|
This is a huge kick in the balls in the left-wing of the party. It's an admission that they learned absolutely anything from the election. The Democrats are already dead. Let the conservatives-lite have their party at take your efforts elsewhere.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The Dems needed to appease Lieberman because they had already kicked him out of the party when he lost his primary It ignores that Lieberman was already a centrist shitheel who voted with the GOP all the loving time, so it's not like the Dems lost much, and also that Lamont didn't exactly get blown out of the water. The lesson to take from Lieberman is to keep primarying bastards like him and hope you have better luck next time. Like I find it really hard to believe that Lieberman wouldn't have been a pain in the rear end about a public option, for example, if only that dastardly Ned Lamont hadn't had the gall to run against him in the Dem primary and win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
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. Buttigieg would have been opposed even more strongly than Ellison and progressives would be called whiny babies for demanding someone so far left (and also racist for opposing a PoC)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted: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. Yes that's what I meant by globalism in the context of rightwingers who support Bannon (Whenever I use "globalism" outside of that context, I mean globalization). I disagree that he is an isolationist though. Part of the "economic nationalism" Bannon supports will require us to get into conflict with other countries, which ties into his protectionism on renegotiating various trade treaties. In that process, we must always be on the benefiting end of these deals (part of the "America First" strategy), but of course that will entangle us in opposing interests from other nations. There's no way we can set out to do what Bannon wants, via economic policy, by extricating ourselves out of the affairs of other countries. Then there's the situation of "destroying ISIS" that will require more foreign intervention and also possibly more intervention elsewhere to achieve our national economic policies. After all its the only way fascists can try to get autarky, which of course in America is certainly doomed to fail. The Republican base is pretty much doomed once they pass their Obamacare replacement, ensuring many will lose their benefits and insurance. '18 wouldn't look so bad for the Dems if it wasn't for the gerrymandering from '10. Who knows maybe we can sweep and take control of Congress. My short term concern for Democrats is an economic crisis that puts us at an early risk for another recession which will certainly be blamed on Obama and the Democrats. So we might be screwed in '18, but knowing how laughably incompetent Trump's administration (and Republicans) are, good luck trying to win re-election in '20.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah this keeps getting brought up as though it's some slam-dunk case against ever primarying a lovely rep. No, but like he really did suck and he really did need to be coddled for anything at all to pass
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Yes that's what I meant by globalism in the context of rightwingers who support Bannon (Whenever I use "globalism" outside of that context, I mean globalization). Than just say "globalization" for poo poo's sake. Words have meanings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
My point is that "globalism" is not the same as "globalization," and "globalism" explicitly is a racist, conspiracy theory laden term of the right. Globalization is a formal phenomenon in economics and culture, "globalism" is about one world government/Jewish conspiracies. It aggravates me greatly that people who consider themselves liberal/leftist/progressive have uncritically adopted "globalism" as a synonym because it's a massive messaging victory for the far right. I don't think Bannon is isolationist in the traditional sense, more than that he is xenophobic in the purest sense of having a disdain for and fear of the generalized Other and that shaping his foreign policy and world view, to say nothing of his weird "we are destined to fight a Christian crusade against Islam." I am afraid of them trying to blame the inevitable economic collapse that's coming on Obama and I think we should be vigilant for that, but I am increasingly skeptical they'd be able to pull it off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:No, but like he really did suck and he really did need to be coddled for anything at all to pass True, and I think leftists overstate their case when they say that the Dems did nothing with their supermajority in 2008...when it really wasn't a supermajority in any meaningful way. Byrd and Kennedy were on their deathbeds, Manchin was no help whatsoever when he replaced Byrd, Lieberman was devoutly terrible, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
And meanwhile the Republicans can't even figure out how to pass a loving tax cut with their majority much less repeal Obamacare
