|
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 | ||
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Oh you poor fragile soul. Maybe you should leave your garbage girlfriend. Submarine Sandpaper posted:Are you unable to read? Submarine Sandpaper posted:It was very good for Trump with the rigged discourse. As erroneous and shopworn as the 'Bernie lost it for Sister Hillary by criticizing her' canard is Effectronica Parachute #3, why do and your fellow Clinton backers never seem to object to Democratic party elites putting their thumb on the scale for Clinton? If it was such a damaging 'discourse', maybe show at little outrage at the people doing the rigging instead of clamoring for Debbie Wasserman Schultz's 11th Commandment( Thou shalt not speak ill of the coronation). 
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
Same reason Democratic critics discount Russia, I'd wager
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:sure, and notice a difference between the reputation among Democrats of Nader on the one hand, and Kucinich, Dodd, Biden and Warren on the other? Sanders has 85/8 fav/unfav ratings with Democrats, y'know. It's telling how that 8% enjoys levels of access to party institutions (donors, think tanks, media, etc.) vastly disproportionate to their actual numbers, and yet they've completely failed to dent his standing with the party rank and file.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:Sanders has 85/8 fav/unfav ratings with Democrats, y'know. It's telling how that 8% enjoys levels of access to party institutions (donors, think tanks, media, etc.) vastly disproportionate to their actual numbers, and yet they've completely failed to dent his standing with the party rank and file. The other 85% are Russian botnets or the wrong kind of person. Doesn't count.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Yes they can It is literally illegal but okay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:The other 85% are Russian botnets or the wrong kind of person. Doesn't count. They sure aren't PoC, Sanders doesn't even have a plan to completely eliminate racism forever and ever, just help them in a way that bad Dems don't like
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
COMRADES posted:It is literally illegal but okay. no
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Hot take but if you're in a position to scoff at doubling the minimum wage, you've probably got some unexamined privilege.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Hot take but if you're in a position to scoff at doubling the minimum wage, you've probably got some unexamined privilege. Agreed, but I don't think anyone here is doing that. Minimum wage increases are short term fixes. Adjusting for inflation is good but still doesn't fix the underlying issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Agreed, but I don't think anyone here is doing that. Minimum wage increases are short term fixes. Adjusting for inflation is good but still doesn't fix the underlying issues. no it doesn't fix everything. however, min wage has not kept up with inflation and more workers than ever are stuck at it. it's absolutely necessary that we raise the min wage asap and help these working poor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Agreed, but I don't think anyone here is doing that. Minimum wage increases are short term fixes. Adjusting for inflation is good but still doesn't fix the underlying issues. No, it doesnt. But it would help make crushing poverty and racism slightly more tolerable while we strive for better things. Plus, poverty is a lifelong affliction. If you grow up poor it impacts your brain chemistry and stress responses and fucks you for life. Its not something to just let people endure while you wait for a perfect solution to come along. Like, I think the ACA is a pile of crap and should be replaced but I also recognize its better than the extended middle finger that existed before it and is the only reason some people are even alive today. Why did the Hillarymen sell themselves as champions of pragmatism if they were just going to poo poo on every half measure that helps people because 'would it solve racism?'
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
can't just dickride Sanders to winquote:A Democratic state assemblyman and a former Los Angeles planning commissioner were running ahead in a wide-open congressional primary here Tuesday, routing several contenders aligned with the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
So who's going to be the new democratic nominee? "Lets try a women V2" or "A women didn't work so first Latin American presidentaroo"
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Welp time to close up shop. We lost one city council primary where we split the vote like five ways. Full capitalism now. Let's start loading the poors into steam kettles to use as a new renewable energy source.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Not something that anybody claimed. Also it helps to have the state Democratic Party's support. e: Also also it doesn't sound like Gomez is exactly a centrist. So...what exactly were you trying to prove here, WJ? Majorian fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
as far as i can see, gomez hasn't won. http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-robert-ahn-jimmy-gomez-1491441016-htmlstory.html he made it to the runoff election, so now it's directly gomez vs ahn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Not something that anybody claimed. I think there's been this desire on the left to believe that Sanders' popularity and near-success leads to the inevitability of the triumph of the left; this is a data point that it's not that easy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I think there's been this desire on the left to believe that Sanders' popularity and near-success leads to the inevitability of the triumph of the left; this is a data point that it's not that easy. We will get behind non bernie dems who can win without tipping the scales. You know unlike many centrist dems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I think there's been this desire on the left to believe that Sanders' popularity and near-success leads to the inevitability of the triumph of the left; this is a data point that it's not that easy. Well, I'm sure people that dumb do exist, but I don't think too many of them are here. This is not the Boxer Rebellion; we're not expecting to be made invincible just from feeling the Bern. Adopting a left-populist economic message will not work 100% percent of the time, and even then, it