|
Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
33 | 6.38% |
| No |
|
343 | 66.34% |
| Keith Ellison |
|
54 | 10.44% |
| Pete Buttigieg |
|
71 | 13.73% |
| Jehmu Green |
|
16 | 3.09% |
| Total: | 416 votes | ||
|
Majorian posted:The Dems weren't SUFFICIENTLY better, no question, but they were certainly less awful. the new dem party slogan folks
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Condiv posted:the new dem party slogan folks Well, hopefully they'll unite behind Medicare for all, and against Gorsuch. Their de facto slogan has been "We're not as bad as Republicans," but hopefully that's changing. I'm hopeful for the future, although I'm keeping my guard up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I agree, on the whole; I just think it's a little silly to try to use Latin America as an example of how the Dems are only marginally better than the Republicans, given how murderously awful the Republicans were over the past three decades. The Dems weren't SUFFICIENTLY better, no question, but they were certainly less awful. You're right the Republicans have been far worse but the problem is Democrats continue that policy and don't move it to be any better because their foregin policy sees Henry Kissinger as someone worth aspiring to be and that kind of precludes them from saying they're less awful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, hopefully they'll unite behind Medicare for all, and against Gorsuch. Their de facto slogan has been "We're not as bad as Republicans," but hopefully that's changing. I'm hopeful for the future, although I'm keeping my guard up. i'm not particularly happy about the dems rallying around medicare for all now. i mean, i'm happy they're finally starting to embrace it after being forced to, but couldn't they have given in during the election instead so we wouldn't have had president trump? bernie being the politician to watch wrt the dems, and his policy becoming more and more important in the dem party really shows he would've won if he had been given a chance, so why did the dems so foolishly refuse to give him one? or to at least throw his followers a bone?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
i really wish the dems had not pulled the temper tantrum they did this election. they should've represented their membership when their membership was begging them to, not get into a snit and go trying to recruit republicans into the party because democrats asked you to support progressive policies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:You're right the Republicans have been far worse but the problem is Democrats continue that policy and don't move it to be any better because their foregin policy sees Henry Kissinger as someone worth aspiring to be and that kind of precludes them from saying they're less awful. Yeah, well, it seems to me that the wind is blowing against neoliberalism, so you know. Hopefully that will pay dividends in U.S. foreign policy. Condiv posted:i'm not particularly happy about the dems rallying around medicare for all now. i mean, i'm happy they're finally starting to embrace it after being forced to, but couldn't they have given in during the election instead so we wouldn't have had president trump? bernie being the politician to watch wrt the dems, and his policy becoming more and more important in the dem party really shows he would've won if he had been given a chance, so why did the dems so foolishly refuse to give him one? or to at least throw his followers a bone? Because the Dems miscalculated. They thought Clinton was more of a sure thing to win, and their number one objective was to win. They were horribly, horribly wrong. Condiv posted:i really wish the dems had not pulled the temper tantrum they did this election. they should've represented their membership when their membership was begging them to, not get into a snit and go trying to recruit republicans into the party because democrats asked you to support progressive policies. This just glosses over the larger problem, though, which is that a lot of Democratic primary voters really did want Clinton. Name recognition played a huge role there, and the DNC did put its finger on the scale, but it's wishful thinking to act like there was no genuine enthusiasm for Clinton, particularly among black and Latino Democrats. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, well, it seems to me that the wind is blowing against neoliberalism, so you know. Hopefully that will pay dividends in U.S. foreign policy. yet not one bit of introspection into why they could've been so wrong with so many people screaming the answer in their face all election. quote:This just glosses over the larger problem, though, which is that a lot of Democratic primary voters really did want Clinton. Name recognition played a huge role there, and the DNC did put its finger on the scale, but it's wishful thinking to act like there was no genuine enthusiasm for Clinton, particularly among black and Latino Democrats. i'm saying clinton's reaction to "we want single payer" shouldn't have been to start courting republicans because leftists are too demanding, but actually do a bit of work and try to get some of these positions in. I mean, I know bernies were asking for a lot of different things, but could you imagine 2016 if clinton had honestly adopted just one of the big policies like single payer? she would've torn donald trump to shreds! we would be talking about how hillary had saved millions of americans and we would probably celebrate her drat birthday as a national holiday if she passed singlepayer. instead she hid from her entire platform and decided to try to win texas...
