|
Homeless Friend posted:I am reminded of Hillary/Bernie debate & the fracking question. That always struck me as the perfect example of retarded dem messaging. Running on putting the coal companies out of business didn't work so I do t know how you think the same thing would work with fracking companies. If our problem was not making credible promises for job growth in the rust belt, "gently caress fracking" doesn't move us in the right direction.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:I think its clear Perez was picked because idpol and with all the insane deportation poo poo, why not have a latino fighting on behalf of them? There's like a page long list of reasons why Perez was chosen and I guarantee you this is at the bottom of that page if at all. There's a ton of much simpler reasons why he won, and only most of them look bad to the progressive wing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Running on putting the coal companies out of business didn't work so I do t know how you think the same thing would work with fracking companies. If our problem was not making credible promises for job growth in the rust belt, "gently caress fracking" doesn't move us in the right direction. yeah, all those petrochem company employees who vote democrat. we wouldn't wanna lose all 3 of those
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
loquacius posted:how is it that someone can even lose arguments while making up their opponents' points from whole cloth, I wonder You said that the primaries need to be rigged to guarantee people like Obama and Bernie win. You don't get that, because you buy into the narrative that the primaries were rigged or something, but saying "we need to control the candidates who run" is wanting to rig the primaries. You should probably think about what you say instead of saying "the people who belong to the Democratic Party are the problem because they are interested in politics" and "we need to control the candidates carefully to prevent the fuckers who care about what politicians have done instead of how sparkly they are from ruining things". Crowsbeak posted:If it did HRC would have won. Remember how losing blue collarswould return three moderates. No, it doesn't scan at all with the premise that there are 63 million moderate conservatives and they're outnumbered by leftists. It doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's all meaningless populist bullshit though. We are going to tax the finance people. The finance people are practically getting away with murder! We've got to tax them. Can you believe how little we tax them? It's ridiculous! These finance types are laughing at us! They're having lunch with their lobbyists and their politicians- $10,000 a plate fundraisers with these people and they're laughing at us the entire time. I can tell you what though, I can promise you they aren't gonna be laughing next tax season!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:We are going to tax the finance people. The finance people are practically getting away with murder! We've got to tax them. Can you believe how little we tax them? It's ridiculous! These finance types are laughing at us! They're having lunch with their lobbyists and their politicians- $10,000 a plate fundraisers with these people and they're laughing at us the entire time. I can tell you what though, I can promise you they aren't gonna be laughing next tax season! Yeah, how's that working. That's also just populist rhetoric. You're not proposing anything. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You said that the primaries need to be rigged to guarantee people like Obama and Bernie win. You don't get that, because you buy into the narrative that the primaries were rigged or something, but saying "we need to control the candidates who run" is wanting to rig the primaries. You should probably think about what you say instead of saying "the people who belong to the Democratic Party are the problem because they are interested in politics" and "we need to control the candidates carefully to prevent the fuckers who care about what politicians have done instead of how sparkly they are from ruining things". ok I uh I didn't say any of that stuff but you seem to be having fun talking to an imaginary person so enjoy yourself...?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yeah, all those petrochem company employees who vote democrat. we wouldn't wanna lose all 3 of those Nobody in America cares about the price of natural gas, since they don't use natural gas in heating. This sure makes you sound knowledgeable and informed. loquacius posted:ok I uh loquacius posted:The problem is that Democratic primary voters, most of the time, will vote for whoever has the most stuff on their resume, and it turns out nobody else loving cares. loquacius posted:It's a tendency that can be overcome by the right politician (see: Obama winning over HRC in 2008; Bernie falling just short of it in 2016) and we have to consider who we want to encourage to run on what message very carefully in order to not end up with the boringest wonkest wonk and lose the GE again. We do not have to "get rid of" the electorate, wtf. Now, as a politoons poster you are probably too stupid to understand what you are saying, but I have highlighted it helpfully for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Yeah, how's that working. Idk I'll tell you how it goes if the DNC ever gives it a try.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Yeah, how's that working. well considering centrist dems didn't bother with it, not well. again, why they need to be purged. they'd probably vote with republicans against raising taxes on corps
