|
Brainiac Five posted:And if those potential voters want to join the Democrats to triangulate? Poor people don't want triangulation they want security and well being.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I think it's extremely telling that dissenting from the official Bernie line gets all kinds of opprobrium where jabbering about how Trump represents the triumph of democracy over "media elites" is just fine. But ironically it does, and that's because Hillary and the Dem establishment humiliated Bernie making him do a song a dance for them after a vicious and hard fought primary. To add to the party you have most of the mainstream media openly supporting one of the candidates, and attacking the other using and abusing the playbook of their more terrible underhanded tactics. Doubly ironically, it happened that if Trump is not a complete idiot it is when it comes to media saviness so he played their own game against them. Kind of poetic justice if you ask me. So guess who ends up looking like the brave populist winning against all odds in a time of political disenfranchisement. Not Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
All inconvenient truths are ratfucking
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:All inconvenient truths are ratfucking Don't spread that fetish.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:And if those potential voters want to join the Democrats to triangulate? Triangulate towards the much-ballyhooed "political center" that's being blasted off towards the right by neo-fascists? Crowsbeak posted:Poor people don't want triangulation they want security and well being.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Do you understand what a compromise is? If "the Bernie wing" had also run someone to the left of Ellison, then it wouldn't be a compromise. Who the heck, on the stage of national politics, is to the left of Ellison, other than possibly Sanders himself? Who was the more ideal candidate that the Sanders wing really secretly wished they could have but decided to compromise down to Ellison instead? Who was the left-of-Ellison candidate that the Bernie wing would have run if they weren't interested in compromise? Because as far as I can tell, there wasn't one, and there wasn't even a hint or peep of Ellison being a "compromise" candidate until after Perez gave him the deputy chair position - when he first announced, he was well to the left of anything progressives had expected or hoped for. It's pretty obviously a new narrative. 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. It's far more than Republicans had when they started the Iraq War, passed the Bush tax cuts, and so on. In 2001, the Senate was 50/50 and the Republicans had only a nine-seat advantage in the House. The problem wasn't actually the numbers, it was the will to fight: Obama was unwilling to fight for his programs in 2009 and 2010, and the Dems were feeling zero pressure from the left. I'm sick of hearing the "well, the Dems don't really have a supermajority" line, because all too often I was hearing it from a so-called leftist who was using it to explain why we shouldn't be mad at Obama and the Dems for watering down the stimulus, dumping the public option, and then making the rest of 2010 about austerity. SKULL.GIF posted:So why did Obama, Biden, Jarrett, and like half a dozen other figures lobby for days and constantly pressure electors behind the scenes to try to suppress Ellison? Because they thought Perez would do a better job? It's entirely possible to come up with reasons to like Perez over Ellison without concluding that the only possible reason must be an establishment conspiracy to steal power from the people...just like it's theoretically possible to come up with reasons to like Ellison over Perez besides "Bernie endorsed him". Frankly, I don't understand at all why so many people think that incredibly popular ex-president Barack Obama, who won two landslide victories and reshaped the entire party in his image over eight years of rule, even thinks he needs to defend his influence from the Sanders wing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Obama more popular by not being prez, makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Who the heck, on the stage of national politics, is to the left of Ellison, other than possibly Sanders himself? Someone who for example wouldn't compromise on ending lobbyist corporate donations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
While I tend not to agree with Tommy Carcetti is exactly like Saint Bernard he is right if we want the Dems to have a message we have to keep pressure on the Dems. That didn't happen under Bush or Obama.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Who the heck, on the stage of national politics, is to the left of Ellison, other than possibly Sanders himself? Who was the more ideal candidate that the Sanders wing really secretly wished they could have but decided to compromise down to Ellison instead? Who was the left-of-Ellison candidate that the Bernie wing would have run if they weren't interested in compromise? Because as far as I can tell, there wasn't one, and there wasn't even a hint or peep of Ellison being a "compromise" candidate until after Perez gave him the deputy chair position - when he first announced, he was well to the left of anything progressives had expected or hoped for. It's pretty obviously a new narrative. Obama won two GEs; I think the first can fairly be called a landslide, the second was won on very slim margins against a very weak opponent. It really came down to Florida, and that state was more or less a coin toss. He lost every midterm, disastrously. The house & senate fell firmly into the grip of the GOP under Obama, and with Clinton's loss the Dems literally have no control over any branch of government anymore. I'm not sure how one can look back at this legacy and see success? Obama's landmark policy is about to likely be undone, and a Neo-fascist is in power. Following the brilliant neoliberal centrist strategy, you just had your head used as a floor mop by a racist guy with a baseball cap campaign & who was taped talking about how he enjoyed sexually assaulting women. That you barely beat Romney & then lost to an ultranationalist with scandal pouring out of every hole in his body should be entirely shaming to you rather than something to boast about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Triangulate towards the much-ballyhooed "political center" that's being blasted off towards the right by neo-fascists? Okay, so it's okay to tell certain potential voters to gently caress off, but only based on how much money they make, or rather the opinions they express as a signifier for how much money they make. Democrats, ideally, should have no ideology but doing whatever a "poor person" tells them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Obama barely beat Romney by 5 million popular votes and 126 in the EC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Obama barely beat Romney by 5 million popular votes and 126 in the EC. Look at the margins in the battleground states, though. They were not easy wins. The popular vote is pretty irrelevant, since the U.S. doesn't nationally vote for a candidate. Hillary won the popular vote by, what, 10 million+ votes? Doesn't matter, since she lost on thin margins in PA, MI & WI.