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Than just say "globalization" for poo poo's sake. Words have meanings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:True, and I think leftists overstate their case when they say that the Dems did nothing with their supermajority in 2008...when it really wasn't a supermajority in any meaningful way. Byrd and Kennedy were on their deathbeds, Manchin was no help whatsoever when he replaced Byrd, Lieberman was devoutly terrible, etc. I think that there's an argument to be made that, in a time of crisis and facing down stiff opposition from conservatives, they should've considered killing the filibuster and just forcing through what they wanted to do. They were given a once in a generation chance and blew it and I think a lot of people just wish they had gone for the gold. There's a shitload of problems with this idea but I mean, it sounds nice. Confounding Factor posted:Well if you want to get technical there is a distinction between globalism and globalization that has nothing to do with a Jewish cabal global conspiracy, as those on the far-right believe. No, there isn't. "Globalism" does not mean anything outside of the fever dreams of the far right. It explicitly exists to tie multiculturalism to globalization and traditional conspiracy theories as a categorically awful thing that is destroying the white Christian West.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
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. I think most of it is this: 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). Perez will probably be fine in terms of doing the job, but the attitude on display of the D "establishment," where they decide to shoot down the widely popular guy endorsed by both the likes of both Sanders and Schumer for someone they admit isn't even that different*, implies bad things about the mindset they have going into this. Dems need to make huge gains in 2018, and doing so is going to be difficult if they're alienating a portion of the base for basically no reason. Like, was there even a bunch of people clamoring for "Perez for bust" outside the voting members themselves? Maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention, but it seemed like there was lots of enthusiastic support for Ellison, and then lots of "Perez would be fine, I'd be happy with either really." That seems like the perfect chance to give it to Ellison (contingent on him putting Perez or whoever in the deputy spot, maybe) for some free good will. That they didn't take it is kind of worrying. Basically I don't see any reason to be upset at Perez himself, but I do see reason for people to be feeling pretty wary about the stance of the party leadership as a whole. Lightning Knight posted:Again, only 20% of Democrats knew that the DNC chair election was even going on. My reply to that would be that that 20% is probably the group most likely to be engaged and doing stuff like volunteering. And even if you only piss off a fraction of them, we're kind of in the position where every vote counts right now. We could easily win or lose the house by a razor thin margin. *If they'd argued that Ellison wasn't up to the job and that we need Perez's experience or something, I might've been more sympathetic. Instead it felt like, "yeah they'd all be good. so let's not pick the one people are most fired up about, just because," which I think a lot of people read as a deliberate slap in the face.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:True, and I think leftists overstate their case when they say that the Dems did nothing with their supermajority in 2008...when it really wasn't a supermajority in any meaningful way. Byrd and Kennedy were on their deathbeds, Manchin was no help whatsoever when he replaced Byrd, Lieberman was devoutly terrible, etc. I mean outside the Senate (where they still had a larger majority than the GOP has now) they had control of the House and a hugely popular President elected with a massive mandate. If you compare what they did with that to what the GOP are doing now I think that speaks for itself which party takes its 'base', whatever that even is for the Dems, more seriously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
z0glin Warchief posted:My reply to that would be that that 20% is probably the group most likely to be engaged and doing stuff like volunteering. And even if you only piss off a fraction of them, we're kind of in the position where every vote counts right now. We could easily win or lose the house by a razor thin margin. I don't disagree with anything in this post, I'm just saying that the fear that this huge swath of Democrats are going to be mad and stay home is mostly unfounded and due to the confirmation bias of everyone posting in this thread and subforum being greatly more politically aware and engaged than your average person. The average Democrat, overwhelmingly, gives no fucks. Which does not mean it didn't matter, just that we should check our perception against the political reality of your average voter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
I just hope that the New Improved Democrats don't just concede the Senate election in Vermont without even running a candidate next year 50 States Or Die Tryin'
