|
If the DNC won't tell us who voted for who then that's no problem. In fact it simplifies things in the long run. Send emails and phone calls to the electors until somebody coughs up records of who voted for what which has to exist according to DNC policy. Purge everyone in the mean time.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:01 |
|
|
I think the fundamental disconnect between people like JeffersonClay and most progressives is that progressives are generally progressives first, and Democrats second. I mean nearly any progressive would be happy with overall Dem victory even if it came at the cost of giving progressivism any substantial voice in national politics, but it would definitely be a hollow "victory" and certainly not something to be enthusiastic about. That is, we see the Democratic party as a vehicle for advancing the progressive agenda at every level of government, whereas establishment Dems see the reverse (progressivism is useful to the extent it can benefit the party). Like a Democratic victory that does little more than stymie Republican efforts to dismantle the state and put Gilead in its place is better than actual Gilead, but it's not good enough. I suppose if you assume "not Gilead" is the best we can hope for then JeffersonClay is easier to relate to. I don't see the point. And the fundamental disconnect between people like B5, is that the rest of us believe we live in a universe of cause and effect, but one thing at a time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
A lot of people seem to not believe that politics differs from state to state, and we can reliably primary Sander Levin to replace him with someone who doesn't want trade sanctions against Japan, because that opinion emerged in a vacuum rather than being a consequence of what the white part of the Michigan Democrats looks like, demographically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and also making it easier to take control of the dem party Sorry, but I really can't get behind "blow it all up" as a strategy. It's extremely reckless and, given that the seat we're talking about here is in West loving Virginia, extremely unlikely to produce any meaningful result. I'm all for primarying lovely Democratic senators when it's a winnable proposition. I'm against giving up a Democratic seat, the existence of which is a loving miracle in a state like West Virginia, for no other reason than to "send a message" or something nebulous like that. If the Democrats lose that seat, it is never coming back, and it isn't going to magically create a seat in another state or something. Support progressives who primary centrists in states where those progressives can actually win, because that's when poo poo gets done. A progressive who primaries a centrist and then loses the general doesn't do anything to increase the power of the party's left wing and might in fact decrease it. But a progressive who primaries a centrist and wins the general is a win-win, in that it puts more progressives in positions of power in the party and in the actual government. That's where the energy and effort belongs. Get something done, don't just make a show of force and then enjoy the smug superiority as the right wing gets even stronger. I'm not saying "don't primary centrist Democrats." I'm saying "it's possible to orchestrate our progressive takeover without blowing the party to smithereens and handing the Republicans several election cycles of easy wins."
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:And the fundamental disconnect between people like B5, is that the rest of us believe we live in a universe of cause and effect, but one thing at a time. So are you doing this because you're an expat but didn't get in on the abusive relationship deal or what? You seem really angry and stupid and those are characteristic of expats who regret not beating their partners.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The chances of the democrats taking the senate in 2018 are virtually nil. The house is where they can gain. But we can't really gain a majority there either, can we?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Sorry, but I really can't get behind "blow it all up" as a strategy. It's extremely reckless and, given that the seat we're talking about here is in West loving Virginia, extremely unlikely to produce any meaningful result. centrists have repeatedly shown that they view us as the enemy and will work tooth and nail to keep us from having a shred of power in the dem party. so how is helping them suppress us helping us? if they want our votes they can move left and start compromising. edit: though writing them to tell them why you will not vote for them as things stand is preferable to just not voting for them. hopefully if they got enough people telling them that they would listen Condiv fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I like that this is considered an acceptable post by Bernie people. Really makes it clear how you'd treat people given a milliliter of power.  Brainiac Five posted:So are you doing this because you're an expat but didn't get in on the abusive relationship deal or what? You seem really angry and stupid and those are characteristic of expats who regret not beating their partners.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Anyway the WV race is almost certainly going to turn on what happens in the next two years in state. The budget debacle we're headed for is going to make a big impact on how much of cache state Republicans have, particularly if they lose their game of chicken with Jim Justice, who's basically a Manchin shadow government leader.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:But we can't really gain a majority there either, can we? Possible, not likely. If Trump is at 30% or so approval it can happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:But we can't really gain a majority there either, can we? No, we probably can't. But we can probably pick up some seats. I'm much more concerned about state-level elections in 2017/2018 and picking up power there, because that's how we can actually, realistically turn the tide in 2018. I think the national-level fights are absolutely worth having, but the state-level fights have a much better chance of actually producing wins and a good showing there is a sign of the Democrats pulling out of their tail-spin. Condiv posted:centrists have repeatedly shown that they view us as the enemy and will work tooth and nail to keep us from having a shred of power in the dem party. so how is helping them suppress us helping us? if they want our votes they can move left and start compromising. Which part of my "primary centrists and then win instead of lose" plan involves helping centrists suppress us? Joe Manchin is one dude and not even a hugely prominent voice in the Democratic Party. Primarying