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Lol I think its funny how divided the Democrats are parallels with what's going on in the Republican Party. Like you got your far-right types who love Bannon as the anti-globalist but hate Reince calling him an "establishment weasel" to Paul Ryan. They are just as fractured as we are currently. I don't think the right is as fractured as we are, but they're suffering badly from "being the party in power and having to actually having to do poo poo" now, rather than sitting on the sidelines and just promising bullshit and fairy dust in response to anything Obama does. That the Republican Party is honestly going to go up against AARP right before mid-terms is absolutely hilarious though and exactly why they lost in 2006, they just can't stop stepping on that Medicare rake. Also "globalism" continues to be a dumb bullshit right wing buzzword that is shorthand for Jewish/NWO conspiracy bullshit and we shouldn't unironically use it. Call Bannon what he is, a fascist, an isolationist, an ethnonationalist, whatever. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Compromise? Who the hell was the non-compromise option to the left of Ellison? Clearly it wasn't Buttigieg, since he ran to Ellison's left and no one cared. Like I said, in the immediate aftermath of the election Ellison was the compromise candidate. He had the endorsements of Sanders and Chuck Schumer before he even formally announced his candidacy! And this seemed to work fine until the centrists slowly realized that if they *gasp* compromised with the left it might be seen as betrayal by their corporate overlords. So they put up Perez and here we are. Like I said, I'm reasonably optimistic about Perez the person taking the position of DNC chair, but his candidacy signaled that the centrist establishment does not want real compromise with the left, and his election shows that they hold enough sway in the party to hold to that. In light of this it's reasonable for leftists to contemplate looking elsewhere for representation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
Harrow posted:I guess my whole thing is that I think people are overreacting to Perez's election. He isn't as progressive as Ellison, but he also isn't, for example, Chuck Schumer. It seems like a lot of more progressive Democrats who were paying attention see this as a disastrous choice and I really don't. Someone let me know why I'm wrong if I am, I guess. cause he was pushed by the obama admin to retain absolute control of the party. it's evidence (like it has been since he announced) that the dems will not compromise with the left ever, even when their backs are against the wall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Lol I think its funny how divided the Democrats are parallels with what's going on in the Republican Party. Like you got your far-right types who love Bannon as the anti-globalist but hate Reince calling him an "establishment weasel" to Paul Ryan. They are just as fractured as we are currently. The difference is that they're much better than the left at rallying behind one guy, winning an election, and then going back to the squabbling. The left is awful at the uniting part.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
Harrow posted:The difference is that they're much better than the left at rallying behind one guy, winning an election, and then going back to the squabbling. The left is awful at the uniting part. part of the problem is dems absolute fear of being seen as leftist at all. they refuse to give concessions to their leftist base, which kinda gets in the way of unifying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
Harrow posted:The difference is that they're much better than the left at rallying behind one guy, winning an election, and then going back to the squabbling. The left is awful at the uniting part. The Dems were in a similar (actually better) position eight years ago and all we got from it was a stern talking to about "political capital" and the ACA shitshow which is going to be repealed now anyway. Oh and whining about not having a filibuster-proof majority for long enough - meanwhile we see what the GOP are doing now without one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:This is a common attack on the left but it's bullshit. If the Dems pandered to the left half as much as the GOP panders to their whackjob base you wouldn't hear peep from us. The GOP gets in power and they're going to gently caress up health care and set the stage for banning abortion, among dozens of other red-meat poo poo their base wants. It's all horrible of course but they do it. I wouldn't use the healthcare debacle as an example of good pandering to the base considering that it's resulting in absolutely massive backlash, even from the Republican base. Healthcare is this interesting double edged sword because the electorate will fight it tooth and nail until they get it, and then they'll never let go.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I wouldn't use the healthcare debacle as an example of good pandering to the base considering that it's resulting in absolutely massive backlash, even from the Republican base. they fought it so hard they voted for a guy that was advocating for a public option! and voted a bunch of his dem friends in too!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:This is a common attack on the left but it's bullshit. If the Dems pandered to the left half as much as the GOP panders to their whackjob base you wouldn't hear peep from us. The GOP gets in power and they're going to gently caress up health care and set the stage for banning abortion, among dozens of other red-meat poo poo their base wants. It's all horrible of course but they do it. The Dems absolutely squandered their opportunity between 2008-2010, no question there. The entire ACA situation was even worse because of the concessions they made to appease a couple of senators, like ditching the public option. That's a decent point regarding red meat for the base, though, I'll concede that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I wouldn't use the healthcare debacle as an example of good pandering to the base considering that it's resulting in absolutely massive backlash, even from the Republican base.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:36 |
|
|
Harrow posted:The Dems absolutely squandered their opportunity between 2008-2010, no question there. The entire ACA situation was even worse because of the concessions they made to appease a couple of senators, like ditching the public option. The Dems needed to appease Lieberman because they had already kicked him out of the party when he lost his primary
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:18
|
|