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I don't disagree with anything in this post, I'm just saying that the fear that this huge swath of Democrats are going to be mad and stay home is mostly unfounded and due to the confirmation bias of everyone posting in this thread and subforum being greatly more politically aware and engaged than your average person. The average Democrat, overwhelmingly, gives no fucks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:That's purely Senate inside-baseball horseshit and if the Dems wanted to take that opportunity to reform one of the most undemocratic governing bodies in the world, then they were free to do so. Yeah, but nobody expected Scott loving Brown, of all people, to take Teddy's seat. It didn't seem like a once-in-a-generation opportunity at the time. quote:I mean outside the Senate (where they still had a larger majority than the GOP has now) they had control of the House and a hugely popular President elected with a massive mandate. A House majority doesn't mean much when the Senate is mired in gridlock, though. In retrospect, I agree that they probably should have nuked the filibuster, but hindsight is 20/20 and all that. It was a strategic error, but I think leftists go too far when they claim this suggests that the Dems uniformly didn't want to do more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I'm not worried so much about progressive Dems staying home en masse because Perez is the DNC chair. I am worried about the DNC establishment pushing back against any genuine compromise by Perez with the left going forward (his election, again, being itself a prime example of the DNC establishment's refusal to compromise), and what effect that might have on turnout. I agree. I still don't think the DNC chair is the end of it though. As we speak progressives are entering into lower level party positions throughout the country. The groundwork is being laid for a much better fight in the 2020 primary, and much more preparedness than Bernie had in 2016. I'm going to refer again to this article, from right after the election, and again unironically say, Keith Ellison for President 2020.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I just hope that the New Improved Democrats don't just concede the Senate election in Vermont without even running a candidate next year And he's a more reliable member of the caucus than many other Democratic Senators. This is a stupid attack and you should stop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
The Democratic party would be within their rights to just run the candidate with the second highest number of votes in the general, but it would be kinda loving over their own primary voters to do so since most of them did vote for Sanders. Sanders is a Democrat in all but name, which is a hell of a lot better than a DINO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I'm not worried so much about progressive Dems staying home en masse because Perez is the DNC chair. I am worried about the DNC establishment pushing back against any genuine compromise by Perez with the left going forward (his election, again, being itself a prime example of the DNC establishment's refusal to compromise), and what effect that might have on turnout. I think it could be argued that Perez was the Democratic establishment compromising, at least to some extent. They wanted one of their guys, but they went with one of their more progressive guys. Don't get me wrong, I wanted Ellison, too. But Perez is good thing in my book. He's no Wasserface-Schulz.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
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. The people complaining the loudest about Ellison losing don't care that he's got backing from some of the biggest establishment assholes like Schumer, they just care because Bernie liked Ellison therefore he was their chosen one and if Perez had been backed by Sanders they'd have rallied behind him just as quickly. Kilroy posted:In fact if that backlash results in the GOP dropping it like a hot potato that just further illustrates my point that the GOP are more responsive to their base. Or to put it another way, the GOP has a base at all - as opposed to the Democrats who don't really represent anyone as best as I can tell. Reminder that the person responding to Trump's SOTU is Steve Beshear. If the GOP actually kills the ACA (or makes motions to do so) without something to replace it, not just HSA and high risk pools, it'd be one of the few things that might actually gently caress them. But that's assuming the people stupid enough to vote Republican last year while assuming the GOP and Trump wouldn't actually dare to kill their coverage aren't dumb enough to buy whatever lie the GOP sells them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:And meanwhile the Republicans can't even figure out how to pass a loving tax cut with their majority much less repeal Obamacare That's a bit backwards. The whole reason they want to repeal the ACA is so they can make a "revenue neutral" tax cut for the rich that sidesteps the byrd rule. Losing their nerve on repeal means their whole timeline is hosed. They have to do ACA repeal first for the plan to work at all, and they don't appear to have made a contingency plan, either. For all the sturm und drang about how incompetent the executive branch is right now, it's equally important to remember that Paul Ryan is also an incompetent simpleton and not the "whiz kid" he makes himself out to be. But that's all for another thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