him just to lose the general as a show of impotent force is the equivalent of burning an effigy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This kind of thinking is how the democrats ended up with 60 votes in 2008 and still were barely able to accomplish anything. It does nothing to assure better outcomes in service of someone, anyone with a D next to their name holding the seat no matter if that really does nothing for progressive causes. Yes, it is. But we can't afford to make the party smaller because we're fighting for our very existence here. We need to take back the senate or the house and kicking joe Manchin to the curb only makes that harder. If we have majorities or the presidency when Manchin is up for re election in 2022 we'd be better positioned to take that risk. Also Manchin does do quite a lot more than a republican would for progressive causes, he voted against DeVos, he supports raising the minimum wage, he opposes repealing the ACA--a republican would give us none of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Harrow posted:No, we probably can't. But we can probably pick up some seats. centrists having any power in the party helps them suppress us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Possible, not likely. If Trump is at 30% or so approval it can happen. I hope so, but I guess we will have our answer as to how well Perez can shape things up. Just out of curiosity, what do we do if Perez fucks up? Also, since he made Ellison deputy chairman, what does that mean for Ellison? I like how he did that by the way, and it honestly seems like it was good to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
by the way B5 if you want a good idea of what a "witch hunt" is and what "McCarthyism" was actually all about, your last post is a good place to start - literally just making poo poo up on the barest of pretense
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes, it is. But we can't afford to make the party smaller because we're fighting for our very existence here. We need to take back the senate or the house and kicking joe Manchin to the curb only makes that harder. If we have majorities or the presidency when Manchin is up for re election in 2022 we'd be better positioned to take that risk. Also Manchin does do quite a lot more than a republican would for progressive causes, he voted against DeVos, he supports raising the minimum wage, he opposes repealing the ACA--a republican would give us none of that. Especialyl since we know who the Republicans in question are and they're super odious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes, it is. But we can't afford to make the party smaller because we're fighting for our very existence here. We need to take back the senate or the house and kicking joe Manchin to the curb only makes that harder. If we have majorities or the presidency when Manchin is up for re election in 2022 we'd be better positioned to take that risk. Also Manchin does do quite a lot more than a republican would for progressive causes, he voted against DeVos, he supports raising the minimum wage, he opposes repealing the ACA--a republican would give us none of that. The party is going to get bigger in 2018 if only because they are at such a low water mark now and BTW if we don't define what a "Democrat" is, who gives a poo poo how big or small the party is?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The party is going to get bigger in 2018 if only because they are at such a low water mark now and BTW if we don't define what a "Democrat" is, who gives a poo poo how big or small the party is?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:by the way B5 if you want a good idea of what a "witch hunt" is and what "McCarthyism" was actually all about, your last post is a good place to start - literally just making poo poo up on the barest of pretense Honestly, I'd like to see B5 give a reason for anything. even like some basic geometric proofs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The chances of the democrats taking the senate in 2018 are virtually nil. The house is where they can gain. Sure, but that's just adding to the deficit for 2020. I mean I think general election viability should be taken into account. Looking at, say, Feinstein in California, we know we can do better because better people win elections there, both locally and statewide. There doesn't appear to be any base of lefter-than-Manchin voters in WV, and there's other seats at play that could also be challenged as like proof of concept. If you can't beat a Republican in any of the three House districts, what the gently caress are you doing spending money on the Senate? This is like the same poo poo that the Democratic Party is being raked over the coals about : thinking that all they need to focus on is being competitive on the Big Ticket
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The party is going to get bigger in 2018 if only because they are at such a low water mark now and BTW if we don't define what a "Democrat" is, who gives a poo poo how big or small the party is? I mean, as much as I criticize neolibrals (can't get the spelling right for some reason), so long as they are willing to compromise with the left on policy, I am fine with them in the fold.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Sure, but that's just adding to the deficit for 2020. voting for him if you're leftist still doesn't make much sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
You know, for a while brainiac 5 was supposed to be Effectronica's civil, intelligent parachute account let that sink in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Honestly, I'd like to see B5 give a reason for anything. even like some basic geometric proofs. I'd like to see the smarmy look wiped right off your face but we can't always get what we want, especially when we want a geometric proof of the idea that state politics aren't all identical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I mean, as much as I criticize neolibrals (can't get the spelling right for some reason), so long as they are willing to compromise with the left on policy, I am fine with them in the fold.