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Why should people put the interests of an internet loser ahead of anything else when you do nothing but be a smarmy jackass? Would you magically morph into a human being instead of a blob that squeaks "autist! sperg!" if someone pretended you have value? B5 stop talking to yourself, the point is the majority of people don't have insane hyper attention to every detail. I both can and can't believe this concept is astonishing to you. JeffersonClay posted:Running on putting the coal companies out of business didn't work so I do t know how you think the same thing would work with fracking companies. If our problem was not making credible promises for job growth in the rust belt, "gently caress fracking" doesn't move us in the right direction. Hillary had an astonishing ability to be mealy mouthed on issues that honestly weren't even that crazy. Like she could have just said "I want people, not corporations, to choose whether fracking, despite the risk, is best for them." instead she did like bullet points, goddamnit hillllaryyyy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:We are going to tax the finance people. The finance people are practically getting away with murder! We've got to tax them. Can you believe how little we tax them? It's ridiculous! These finance types are laughing at us! They're having lunch with their lobbyists and their politicians- $10,000 a plate fundraisers with these people and they're laughing at us the entire time. I can tell you what though, I can promise you they aren't gonna be laughing next tax season! LOL I loving love it. We gotta run a left populist against Trump in 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Like that kind of rhetoric is populist poo poo. Come up with a policy behind it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:B5 stop talking to yourself, the point is the majority of people don't have insane hyper attention to every detail. I both can and can't believe this concept is astonishing to you. But nobody said they did. You are claiming that slogans are what matters, and people don't care about concrete policy, probably because you've got the brain of a squirrel and, with any hope, the lifespan of one too. I am saying that complicated policies have had very high levels of public support, because the average person is smarter than you are, not having rotted their brain with GBS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:But nobody said they did. You contested my claim that people don't want overly detailed wonk policy. Homeless Friend fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:That is fine, and I'm sure Perez will support running new candidates in those seats, right? I'm pretty sure the DNC will support whoever wins the primary, though the level of support may vary based on their polling and such. I realize that's not really what you were asking, but the DNC's job is to get more Democrats in Congress, not to primary sitting Dems. If progressives want to primary Manchin, that's fine, but I don't see what the DNC has to do with it. Lightning Knight posted:The Tea Party began life as an astroturf campaign and enjoyed consistent institutional support from people like the Koch brothers, as well as the existence of Citizen's United. The left doesn't have these things and while the Tea Party is an interesting test case I don't think "be more like the Tea Party" is categorically useful advice to leftists. The Tea Party was astroturfed, but the people and the anger were real - billionaires just poured money and media and political consultants into the fledgling movement. Sure, there's fewer billionaires willing to prop up a socialist movement like that, but that's always been a problem that the left has to deal with. What happened to "money doesn't matter, big donors don't matter"? Also, the Tea Party mostly primaried moderate Republicans in safe red districts and states, rather than trying to push the purple-state Republicans right. The Little Kielbasa posted:But when the establishment needed people to campaign against Bernie, Perez campaigned against Bernie. And when they needed someone to bring down Ellison, he answered the call. How many prominent progressives does Perez need to shank on the establishment's orders before it's OK to call him an establishment stooge? Do we really need to see a photograph of Perez shoving Liz Warren into Podesta's trunk before we make that judgment? How many progressives does Ellison need to shank on the establishment's orders before it's okay to call him an establishment stooge? Neither of them have clean knives. The coal industry lobbyist giving Perez's nomination speech makes abundantly clear exactly what Perez is - a carefully-targeted response to some of Hillary's most notorious campaign missteps, like "we're going to put coal miners out of work". Obama didn't put Perez forward because of an establishment conspiracy to undermine the left, he did it because he thought Perez would appeal more to the Rust Belt factory workers who decided the election in Trump's favor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Next time trump will have an actual record to run against. Last time he was an anti-establishment outsider with no record that people projected their hopes onto. Now he'll bee a historically unpopular incumbent. I agree with you that the democrats need a policy agenda, too, but we should tailor that to fit into our anti-trump strategy, i don't think we need any radical changes from the platform we have. I'll be shocked if the message isn't "Trump sure is crazy. Don't you wish we could go back to business-as-usual politics? Cory Booker will be the kind of President who can make Washington work again by reaching across the aisle to cooperate with reasonable Republicans like Paul Ryan."