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because they thought Perez would do a better job? It's entirely possible to come up with reasons to like Perez over Ellison without concluding that the only possible reason must be an establishment conspiracy to steal power from the people...just like it's theoretically possible to come up with reasons to like Ellison over Perez besides "Bernie endorsed him". Frankly, I don't understand at all why so many people think that incredibly popular ex-president Barack Obama, who won two landslide victories and reshaped the entire party in his image over eight years of rule, even thinks he needs to defend his influence from the Sanders wing. Obama was effective at putting Obama in the White House. He let the Clintonite faction continue to run the party apparatus, with an admittedly more progressive streak than they had in the 90s, but with no strategy beyond assuming the Obama coalition would hold while somehow adding well-off Republicans. Obama knows how to run his own campaigns, but showed little interest in managing the party, so I don't see why we shouldn't criticize him about it. Like, you are aware the Democrats are in an utterly dire situation, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay, so it's okay to tell certain potential voters to gently caress off, but only based on how much money they make, or rather the opinions they express as a signifier for how much money they make. Come on, man! You can do better than that. That was a complete non-sequitur. I'm disappointed. Did November 8 really damage your psyche badly enough that you lost all your ability to rile people up into endless arguments by slightly but deliberately mischaracterizing them? Now it's just blatantly apparent when you try it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
The popular vote is irrelevant for determining a candidate's popularity, because the presence of the electoral college magically causes people to vote as if electoral college results reflected popularity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:And if those potential voters want to join the Democrats to triangulate? Haha, is this basically an unironic Carl Diggler-ism? Yes, let us contemplate the hypothetical masses beying for the cutting of social security!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
If you look at all the states Obama might have lost but did not, really he almost didn't win, despite winning by by more than 100 in the electoral college. 2012 wasn't close. It wasn't a blowout like 2008, but it wasn't close.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay, so it's okay to tell certain potential voters to gently caress off, but only based on how much money they make, or rather the opinions they express as a signifier for how much money they make. Yes. The poor are the majority. Someone who says it's good they lost their factory jobs to bangaldesh should be kicked out and told to join the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Come on, man! You can do better than that. That was a complete non-sequitur. I'm disappointed. Did November 8 really damage your psyche badly enough that you lost all your ability to rile people up into endless arguments by slightly but deliberately mischaracterizing them? Now it's just blatantly apparent when you try it. You said that it was irrelevant if someone with bad ideology wanted to direct the party their way because poor people wouldn't want that. So my response is entirely in line with the established reasoning for why you can't tell readingatwork where he can shove his copies of The Intercept.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Haha, is this basically an unironic Carl Diggler-ism? Yes, let us contemplate the hypothetical masses beying for the cutting of social security! I thought Republicans were popular, though, so the mass of people baying (not "beying") for cuts to Social Security is hardly hypothetical. I guess it turns out that, much like how no Republican is racist, none of them believes in Social Security privatization either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you look at all the states Obama might have lost but did not, really he almost didn't win, despite winning by by more than 100 in the electoral college. 2012 wasn't close. It wasn't a blowout like 2008, but it wasn't close. The only state I could find where it was really close was Florida. All of the other battleground states, he won by a couple of percentage points at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Haha, is this basically an unironic Carl Diggler-ism? Yes, let us contemplate the hypothetical masses beying for the cutting of social security! I mean, admittedly, I bet if you polled would you support cutting welfare only for "the undeserving" you'd get 50+. Also Hillary won the popular vote by about 2.8 million, not 10. She underperformed Obama, but not by a huge amount. Just where it counted for the Electoral College and key Senate races.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, admittedly, I bet if you polled would you support cutting welfare only for "the undeserving" you'd get 50+. Universal healthcare also polls well when you phrase it the right way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, admittedly, I bet if you polled would you support cutting welfare only for "the undeserving" you'd get 50+. ...So, losing traditionally safe Democratic states like Michigan & Pennsylvania, that isn't a total rear end kicking, somehow?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
