|
Harrow posted:True, and they're both going to be interesting because there's no incumbent in either. I'd like to think Christie's gently caress-ups have dragged down the NJ Republican brand, but who knows. Christie kinda IS the NJ Republican brand.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
Harrow posted:I wish I could share the optimism some of you have that whatever party would fill the power vacuum if the Democrats collapsed would be to their left and not their right. And that there'd be anything left in this country to salvage after the 20 years it would take to start actually winning elections and not just splitting the vote with the Democrats so they both fail. i have no illusion that whatever tries to replace dems won't fail, i also have no illusion that dems are going to be successful when they fumble basic strategies like this and drive off people they should be reaching out to. i'll keep trying fruitlessly to prop up the party that keeps loving themselves over and they'll keep derailing their own momentum and we'll all crash and burn together.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
2016 and this DNC election are both proof that threatening voters with only negative outcomes can be counter productive in small and large scale elections. Threatening voters with "vote my way or else" doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:2016 and this DNC election are both proof that threatening voters with only negative outcomes can be counter productive in small and large scale elections. That still seems to be the Clintonista line of rhetoric too, though: "We're not going to compromise on strategy, and if you don't get onboard with us, you want Trump to win." I understand that there's a lot of it going both ways, but I don't think you get how much your side is doing it too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That still seems to be the Clintonista line of rhetoric too, though: "We're not going to compromise on strategy, and if you don't get onboard with us, you want Trump to win." That's the arguement if you also dismiss everything Perez has said about reforming the party and that the Unity Committee will be completely ignored. By all means, if the worst comes to worse, then sure. But people are acting like Perez never was a progressive and isn't capable of wanting to push the party to the Left.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
people itt unironically agree with this
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Pick one: $15 an hour and retraining for people in the rust belt was a part of the platform. Hell, she took flack on the latter cause her method of doing it would disrupt communities by making the people there get jobs elsewhere instead of revitalizing their town, which would only happen in about half of them with government subsidized green energy technology manufacturing plants. And this is the other problem with economic populists - when they get concessions, they don't ever remember them or even care.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:i have no illusion that whatever tries to replace dems won't fail, i also have no illusion that dems are going to be successful when they fumble basic strategies like this and drive off people they should be reaching out to. i'll keep trying fruitlessly to prop up the party that keeps loving themselves over and they'll keep derailing their own momentum and we'll all crash and burn together. Well, for what it's worth, I'm doing the same. I don't strictly like it that the Democrats remain the best chance we have, but at the moment, they still are, so it's worth it to keep trying to fight to both change the party for the better and actually win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's the arguement if you also dismiss everything Perez has said about reforming the party and that the Unity Committee will be completely ignored. I mean, I like that from Perez - I really do. I'm optimistic that he'll do a good job in his role. But then there's poo poo like this: https://twitter.com/Shakestweetz/status/835857055672123393 You can see why left-Dems like me are so frustrated with a lot of Clinton die-hards when they do poo poo like this, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:By all means, if the worst comes to worse, then sure. But people are acting like Perez never was a progressive and isn't capable of wanting to push the party to the Left. The worst already happened in 2016 because of your arrogance. Now you want another go at the same arrogance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Majorian posted:They're saying that because people like you aren't willing to compromise the Democratic Party's direction. it's not even that, dude has the personality of a starving tiger shark
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Harrow posted:I wish I could share the optimism some of you have that whatever party would fill the power vacuum if the Democrats collapsed would be to their left and not their right. And that there'd be anything left in this country to salvage after the 20 years it would take to start actually winning elections and not just splitting the vote with the Democrats so they both fail. I'm actually pessimistic about our chances, I just see no other choice. Trabisnikof posted:Just because an establishment person and progressive person endorsed the same candidate doesn't mean there was a compromise that got renegged on when that candidate fails and isn't elected. Establishment Dems who saw the danger to the party and gave a poo poo endorsed Ellison. Establishment Dems either too stupid to see the danger or too self-interested to give a poo poo, went with Perez and the false "compromise" and plausible deniability he represents, and they won the day. Perez basically means that the internal party politics that those people were able to navigate and achieve power remains the same, which