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
There was a strong age split (the only demographic where it was less strong was black people) to that enthusiasm. Also let's not forget the tendency everyone had in the primary to unskew the polls when their pet groups didn't vote the way they wanted. I'd generally be dubious of most claims about enthusiasm when she also had to deal with a lot of minority opposition and never seemed to be able to respond to them except in the most bureaucratic way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yet not one bit of introspection into why they could've been so wrong with so many people screaming the answer in their face all election. Yeah, well, there was a lot of groupthink in the upper echelons of the campaign, holding as dogma that moderate Republicans would flee Trump for the Dems and create a wave election. Schumer summed it up best: "For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” I agree 100% with the rest of your post; I'm just isolating where things misfired in their strategy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, well, it seems to me that the wind is blowing against neoliberalism, so you know. Hopefully that will pay dividends in U.S. foreign policy. I hope so too, but it remains to be seen if the Democrats will actually change into a party of opposite values of the republicans or of they will pretend to do that and go on acting like the last 17 years ever happened and not actually change a drat thing when they cone back into power
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, well, there was a lot of groupthink in the upper echelons of the campaign, holding as dogma that moderate Republicans would flee Trump for the Dems and create a wave election. Schumer summed it up best: "For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” it's just so aggravating that dems find the slightest sliver of a spine only now that they are almost completely powerless. and i worry that they've learned nothing and will just go back to chasing republicans if they gain power again
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i'm not particularly happy about the dems rallying around medicare for all now. i mean, i'm happy they're finally starting to embrace it after being forced to, but couldn't they have given in during the election instead so we wouldn't have had president trump? bernie being the politician to watch wrt the dems, and his policy becoming more and more important in the dem party really shows he would've won if he had been given a chance, so why did the dems so foolishly refuse to give him one? or to at least throw his followers a bone? If they were going to do it, they would have done it eight years ago when they had bigger majorities than the GOP does now and had just won a campaign where healthcare reform was one of their big promises.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If they were going to do it, they would have done it eight years ago when they had bigger majorities than the GOP does now and had just won a campaign where healthcare reform was one of their big promises. strangely, political facts on the ground change over time and the political coalition that was the Democrats in 2008 will not be the same coalition 12 years later. for instance, the Democratic party of 2020 will be definitively to the left of the Democratic party of 2008, and even to the left of where it was in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:strangely, political facts on the ground change over time and the political coalition that was the Democrats in 2008 will not be the same coalition 12 years later. Lmao if you think the Dems will allow themselves to be dragged to the left. They're like screaming children who are clinging to the doorframe to avoid taking a bath lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Is twitter the doorframe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it's just so aggravating that dems find the slightest sliver of a spine only now that they are almost completely powerless. and i worry that they've learned nothing and will just go back to chasing republicans if they gain power again Well, that's partially up to us, I guess. I'm hoping that this newfound political consciousness in some circles of the Democratic coalition lasts (and grows, and deepens), and Dem voters continue to be transactional with their politicians. They need to realize that votes and candidates are a means to a policy end. If they do not succeed in achieving that end, but look like they're trying, you get out in the streets and protest to help them succeed. If they do not succeed, and don't look like they're trying, you get out in the streets and protest to let them know that your support of them is not unconditional. This is not a team sports, where you can chalk up the win when your candidate is elected and then go to sleep for four years. However, it's also not something that we should hold so incredibly morally delicate and sanctimonious that we can't deign to dirty our hands in voting for an imperfect candidate. Voting for a third-party candidate who stands no chance of being elected, and whose party doesn't look like it's growing or developing anytime soon, serves no political cause, other than to make yourself feel good. The point is, voters who usually vote D in elections need to get loving mercenary about elections. Politicians usually want to be elected/reelected; if they didn't, they'd quit and go back to Wall Street or the oil biz or wherever, where they don't have to work as hard and get paid better. Each and every one of them is an egomaniac, to one degree or another. Not many of them are particularly ideological, in spite of whatever line they may spout on the House or Senate floor. Almost all of them will respond to pressure, if we apply it in the right way at the right time. If they don't, or if they don't respond sufficiently, we replace them with someone who will. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:strangely, political facts on the ground change over time and the political coalition that was the Democrats in 2008 will not be the same coalition 12 years later. Exactly. We still have to contend with Manchins and the like, but there is no Lieberman. There is no Blanche Lincoln. There is no Mary Landrieu. There is certainly no DWS. In 2020, I doubt we will hear a peep from Hillary Clinton. In the short-term, winnowing out the Dems has been a pretty bad thing, but in the medium-to-long term? Probably pretty drat good for the party's future prospects. Tight Booty Shorts posted:Lmao if you think the Dems will allow themselves to be dragged to the left. They're like screaming children who are clinging to the doorframe to avoid taking a bath lol The last ten years of history don't back this up. The Dems have been too slow moving to the left, but there has nevertheless still been some pretty noticeable movement. It wasn't too long ago that centrist Dems opposed raising the minimum wage at all, supported tax cuts on the rich, and considered means-testing social security. Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The last ten years of history don't back this up. The Dems have been too slow moving to the left, but there has nevertheless still been some pretty noticeable movement. Notable movements such as shooting hellfire missiles at innocent Muslim families, vetoing $15/hour minimum wage in one of the poorest most hosed up cities in the country, and screaming that single payer healthcare WILL NEVER EVER COME TO PASS The list goes on... Nice edit tho ☺️