The Ender posted:...So, losing traditionally safe Democratic states like Michigan & Pennsylvania, that isn't a total rear end kicking, somehow? Yea I remember before election night everyone was scoffing at PA and MI and WI going red. We scoffed pretty hard. Well now it's time to go to them hat in hand and promise real change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
The Ender posted:...So, losing traditionally safe Democratic states like Michigan & Pennsylvania, that isn't a total rear end kicking, somehow? I mean, that isn't what I said. What I'm saying is, she underperformed Obama, but not by much. The underperformance was amplified by geography, demographics, and the nature of the Electoral College. This isn't an argument for anything, it's just statements of fact. I was merely addressing the idea that she won the popular vote by 10 million, because it is not correct and that matters. The Kingfish posted:Universal healthcare also polls well when you phrase it the right way. Well, yes. This is one of the fundamental issues leftists must overcome, which is that progressive policy polls and pulls support in wildly inconsistent fashion depending on how it's framed and sold.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
We need to go to rural Michiganders and promise them change while doing nothing about voter ID laws and polling place fuckery. When they come back with a prospective platform of bulldozing Detroit and putting more lead in Flint city water, that's populism, baby!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, that isn't what I said. What I'm saying is, she underperformed Obama, but not by much. The underperformance was amplified by geography, demographics, and the nature of the Electoral College. Yes, the 10+ million figure was my bad; I thought I had seen that as the most recent tally in a Slate article, but I was confusing it with another. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
The Ender posted:Yes, the 10+ million figure was my bad; I thought I had seen that as the most recent tally in a Slate article, but I was confusing it with another. Sorry. You're cool, I just think it's important because if a candidate won the popular vote by ten million and lost we'd still be seeing riots in the streets, that's double the population of my state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Well, yes. This is one of the fundamental issues leftists must overcome, which is that progressive policy polls and pulls support in wildly inconsistent fashion depending on how it's framed and sold. This isn't peculiar to progressive policy. Its a universal law of politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm saying Wikileaks is not doing us a favor by publishing the documents the Russians hacked to ratfuck our party. Somebody or some group sent a phishing email to the DNC and then some dumbfuck fell for it. If the Russians or Chinese or any major group wanted to hack the DNC they would have a lot more incriminating poo poo than Donna Brazile and Podesta playing grabass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Somebody or some group sent a phishing email to the DNC and then some dumbfuck fell for it. Given that whoever hacked the DNC email records did it with the intent to harm the democrats, I think we can assume we saw the worst stuff that was available to them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:This isn't peculiar to progressive policy. Its a universal law of politics. It's not peculiar to progressive policy but it's a unique issue for progressives because of the specific nature of how it manifests and the reasons why people don't get on board for certain progressive policy. Like 60% of our problems are convincing people that taxes are not the devil and that the government can help people in an efficient manner if managed well, i.e. not by Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:We need to go to rural Michiganders and promise them change while doing nothing about voter ID laws and polling place fuckery. When they come back with a prospective platform of bulldozing Detroit and putting more lead in Flint city water, that's populism, baby! You know there are a lot of poor people in both Detroit or Flint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm saying Wikileaks is not doing us a favor by publishing the documents the Russians hacked to ratfuck our party. the key to not getting right wing sources to depress left turnout by saying things like "hillary's campaign helped start birtherism" is for democrats to not engage in that sort of thing in the first place no one can control what every single organization in the media says, and whether right wingers co-opt left criticisms. You do have control over anything that could be taken the wrong way in the future. It's necessary in order to prevent the ground out from being cut out beneath you in criticizing far right wing candidates who do much worse to an audience who often falls for "both sides" and "truth is in the middle". Rodatose fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:You know there are a lot of poor people in both Detroit or Flint. And yet y'all pretend they don't exist until someone points out their existence and then you scramble to pretend you meant them all along, that De-loving-troit is rural in your eyes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:the key to not getting right wing sources to depress left turnout by saying things like "hillary's campaign helped start birtherism" is for democrats to not engage in that sort of thing in the first place Is it really reasonable to expect perfection from all the thousands of people involved in a national political campaign? Because one of the key pieces of evidence Bernouts latched onto was two nobodies throwing out suggestions that were immediately shot down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:Given that whoever hacked the DNC email records did it with the intent to harm the democrats, I think we can assume we saw the worst stuff that was available to them. THERE WAS NO "HACK" It was a phishing email. And no, we can't assume. A phishing email could've been sent by anybody for any number of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Some innocent Ukrainian looking to commit credit card fraud breaks into John Podesta's email and gasps. Julian Assange must know about this, for the good of democracy!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:16
|
|