is more important to them than growing the party. The only silver lining in all this is that Perez at least had the presence of mind to immediately get Ellison on as deputy chair. For what it's worth I would put him in the bucket for "sees the danger to the party and gives a poo poo" even if he was the candidate for those that do not. Confounding Factor posted:If there was a viable 3rd party to jump ship to, like the DSA, I would but I'm stuck with the Democrats for now. I just don't understand what Berniebros/progressives plans are. Sit at home, refuse to vote for Democrats, and then what? All out of spite? What I said before this election was that a Perez win means I don't think I have a place in the Democratic party, and as such they'll have to work a lot harder to earn my vote since their party affiliation alone is not carrying any weight of its own anymore. I can only speak for myself but I suppose I'm not alone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You mean in roughly the same way you are trying to say that Hillary and all her supporters are racists, antisemites, islamaphobes and sociopaths. Well when several throw throw Male minorities under the bus I'll call them for being racist. When people attempt to slander Ellison for being Muslim I'll call them out. I have never accused anyone of antisemitism. On the sociopath front. Well you're the one who hates pro worker referendums. To the Clintons I can say if they had nothing to hide they would not have closed it down. But then sociopaths like corruption.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
You sure do like coming back to a thread you rated 1.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Clearly not since the middle two were objectively a part of it, Not exactly points that Clinton ran on, though. Remember, the Democratic Party platform is different from a Democratic nominee's platform.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You sure do like coming back to a thread you rated 1. You sure like make smug dismissals of every dissenting opinion in a thread you created in the "Debate and Discussion" forum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Harrow posted:This is astonishingly unlikely. Seriously, if that's the metric for Democrats not being dead in the water, then you can call it right now. The Democrats don't have a ghost of a chance at taking a majority in the House until after 2020, and that's only if they can wrest some state governments out of Republicans' hands. To put things in perspective, the GOP has to lose save races in states like Texas for either chamber to flip, while also not winning races that are already going to be in their favor of flipping. If the Dems can get POTUS election level turnout while the GOP gets regular midterm turnout that might be enough to win more than they're going to lose, but taking either chamber of Congress in 2018 would require 2008 or maybe 2012 levels of Dem turnout.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You sure do like coming back to a thread you rated 1.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well when several throw throw Male minorities under the bus I'll call them for being racist. When people attempt to slander Ellison for being Muslim I'll call them out. I have never accused anyone of antisemitism. On the sociopath front. Well you're the one who hates pro worker referendums. To the Clintons I can say if they had nothing to hide they would not have closed it down. But then sociopaths like corruption. You mean like Sanders Stas did when black people went for Hillary in the primary? You know that just because you refuse to acknowledge the Nation of Islam and the Louis Farrakhan stuff that doesn't make everyone else dense as well. I am not defending the attacks in any way and they do not reflect Ellisson heavily pro Israel agenda (that his most ardent supporters of course must share by their logic), but to claim there was absolutely no motivation but islamophobia and that any other Muslim who hadnt said what Ellisson said in his youth would face the same light resistance is horseshit. The claim was repeated numerous times as a conspiracy for why Sanders didnt win. And of loving course the claim that trying to stop the conspiracy theory is an admission that the theory is totally real. You brainless loving toad. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Ellisson heavily pro Israel agenda WTF is this poo poo, now? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Trump as he reads this thread
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:WTF is this poo poo, now? http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/keith...-contributions/ quote:Schumer’s office responded by saying that not only is Congressman Ellison pro-Israel, but he specifically helped to craft the party’s pro-Israel agenda.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You mean like Sanders Stas did when black people went for Hillary in the primary? Ah openly engaged in islamophibia now. Thanks for proving me right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Okay, so in other words, you're spouting complete bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Some people really like getting ratfucked, don't kinkshame. It felt so good during the election, why stop now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Not exactly points that Clinton ran on, though. Remember, the Democratic Party platform is different from a Democratic nominee's platform. Don't move the goalposts. We are talking about concessions made by the establishment to economic populism. You said any of those four would be a sign of a concession, I pointed out at least two were absolutely a part and a strong argument can be made for the other two. Later messaging is irrelevant to the fact that these were concessions offered up. And saying poo poo like it wasn't her PERSONAL platform is pure goddamn welching.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