will take more strategy than just chanting "down with the 1%" or whatever. I don't think that anybody here has claimed that left-populism will be a silver bullet - just a necessary part of the equation. The reason why we are so emphatic about it, is because there is so much inertia against it among centrist Democrats, and particularly the party leadership. Majorian fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, I'm sure people that dumb do exist, but I don't think too many of them are here. This is not the Boxer Rebellion; we're not expecting to be made invincible just from feeling the Bern. Adopting a left-populist economic message will not work 100% percent of the time, and even then, it will take more strategy than just chanting "down with the 1%" or whatever. I don't think that anybody here has claimed that left-populism will be a silver bullet - just a necessary part of the equation. The reason why we are so emphatic about it, is because there is so much inertia against it among centrist Democrats, and particularly the party leadership. I mean I disagree that left-populism must be part of "the solution", both that I don't think it's necessary to win (that Hillary lost because of things specific to her like emails and Wall St. speeches but liberal-technocratic is still able to win theoretically in the future) or that left-populism - I guess defined by, what, free healthcare and college? - goes far enough. At least to the first point, that is, I don't think "our way is the only way forward" is gonna get as many converts as you think, which neither discounts the truth of "our way is the better way" nor its ability to be convincing. Like I'm fully on board with the idea that "neoliberalism had one job: stop Republicans" and its failure to even do that has really opened the universe of possibilities up going forward
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
like free healthcare and college are good, but will they solve Fun fact; the top .00001% makes 1% of all household income in the country e: top 490 taxpayer average AGI is $350m you could fully pay for free college by only taking half of their money. Four hundred loving people collectively make about twice what it would cost to send every loving American to college for free. WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
Well, people like JC continue to exist, so yeah, I don't have a whole lot of faith in the Democratic Party actually doing anything any time soon. But hopefully more people try to run and either the Democrats lend support to further left candidates or further left candidates create their own support and funding networks outside the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:like free healthcare and college are good, but will they solve So your problem with Bernie is that he wasn't leftist enough for you? Or what.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I mean I disagree that left-populism must be part of "the solution", both that I don't think it's necessary to win (that Hillary lost because of things specific to her like emails and Wall St. speeches but liberal-technocratic is still able to win theoretically in the future) Okay, so, hold on a second. The bolded part? You do see how that could be related to many voters' conception of Clinton as an out-of-touch neoliberal who cares more about Wall Street than Main Street, right? If you're trying to argue that insufficient economic populism wasn't what sank Clinton, that might not be the alternative factor that you want to bring up. As for the emails, I think there's a pretty high likelihood that most voters wouldn't have given a poo poo about them if they hadn't already been mistrustful of Clinton. quote:or that left-populism - I guess defined by, what, free healthcare and college? - goes far enough. Healthcare would probably be sufficient, although calling for free college might be beneficial too. But here's the bottom line: it's not about the policies themselves. If voters were just deciding between Trump and Clinton based on policy proposals alone, on paper, I guarantee you Clinton would have won. The problem was not that not with Clinton's platform. It's that, for decades, she has been associated with a worldview that voters in the Rust Belt blame for the loss of their jobs, livelihoods, and standards of living. She was billed as a partner in Bill's administration, and because of that, fairly or unfairly, she was always inevitably going to shoulder some of the blame for NAFTA, for welfare reform, for the outcome of the crime bill, and for financial deregulation. Her pivot to the left in 2016, in response to the unexpected success that Sanders experience, was incomplete and unconvincing. She dragged her feet on moving left on all manner of issues, from the TPP, to the Dakota Access Pipeline, to raising the minimum wage. I honestly don't know how she or her campaign thought she was projecting anything resembling credibility, or commitment to left-of-center principles. quote:At least to the first point, that is, I don't think "our way is the only way forward" is gonna get as many converts as you think, which neither discounts the truth of "our way is the better way" nor its ability to be convincing. Here's the problem I have with that: "our way is the only way forward" was absolutely the tenor of Clinton's campaign and die-hard supporters throughout the primary. At this point, left-populists aren't trying to make this a "my way or the highway" situation. We just want an equal place at the table. The centrists haven't been very good at winning elections lately; why not give us a chance at pulling the reins for a bit? WhiskeyJuvenile posted:like free healthcare and college are good, but will they solve No, but they are good first steps, and they will provide relief to a lot of Americans who desperately need it. Majorian fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Healthcare would probably be sufficient, although calling for free college might be beneficial too. But here's the bottom line: it's not about the policies themselves. If voters were just deciding between Trump and Clinton based on policy proposals alone, on paper, I guarantee you Clinton would have won. The problem was not that not with Clinton's platform. It's that, for decades, she has been associated with a worldview that voters in the Rust Belt blame for the loss of their jobs, livelihoods, and standards of living. She was billed as a partner in Bill's administration, and because of that, fairly or unfairly, she was always inevitably going to shoulder some of the blame for NAFTA, for welfare reform, for the outcome of the crime bill, and for financial deregulation. I don't know how you can simultaneously believe that the reason Clinton lost is the Bernie Sanders critique of her trustworthiness on leftist issues and that the primary campaign had no impact on the outcome of the general election, unless you're arguing that he failed to convince anyone that they couldn't trust her with their vote. Like either one of those things might be true but it can't logically be both.