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
The republican response to that, is "why do you want to kill jobs? those taxes will kill jobs. why do you hate jobs? don't you see, those are the job creators." and people eat that poo poo right up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:You contested my claim that people want overly detailed wonk policy. So your claim, fixing your post to what you probably meant, is not that "people will reject complex policies", but instead "people don't actively seek out complex policies", which seems really relevant and meaningful. You gonna tell us it never rains but it pours next?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Like that kind of rhetoric is populist poo poo. Come up with a policy behind it. Why the gently caress would I do that? I can make someone do that for me after I win. Who the hell cares if I can't give you 15 pages of statute up front??
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:We are going to tax the finance people. The finance people are practically getting away with murder! We've got to tax them. Can you believe how little we tax them? It's ridiculous! These finance types are laughing at us! They're having lunch with their lobbyists and their politicians- $10,000 a plate fundraisers with these people and they're laughing at us the entire time. I can tell you what though, I can promise you they aren't gonna be laughing next tax season! Running on taxing the super wealthy more could actually dovetail nicely with arguments about trump's taxes. I think focusing on finance isn't necessary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Why the gently caress would I do that? I can make someone do that for me after I win. Who the hell cares if I can't give you 15 pages of statute up front?? I care because I am not a loving moron and because the moment you get blasted for wanting to kill jobs, you need to have a better response than "hrrfff poopey head"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Like that kind of rhetoric is populist poo poo. Come up with a policy behind it. Who says you can't have both a populist and policymakers? Even Bernie doesn't necessarily have technical policy details either (which I know on trade he's been disputed by left economists in particular details). Americans don't give a poo poo about policy wonks when they want to vote. Give them a message, ideas and a vision. Don't bore people with the specifics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Why the gently caress would I do that? I can make someone do that for me after I win. Who the hell cares if I can't give you 15 pages of statute up front?? Well, for one thing, you assume everyone falls for con artists completely instead of being aware that the person is a liar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's generally my own stance but I also recognize that there's a lot of people in the party who don't agree with that and if they want to propose single-payer, I am done fighting wth them over why it's politically dangerous. I think the other reason why the Dems need to call for single payer is because, if there's one thing they ought to have learned from Obama's two terms, it's that they need to highball their demands when negotiating with Republicans. Obama started from too much of a position of compromise when the legislation that became the ACA was first proposed. I don't necessarily blame him personally for that, because I know he's someone who believed very much in institutions like the Senate, and that belief was, well, disappointed. The point is, the strategy didn't work, and it doesn't look like good-faith negotiation with Republicans in Congress has any chance of working in the future. I know, no poo poo, Sherlock. But it does have a lot of bearing on how the Dems need to strategize their message going forward.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The Tea Party was astroturfed, but the people and the anger were real - billionaires just poured money and media and political consultants into the fledgling movement. Sure, there's fewer billionaires willing to prop up a socialist movement like that, but that's always been a problem that the left has to deal with. What happened to "money doesn't matter, big donors don't matter"? I mean, I just think it's important to recognize that the Tea Party wouldn't have happened without essentially establishment support. I also think it may be more prudent to try and primary safe-seat Democrats anyway, because it both has a better shot at working and provides us with a deeper progressive bench if we succeed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:
Neurolimal posted:Why can't it be both? Raskolnikov38 posted:https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/836271832185593856 Neurolimal posted:Like, it needs to be stressed that nobody here hates Perez, we hate the democrat leaders angling for a rightward shift and trampling a leftist olive branch. I'm sure Perez offered the deputy position without informing these leaders which is cool, but that foesn't change the fact that these leaders are loving awful