No doubt, and most of the GOP as well I'm sure. Infighting like this is not good for business, but the left has been compromising long enough, and too often than compromise is "just do whatever and we'll vote for you anyway". It might not be the most convenient time to draw a line in the sand, but if that's what happens it's probably a better idea to deal with the fact of it, than to berate people for it on a dead comedy forum. Different strokes though - do whatever you feel is best.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
I live in Indiana and Sen. Joe Donnelly is one of the more vulnerable seats we have to protect in 2018. Sure, he's conservative in many ways, but he'll still back the generally progressive line of the Democrats when the chips are down, despite a few bad votes. If a progressive manages to primary him I'll back whoever that is, but Indiana being what it is I'm going to be putting everything into keeping Donnelly around because we really can't afford to turn away allies. Anecdotally, Perez is actually pretty well regarded among union members around here, even those who went for Trump, simply because he fought for them successfully. It's always going to be easier to get Donnelly or Manchin to change their position from Fight for 10 or 12 to Fight for 15 than convince a Republican to give a poo poo about anyone but the rich. Admittedly, I'm a former Republican and some of that party discipline is still knocking around the old noggin. I'll vote for the Democrat regardless, in every election, out of guilt if nothing else. The ability of GOPers to hold their noses for Trump is a big reason we're in this mess. Frankly, the left needs to stop doing what it's done since the 19th Century by going all Judean People's Front at every opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Okay, so in other words, you're spouting complete bullshit. Did Schumer say this or not? Don't go full trump 'I don't want it to be true so it's fake news' on this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Why is op a islamophobe?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Why is op a islamophobe? Because he has no problem with Ellison not winning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Jimbot posted:Perez seems alright. He's a wait and see kind of person. He's a bit too corporate-friendly for my tastes, the kind of things I didn't like Clinton for. Maybe he'll work with Ellison or maybe it'll just be the same old status-quo poo poo that lost the Democrats, well, everything. My biggest problem is that Perez is a candidate drawn up in response to the Progressive Democrat's candidate because the darlings of the Center didn't like his nomination. This article puts it better than I can. Which is why people (who have mostly given up at this point, since it seems that making GBS threads up the thread with bitching at the Democrats is more trendy) who have said that they need to start running more progressive people for office spoke up. The blunt fact of the matter is that in politics no one is obligated to give your opinions about how ~the way things should be~ the time of day unless you have some sort of political capital to speak of. It's a courtesy born of tradition, which many people have forgotten and the Republicans have pretty much abandoned entirely. One of the most direct ways you can build that capital is to run a successful candidate that starts to chip away at existing assumed support for centrist policies and it's establishment coalition. That's how the centrists primaried the left out of the Democrats in the first place in fact. It's also why scumbags like Rubio are smugly stating that they have no interest in serving the general needs of the population of the state over their constituency. Pro corporate/anti worker politics rules supreme within the Republican establishment. Which is a clear example of how our version of politics can sometimes be a double edged sword. Even so, Perez is definitely an attempt to compromise with the left leaning portion of the party. Just on centrist terms. Honestly, though, people bitching about this DNC pick are stupid and getting dragged along by the same rope that many Republican voters get suckered in by. Just by a different end. If Bernie hadn't of spoken up it would not have been an issue to nearly as many people. Edit: Also I should point out the irony in building capital and using it to alter the course of the party. Since it's exactly what the centrists did to get control of the party so thoroughly. Because in previous topics where this issue came up people started spouting off about how important ideological purity was only to run into the brick wall that is the need to wheel and deal at that level of politics and whoops --- it turns out that even if the left did become the establishment again they'd basically be forced to do some of the same obnoxious poo poo people are posting in DnD threads about the Democrats doing. Archonex fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's not just you, but I'm not convinced that it's not just a small portion of you being incredibly loud. *went on to lose to a babbling pussy-grabbing cheeto man* Nevvy Z posted:And get this, even if it's a lot of you and you all really care as much as the people in this thread, this particular event is still the dumbest thing to be raging about and it's obvious that everyone raging about it is using it as a proxy for the primary that they are still mad about, gently caress all that dumb rear end poo poo. Maybe I just don't want to see the Democratic party smug out about stupid babies and tell everyone to get lost again, and then wake up in 2018 wondering why a winning coalition didn't magically appear. "We called everyone who complained about us sucking Goldman-Sachs' collective dick a whiny baby moron, what more do you stupid assholes want!?”