Harrow posted:I sincerely do not see how you can look at the current government and not see how it is worse than other recent Republican administrations. It really is the worst possible time in decades to let the American left fall into infighting for the next decade and a half. "It's always the worst possible time" is a cowardly excuse to make legitimate political disappointment into an affront worth burning the country down over. It's interesting you don't say that in reference to the Dem's refusal to do anything but spit in the activist base's faces
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The people complaining the loudest about Ellison losing don't care that he's got backing from some of the biggest establishment assholes like Schumer, they just care because Bernie liked Ellison therefore he was their chosen one and if Perez had been backed by Sanders they'd have rallied behind him just as quickly. And then the party went ahead and pissed all that away, not because they wanted someone all that different, but purely because they didn't like the idea of compromise with the left. Their main attraction to Perez was precisely that the left wanted someone else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It's interesting you don't say that in reference to the Dem's refusal to do anything but spit in the activist base's faces Christ, Bernie progressives aren't the only activists in the loving party, get a goddamn grip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Isn't the current French president part of the socialist party and also widely despised? you're right, america is france and its political situation is exactly the same
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 08:50
|
|
|
I honestly wish there was a leftist group so organized it forced the centrist dems to beg for their votes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:you're right, america is france and its political situation is exactly the same That isn't really what I meant, and was in relation to previous statements about left wing people not voting for the socialist party in France, which I am gathering is actually a center left party for reasons. Kilroy posted:Their main attraction to Perez was precisely that the left wanted someone else. There's an argument to be made that Perez represents Obama trying to assert control as the new symbolic leader of the party and differentiate his loyalists from Clinton loyalists, i.e. DWS and Kaine. How much of a difference this actually makes is up for debate but there does seem to be some degree of separation between Obama and Clinton loyalists for the purposes of internal party politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
Harrow posted:I sincerely do not see how you can look at the current government and not see how it is worse than other recent Republican administrations. It really is the worst possible time in decades to let the American left fall into infighting for the next decade and a half. "It's always the worst possible time" is a cowardly excuse to make legitimate political disappointment into an affront worth burning the country down over. Institutions will not save you from what our government has become. Propping up the system that got us here will only bring us back here again. Trump is the hideous end-stage tumor of neoliberalism, and the emerging resistance is necessarily an opposition to neoliberalism itself. The Democrats can either embrace that or not, but it's happening right now. You can show up and help, or wring your hands and worry. Either way the party will swing left.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:That's a bit backwards. The whole reason they want to repeal the ACA is so they can make a "revenue neutral" tax cut for the rich that sidesteps the byrd rule. Losing their nerve on repeal means their whole timeline is hosed. They have to do ACA repeal first for the plan to work at all, and they don't appear to have made a contingency plan, either. I'd read that thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:No, there isn't. "Globalism" does not mean anything outside of the fever dreams of the far right. It explicitly exists to tie multiculturalism to globalization and traditional conspiracy theories as a categorically awful thing that is destroying the white Christian West. I don't think it is so simple to casually dismiss those on the far-right to say "this is a Jewish global conspiracy!" when they go on some anti-Semitic rant, sure there are some fringe lunatics like that, but there are underlying conditions that give rise to rhetoric right populist figures Trump, Le Pen, Wilders, etc. use. I've touched on this in the Trump thread, but the popularity of the "alt-right", at its core, is the loss of identity in a continued multicultural world. It's the perceived threat of what it means to be a (white) American - its values, culture, language, families, tribes that makes up one's social background which provides stable meaning in how they are in the world. When that Western European tradition becomes diminished overtime, and it gets mingled with other traditions, you end up with a backlash and weird outbursts to express it, like its better to have closed off ethnic groups than a multicultural inclusivity. So more emphasis on protecting the nation state, less ethnic migration. You are right there