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:strangely, political facts on the ground change over time and the political coalition that was the Democrats in 2008 will not be the same coalition 12 years later. I'm sure that the people who insisted that mild insurance reform was the most perfect system in all the world until about a week ago have totally and authentically fallen on board with single payer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Notable movements such as shooting hellfire missiles at innocent Muslim families, That's a problem with U.S. foreign policy in general, not a particular feature of the Democratic Party or platform. It's also not exactly something that's new over the past decade; the Dems have always had their hawkish elements, too. Bill Clinton got involved in wars and ordered bombing raids in the Middle East; so did Carter. LBJ had Vietnam. So the Dems not doing enough to move towards a more sane position on this issue doesn't wash away the fact that they have moved in a positive direction on other issues. The Dems, as a party, never backed a $15 minimum wage as part of their platform, until last year, so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they've backslid on this. The same applies to single-payer healthcare. They SHOULD push for it, and hard, but you're bringing these items up like the Dems have moved to the right on them, when in terms of where they were positioned in 2006, they've pretty clearly moved to the left. Main Paineframe posted:I'm sure that the people who insisted that mild insurance reform was the most perfect system in all the world until about a week ago have totally and authentically fallen on board with single payer. Who cares whether or not they've totally and authentically fallen on board with anything in their life, though? All that matters is that they vote the right way, as legislators. I personally couldn't give two shits about what a politician believes in his or her heart of hearts, unless it pertains to how they act. Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The last ten years of history don't back this up. The Dems have been too slow moving to the left, but there has nevertheless still been some pretty noticeable movement. It wasn't too long ago that centrist Dems opposed raising the minimum wage at all, supported tax cuts on the rich, and considered means-testing social security. At least when it comes to minimum wage, this isn't true. The last two federal minimum wage increase bills (1996 and 2007) were both Democratic projects pushed through by Congressional Dems against Republican opposition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:At least when it comes to minimum wage, this isn't true. The last two federal minimum wage increase bills (1996 and 2007) were both Democratic projects pushed through by Congressional Dems against Republican opposition. Fair enough; what I meant to say was that, ten years ago, we had Democratic Leadership Council idiots bleating on about how we must never, ever raise the minimum wage. They luckily didn't get their way, but I expect their pearl-clutching kept the Dems from pushing for an even higher wage. There is still some of that, but there's less of it now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's a problem with U.S. foreign policy in general, not a particular feature of the Democratic Party or platform. It's also not exactly something that's new over the past decade; the Dems have always had their hawkish elements, too. Bill Clinton got involved in wars and ordered bombing raids in the Middle East; so did Carter. LBJ had Vietnam. So the Dems not doing enough to move towards a more sane position on this issue doesn't wash away the fact that they have moved in a positive direction on other issues. I'm talking about Baltimore btw
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
The DLC is defunct, Bayh's gone, Ford's gone, Blue Dogs went from 50-something to 18 members...
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:I'm talking about Baltimore btw That was a dumb move on Catherine Pugh's part, but that doesn't exactly disprove my point that there has been progress overall among the Dems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Even if we had a Fukushima happen every couple years it would still be vastly superior to fossil fuels. I think people heavily overestimate the worst case scenario with regard to nuclear power. I mean, Fukushima almost was a worst case scenario and it has very minor casualties. It's definitely better than fossil fuels so if it's a choice between the two I'm pro-nuclear. But with the way wind and especially solar are shaking out, it doesn't seem like it's just those two options anymore, and I just can't say I trust the American "didn't bring a single banker to trial following the worst financial crisis in living memory" government to keep effective watch over it. I mean at least with Fukushima we knew what we were being exposed to - the GOP would probably make reporting radiation levels a federal crime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah I think you're right and like I said I'm on the fence about it. I'd probably be less on the fence if I hadn't actually been in Tokyo for the aftermath and following the radiation levels there trying to figure out if I'm going to get cancer in 20 years I'm not, at least not because of Fukushima. It's not really any worse than conventional energy sources, except it's built to much higher standards due to irrational fear of ~atoms~, and thanks to that same fear, even minor problems get massive crackdowns on them as opposed to the general response to fossil fuel disasters, "[the water] does have some heavy metals within it, but it's not toxic or anything".