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Condiv posted:centrists having any power in the party helps them suppress us. Frankly, I think any plan that relies on having a huge, immediate revolution and/or relies on handing over even more power to the Republicans is foolish and childish. Look at what the Tea Party did in 2010. They primaried "RINOs" where it counted and went on to win general elections and therefore actually affect national politics for quite a while after that. Sure, explicit "Tea Party" candidates stopped winning eventually, but they massively shifted the Republican Party in a lasting way. Like it or not, that's the strategy we need--we need more progressivism in the Democrats, but we also need to actually win things at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'd like to see the smarmy look wiped right off your face but we can't always get what we want, especially when we want a geometric proof of the idea that state politics aren't all identical. Well, you would probably succeed at it if you actually did a geometric proof, or if you gave some reasons for why you think something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Frankly, I think any plan that relies on having a huge, immediate revolution and/or relies on handing over even more power to the Republicans is foolish and childish. This too, but really I want results. If Perez fails, he will only continue to condemn his colleagues positions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Condiv posted:centrists having any power in the party helps them suppress us. Any power? They control the party. Look what just happened in the DNC Chair race any time we kick one of them out we are making progress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it is in fact, because the less centrists with control the easier it will be to get leftists in control of the dems. centrists have a proven track record of losing and are poison, but have an iron grip on the party, so the only chance we have is to weaken the centrists till they lose grasp on the party. Didn't you promise to gently caress off and organize the DSA or some other club for likeminded idiots? Drop the pretense. You're trying to convince democrats to stop voting for democrats. Spare us your fairy tales and get out mcmagic posted:The party is going to get bigger in 2018 if only because they are at such a low water mark now and BTW if we don't define what a "Democrat" is, who gives a poo poo how big or small the party is? We can have a wide spectrum of democrats that are all better than republicans, even if they don't agree on everything, and still have a party that is worth supporting. The suggestion that we can beat the republicans by demanding more ideological conformity from our politicians is pure conjecture. Our party inherently encompasses a wider range of ideologies and points of view than the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Frankly, I think any plan that relies on having a huge, immediate revolution and/or relies on handing over even more power to the Republicans is foolish and childish. centrists can't win things. that's why the party is in the state it's in. and as long as they're in control we will still fail to win. best thing to do is to purge centrists asap so we can actually start fighting back politically. cause centrists have absolutely no answers for what's going on right now and they don't want any.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Well, you would probably succeed at it if you actually did a geometric proof, or if you gave some reasons for why you think something. The only reason to want my reasoning is to avoid evaluating the idea by looking for prospective flaws and attacking them. Why don't you instead offer a counter-proposition instead of this horseshit where you pretend neutrality until someone Schlieffen Plans you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes, it is. But we can't afford to make the party smaller because we're fighting for our very existence here. We need to take back the senate or the house and kicking joe Manchin to the curb only makes that harder. Ok fair enough. How do you suggest they do this though? What should their messaging and policy focus/es be?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Didn't you promise to gently caress off and organize the DSA or some other club for likeminded idiots? Drop the pretense. You're trying to convince democrats to stop voting for democrats. Spare us your fairy tales and get out i'm going to vote to primary dems from the left and vote for leftist dems (good dems) and let the centrists die out. still joining the DSA though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Condiv posted:centrists can't win things. that's why the party is in the state it's in. and as long as they're in control we will still fail to win. best thing to do is to purge centrists asap so we can actually start fighting back politically. cause centrists have absolutely no answers for what's going on right now and they don't want any. This is where I remind you that Zephyr Teachout not only lost her race but under performed HRC, and a whole bunch of leftists couldn't even win their primaries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:This is where I remind you that Zephyr Teachout not only lost her race but under performed HRC, and a whole bunch of leftists couldn't even win their primaries.  still not supporting centrists
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:This is where I remind you that Zephyr Teachout not only lost her race but under performed HRC, and a whole bunch of leftists couldn't even win their primaries. Russ Feingold, one of the best senators of the last century, did too and lost again to someone with an 87 IQ. You aren't going to win every race. What is the solution for this? it's not running worse candidates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Frankly, I think any plan that relies on having a huge, immediate revolution and/or relies on handing over even more power to the Republicans is foolish and childish. It worked because rank and file GOP senate and house members radicalized themselves which fueled heavy turnout among the Republican base. If the DNC isn't willing to shift left (which it clearly isn't), then we will have to drag them left by hurting or threatening to hurt the party in an election year. The GOP base didn't just turn out for no reason, they were fed red meat. We need red meat. Give us red meat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Russ Feingold, one of the best senators of the last century, did too and lost again to someone with an 87 IQ. You aren't going to win every race. What is the solution for this? it's not running worse candidates. I get that and largely agree with you -- I am countering the narrative that RUNNING TO THE LEFT IS ALWAYS GOING TO WIN.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:01 |
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It worked because rank and file GOP senate and house members radicalized themselves which fueled heavy turnout among the Republican base. If the DNC isn't willing to shift left (which it clearly isn't), then we will have to drag them left by hurting or threatening to hurt the party in an election year. The party shifted to the left, dramatically. People like you jsut continue to pretend otherwise because you think "shift to the left" means "elect Bernie and give him the keys to the car."
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:15
|
|