is a fear of attacks on traditional European-Christian, but I'm not sure what the proper response is. All multicultural tolerance does is acknowledge others but bracketing them away from intruding in our personal spaces. It's recognizing the differences but not including them in the tribe, which is IMO more cruel. So yes there are Trump supporters that are bigoted, racist, sexist and all that but perhaps maybe they look at the world a different way, maybe they have different interests than either you or I share. It's not in a sense a racial supremacy (they are usually on the defensive) but rather its a chauvinism. So you get the expressions of racism, xenophobia, homophobia and so on. I reject that notion of "Most Americans are stupid" on its face, its too superficial, although in some cases that is true. Anyway, look at the refugee crisis in the EU and you have that anti-immigration bent, which is the real threat to the EU. There is that fear of the other destroying their culture and upending the social cohesion of a nation (it's one of the reasons why certain countries have such nice welfare states). Then you have the economic side of things as Blyth talks about (how capital shifted to places like Romania from Germany, which creates a situation of unemployed and precarious workers). You have failed countries, look at Greece. And Blyth's point is that those in the EU aren't all on the same playing field, some countries enjoy security, rights and prosperity while there are those that don't and are excluded. There is just no mechanism that can deal with transnational issues effectively. So you wind up with these right nationalist movements to reclaim their sovereignty, who feel globalism has weakened their individual voices, especially on the local level. Because if you have such an imbalance with the global movement of capital but lacking the power on the decision where that goes, people start getting angry especially if it results in economic insecurity. Of course we both know the issue is how wildly unbalanced global capitalism is, with all the consumerism, offshoring, outsourcing, yet the Left has no answer for it. So now we get that retrograde populism in order to combat it, along with those threats to national identity, sovereignty, economic security. The Democrats aren't the only ones losing. The interesting thing and going back to your isolationist claim, you know when Trump was campaigning he was pretty neutral to the whole Palestinian/Israel situation, he didn't want America to be so antagonistic to Russia (I know how contentious this is), so foreign policy wise maybe we are going in the right direction. Scaling back all the drone strikes from Obama's presidency would be huge. I think there are Americans on both left and right that really loathe our decades of imperialist foreign policy. Maybe there are some unintended good consequences that come out of a national focus?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 10:37
|
|
|
Edit: no, I'm not going to turn the thread into huge pointless effort post derails.
Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 11:03 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
calling critics of the global economy racists is somehow a new low for the left, and hopefully politicians test these waters in 2018 and 2020 lmao. Yes, Bannon is a anti-semite with zero proof whatsoever but an actual anti-semite was within 20 votes of being the head of the DNC and it's not even discussed here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
Mnoba posted:calling critics of the global economy racists is somehow a new low for the left, and hopefully politicians test these waters in 2018 and 2020 lmao. lmao this is some low effort poo poo right here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:If nothing else I'd at least like to convince them that centrism is hot garbage, but if eight straight years of losses and Donald loving Trump didn't do that, I'm at a loss for what can. Difference is this isn't binary, there are more options than just you, and you can't point to any successes and have to invent persecution complexes about how the mean establishment totally stopped progressives from getting involved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 11:37
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:That's purely Senate inside-baseball horseshit and if the Dems wanted to take that opportunity to reform one of the most undemocratic governing bodies in the world, then they were free to do so. The GOP haven't done poo poo you idiot. They're fighting to put in Trump's cabinet and Trump himself has put out a bunch of executive orders. The only bills Trump has signed into law has been one to allow Mattis to take the Sec Def position and one killing transparency for oil companies dumping mining waste in rivers. Which of these shows how much the GOP loves, respects and truly cares about their base?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