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, for one thing, you assume everyone falls for con artists completely instead of being aware that the person is a liar. Then you don't know how American politics work. It's about easy to digest symbolism. Kingfish is 100% correct.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The republican response to that, is "why do you want to kill jobs? those taxes will kill jobs. why do you hate jobs? don't you see, those are the job creators." and people eat that poo poo right up. and cause you weasels quiver at every utterance of the republicans, we now have a fascist in power. you are literally too spineless to support policies the country needs right loving now, and then you're curious why people want to purge the centrists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and cause you weasels quiver at every utterance of the republicans, we now have a fascist in power. you are literally too spineless to support policies the country needs right loving now, and then you're curious why people want to purge the centrists. Could you be dumber.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The republican response to that, is "why do you want to kill jobs? those taxes will kill jobs. why do you hate jobs? don't you see, those are the job creators." and people eat that poo poo right up. This is why Bernie is the most popular politician. The problem with you is your already considering defeat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:I'll be shocked if the message isn't "Trump sure is crazy. Don't you wish we could go back to business-as-usual politics? Cory Booker will be the kind of President who can make Washington work again by reaching across the aisle to cooperate with reasonable Republicans like Paul Ryan." We're past the point of trying to peel off anti-trump republicans, they've made their choice. I don't see compromise with trump doing very well with democrats in a primary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Then you don't know how American politics work. It's about easy to digest symbolism. No, Americans aren't subhuman idiots. Sorry, but if you want to insist that Americans are all stupid, that's fine, that's the essence of any populism, that you can hustle the rubes endlessly, and you'll just have to be brought down before you end up getting your fool self into more trouble than you can handle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:This is why Bernie is the most popular politician. The problem with you is your already considering defeat. It's incredible how "so what's the policy proposal you have beyond yelling about tax the rich" is "considering defeat."
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So your claim, fixing your post to what you probably meant, is not that "people will reject complex policies", but instead "people don't actively seek out complex policies", which seems really relevant and meaningful. You gonna tell us it never rains but it pours next? Offering detail is fine, opening with detail is just plain retarded. You act like I'm stating the obvious but the democratic party couldn't figure this one out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:Offering detail is fine, opening with detail is just plain retarded. You act like I'm stating the obvious but the democratic party couldn't figure this one out. Who ever said that, though? You're just looking for a fight without the chance of risking your useless carcass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:No, Americans aren't subhuman idiots. Sorry, but if you want to insist that Americans are all stupid, that's fine, that's the essence of any populism, that you can hustle the rubes endlessly, and you'll just have to be brought down before you end up getting your fool self into more trouble than you can handle. And this is why Democrats keep losing, they keep trying to appeal to the rational voter. This nation isn't made up of a bunch of Spocks dude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
All aboard taxing the rich here. Just want you to tell me what your plan here is beyond lifting a disingenuous Trump stump speech.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Could you be dumber. you guys are always complaining about "oh no, the republicans will sink us with this!" whenever any leftist idea comes up. then you block it. that's why centrists can't be worked with, because they reject leftist ideology as impossible. gotta purge all the centrists
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Yes, you want slogans and don't care about anything behind the slogans. The New Deal should never have implemented complex programs like the WPA, they should have just relied on Madison Avenue and done nothing. The New Deal was passed specifically by messaging it as a program for white relief which excluded black citizens from the benefits of welfare while still imposing the taxes of welfare upon them. Perhaps the New Deal is not the example progressives should look to when considering the best route for achieving universal healthcare coverage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:36
|
|