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's not really any worse than conventional energy sources, except it's built to much higher standards due to irrational fear of ~atoms~, and thanks to that same fear, even minor problems get massive crackdowns on them as opposed to the general response to fossil fuel disasters, "[the water] does have some heavy metals within it, but it's not toxic or anything". Yeah, if memory serves, the earthquake sparked a refinery fire, which caused a lot more environmental damage, at least in the short-term, than the nuclear breach.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, if memory serves, the earthquake sparked a refinery fire, which caused a lot more environmental damage, at least in the short-term, than the nuclear breach.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That was a dumb move on Catherine Pugh's part, but that doesn't exactly disprove my point that there has been progress overall among the Dems. Right but what in saying is that things that are supposed to be espoused by the democrats have been difficult to get them to support. Like, extremely, ridiculously difficult.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Right but what in saying is that things that are supposed to be espoused by the democrats have been difficult to get them to support. Like, extremely, ridiculously difficult. That sometimes happens in electoral politics; you think it doesn't happen with Republican politicians and their constituencies? But overall, Dems seem to be moving in a positive direction more quickly, now that their constituents are creating incentives for them to do so. If Pugh keeps doing bad things, Democratic voters in Baltimore should primary her. Not that complicated, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:You're comparing a sexual predator and racist to a flower power hippie. What for? No, I was comparing the act of brushing off/downplaying terrible/dumb statements made by a political figure. It's okay to still prefer someone despite them saying or doing some bad things, but it creates the appearance of a cult of personality if someone isn't even willing to acknowledge the bad things a politician says/does. edit: and this can apply to any politician, including Sanders or anyone else
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That sometimes happens in electoral politics; you think it doesn't happen with Republican politicians and their constituencies? But overall, Dems seem to be moving in a positive direction more quickly, now that their constituents are creating incentives for them to do so. If Pugh keeps doing bad things, Democratic voters in Baltimore should primary her. Not that complicated, IMO. What world do you live in where looming environmental collapse, war, famine, and disease aren't threatening billions of poor people's lives? How much time do you think Dems have to fix the problems the people of the US and the rest of the world are facing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:What world do you live in where looming environmental collapse, war, famine, and disease aren't threatening billions of poor people's lives? It's probably already too late. At this point we're just determining how extensive the damage will be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:strangely, political facts on the ground change over time and the political coalition that was the Democrats in 2008 will not be the same coalition 12 years later. case in point: https://twitter.com/JStein_Vox/status/846409053265952768 e: we're just about three months in, for reference's sake WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
If California is any indication, if we just wait this bad cycle out and give power back to the Neolibs, single payer is absolutely 100% certain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:case in point: Aka dems only take their jobs seriously when they're out of power
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 11:51
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Aka dems only take their jobs seriously when they're out of power Well, if change is impossible via democratic means, I guess you better start stockpiling guns and ammo and learn how to make high explosives instead of whining on the Internet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Exactly. We still have to contend with Manchins and the like, but there is no Lieberman. There is no Blanche Lincoln. There is no Mary Landrieu. There is certainly no DWS. In 2020, I doubt we will hear a peep from Hillary Clinton. In the short-term, winnowing out the Dems has been a pretty bad thing, but in the medium-to-long term? Probably pretty drat good for the party's future prospects. Medium-to-long term means the Democrats will be ready to take back control of one branch of government in 2022/2024, when things will be too far gone to even move the country back to the 2016 status-quo, let alone any further to the le WhiskeyJuvenile posted:case in point: Much like the Republicans voting for a clean repeal of Obamacare, it's something they support when they know they will never have to defend and fight for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Medium-to-long term means the Democrats will be ready to take back control of one branch of government in 2022/2024, when things will be too far gone to even move the country back to the 2016 status-quo, let alone any further to the le Ah yes, they were in a much better position in 2015 than now to pass legislation. Uh huh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, if change is impossible via democratic means, I guess you better start stockpiling guns and ammo and learn how to make high explosives instead of whining on the Internet. Democrats only like single payer when there's no chance it will pass. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 13:07
|
|