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Did Schumer say this or not? He did say it, but interpreting it to mean that Ellison's agenda is "heavily pro-Israel" (your words) is pretty absurd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Maybe I just don't want to see the Democratic party smug out about stupid babies and tell everyone to get lost again, and then wake up in 2018 wondering why a winning coalition didn't magically appear. "We called everyone who complained about us sucking Goldman-Sachs' collective dick a whiny baby moron, what more do you stupid assholes want!?” Again if you hate Goldman-Sachs, I have bad news for you about the other guys, including the secret president.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Whereas telling them they suck Goldman Sachs dick makes them so ready and willing to respect you and listen to you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Edit: Also I should point out the irony in building capital and using it to alter the course of the party. Since it's exactly what the centrists did to get control of the party so thoroughly. Because in previous topics where this issue came up people started spouting off about how important ideological purity was only to run into the brick wall that is the need to wheel and deal at that level of politics and whoops --- it turns out that even if the left did become the establishment again they'd basically be forced to do some of the same obnoxious poo poo people are posting in DnD threads about the Democrats doing. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:He did say it, but interpreting it to mean that Ellison's agenda is "heavily pro-Israel" (your words) is pretty absurd. He was instrumental in drafting the platforms parts pertaining to Israel and getting its support, people here describe the dems as heavily pro Israel based on that platform, seems straightforward to me. Ellisson is exactly as pro-Israel as the dem party as a whole. So any criticism of Dems as a whole over Israel can be slapped onto Ellisson.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Turns out Obama was saving all that political capital in order to kneecap his own party after leaving office I too post smug quotes at people trying to honestly give advice and change the topic to something at least marginally more productive than "NO TRUE PROGRESSIVE!  ".Edit: Also, your post demonstrates my point. Obama had for maybe half a month a poo poo ton of power over the control of the legislative body of the government and didn't use it. Building capital and influence over the government doesn't mean poo poo if you don't actually use it in a way that's intelligent. Or use it at all. The centrist/establishment Democrats have largely forgotten that lesson now that they're in power. About the only time they do exert their influence is when a presidential election comes up or they're worried they're going to be taken out of power. It's why they keep losing out on so many different fronts and is probably something everyone on both sides of the progressive/centrist divide can agree on as to why this generation of Democrats needs to at least be replaced with ones that don't have their head stuck up their rear end. Archonex fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
millennials are more left-leaning than ever and feel increasingly like there's no place for them in the party especially after yesterday, it's tremendously idiotic to cast out demographics like this, especially when their demographic keeps growing while moderates are shrinking. there is going to be a huge push for third-party that will split up the dems and make victory impossible and this could have been entirely avoided. this was a strategically stupid move no matter how you look at it and i have no idea how anyone can defend it. i don't see a way out of this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:22
|
|