This is a poor move by the Democratic Party, and the arguments defending the Democrats here are not good. The fundamental issues here go beyond whether Ellison and Perez are both 'progressives'. And they go beyond whether 'the left' has enough power versus 'the center'. The fundamental problem with the Democratic Party is not where the party falls on a scale of 'progressive' versus 'centrist', it is whether the party is adequately representing the interests of its voting base. It is not just about the things you ostensibly support, but how you choose to wield power when you obtain it, how you choose to respond to situations. Political ideology (left, center) is a distraction here. The majority of the things 'the left' wants are not 'leftist' by any stretch of the imagination. They are not things that you have to be a 'leftist' to support, they are things that many/most people would support. The failure of the Democratic Party to do these things is why they shed voters and are unable to lose elections. It is not because people are comparing the Democrats' platform to some policy list they support, and choosing not to vote because the Democrats aren't giving them exactly what they want. It's people not voting because the Democrats are not doing the bare minimum to be a proper party for the average person. You don't have to be 'a leftist' or a 'democratic socialist' or a 'communist', for example, to support protecting American families from predatory and downright criminal business practices by banks and mortgage companies. This is not leftism, it is basic rule of law. What did the Democrats do about this? The Atlantic posted:Nothing is sadder than a man who disclaims his power to preserve his reputation. The presidency is subject to countless veto points and constraints, but the foreclosure disaster was unique; Congress had already given the incoming president the authority to act. What did Tom Perez, progressive, do about this? quote:The SCRA is rarely used for jail time, and other parts of the government were more well-suited for pursuing criminal charges against bank executives. Yet the foreclosure crisis, with the ensuing mortgage documentation fraud, was also unprecedented. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency documented 1,622 SCRA violations, including over 1,000 completed foreclosures of active duty troops. When your voters' lives worsen under your watch, when your voters feel as if they are getting nothing from you, they are not going to turn out and vote for you. Democrats have to grasp with their failures. Perez, as part of Obama's administration, is a part of those failures. These are failures. Failures of political strategy, failures of thought, failures. They are not 'different ideologies' or 'being more of a centrist': there is no massive American constituency that supports banks defrauding them. Tom Perez is DNC Chair because Barack Obama and people affiliated to him pushed for him to run, supported him, and asked DNC people to vote for Perez. Barack Obama and the people affiliated with him held the executive for eight years, are responsible for a large number of political and social failures, the Democratic Party saw massive losses under their 'leadership', and they now handed over the presidency to Donald Trump, an incompetent buffoun. These people are responsible for more bad than good, and yet they still hold enough sway to actively control the direction of this political party. It's not good. Obama should step aside, as one of the people partly responsible for these failures. On all evidence, these people have not done a good enough job to get elected and be respected and have a strong coalition of supporters. They just haven't. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 12:18 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
There's some leaked emails of Perez to Podesta; they're not super interesting, but this in particular jumped to me as precisely the reason why we should be wary of this guy:quote:Nevada is an opportunity to fight back on so many levels. First, the current storyline is that she does not connect well with young voters. Given that Nevada is far more demographically representative of America, I am confident that HRC can do well with all African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans (dont forget the sizeable population of Asian Americans in Nevada, including Filipinos.). Emmy and the team have a good plan to attract all minority voters. When we do well there, then the narrative changes from Bernie kicks rear end among young voters to Bernie does well only among young white liberals-- that is a different story and a perfect lead in to South Carolina, where once again, we can work to attract young voters of color. So I think Nevada is a real opportunity , and I would strongly urge HRC to get out there within a couple days of NH. He was quite wrong in his assessment here and is more concerned with 'changing the narrative' even when that narrative doesn't resemble reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:There's some leaked emails of Perez to Podesta; they're not super interesting, but this in particular jumped to me as precisely the reason why we should be wary of this guy: Statistically, this assessment was mostly correct, and Hillary did in fact win both Nevada and South Carolina on the basis of strong support among minorities, though he is wrong in that younger people of all races and genders generally trended towards Bernie. I mean, you can hold it against him for favoring Hillary over Bernie, but he essentially predicted what happened in real life and how the narrative played out among the media, rightly or wrongly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 12:50
|
|