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't know how you can simultaneously believe that the reason Clinton lost is the Bernie Sanders critique of her trustworthiness on leftist issues This is not something I asserted. What I have asserted is that not enough voters in Rust Belt swing states felt that Clinton was offering them anything that could materially improve their lives and communities. e: Like, the fact that you automatically lump promises to strengthen the social safety net as a "leftist issue" is extremely telling. Most people don't tend to view their personal access to healthcare as a left-wing or right-wing issue. What, when Trump promised to replace the ACA with something that was magically cheaper and covered more people, do you think his supporters objected because it was a "leftist issue"? Majorian fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
While everyone was in here accomplishing nothing but feeding JeffersonClay and Effectronica's ravenous brainsnakes that dude actually did start selling smack btw
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:While everyone was in here accomplishing nothing but feeding JeffersonClay and Effectronica's ravenous brainsnakes that dude actually did start selling smack btw Edit: I will not play tragedy for forum owns Edit: Sorry, it has been a hell of a realization since Trump won and the split between people with opinions that post online. Grognan fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't know how you can simultaneously believe that the reason Clinton lost is the Bernie Sanders critique of her trustworthiness on leftist issues and that the primary campaign had no impact on the outcome of the general election, unless you're arguing that he failed to convince anyone that they couldn't trust her with their vote. Like either one of those things might be true but it can't logically be both. I don't know how you can look yourself in the mirror and not blow your loving brains out, but hey here we are: making the best of our imperfect realities. I think maybe increasing the minimum wage is good because it costs more to live in the USA than minimum wage as-so-factored would figure. I think single payer is better than PPACA because the latter bends the already highly distended demand curve for a good into a vertical line straight up and the former imposes some kind of rational order onto a thing me and mine cannot live without. I think maybe you should stop posting if you want conversations online to be of higher quality, and I think maybe if you want democrats to win IRL you should stop talking IRL and instead listen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
Grognan posted:So did it solve racism? Please do not play my sad stories for Forums Owns, please.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't know how you can simultaneously believe that the reason Clinton lost is the Bernie Sanders critique of her trustworthiness on leftist issues and that the primary campaign had no impact on the outcome of the general election, unless you're arguing that he failed to convince anyone that they couldn't trust her with their vote. Like either one of those things might be true but it can't logically be both. You are missing the obvious fact that Trump also attacked Clinton. That bridges the gap between 'Sanders not convincing anyone' and 'trust killing Clinton in the end'. Sanders did much better than anyone expected because Clinton, both as herself and as representative of the Democratic establishment, had some glaring problems with credibility and disappointment of their theoretical voters. What happened with Trump in the general was basically the same thing. The primaries didn't cause the general; they merely presaged it. It's ridiculous to characterize critique of Clinton's trustworthiness as "The Bernie Sanders critique". The Clintons have a trust issue since forever. Obama ran on saying Clinton would "say anything and do nothing". Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 10:16
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The bolded part? You do see how that could be related to many voters' conception of Clinton as an out-of-touch neoliberal who cares more about Wall Street than Main Street, right? If you're trying to argue that insufficient economic populism wasn't what sank Clinton, that might not be the alternative factor that you want to bring up. The email thing is also a political issue, in that it speaks to the sense that politicians and elites can do whatever they want and are not accountable in any way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't know how you can simultaneously believe that the reason Clinton lost is the Bernie Sanders critique of her trustworthiness on leftist issues and that the primary campaign had no impact on the outcome of the general election, unless you're arguing that he failed to convince anyone that they couldn't trust her with their vote. Like either one of those things might be true but it can't logically be both. lol yeah because the only possible reason that the left wouldn't find Hillary credible on leftist issues is because Bernie told them. Like, just because you're some golem animated by distilled Beltway recieved wisdom doesn't mean that other people can't think for themselves. Clinton killed her own credibility as someone who would push left-wing policy all by her lonesome, hth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I mean I disagree that left-populism must be part of "the solution", both that I don't think it's necessary to win (that Hillary lost because of things specific to her like emails and Wall St. speeches but liberal-technocratic is still able to win theoretically in the future) or that left-populism - I guess defined by, what, free healthcare and college? - goes far enough. What the gently caress are you even trying to say
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
Reads like a bunch of contrarian bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
Jillary Slinton would have won e: I don't know what y'all are complaining about, I'm blaming her for losing 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This is not something I asserted. What I have asserted is that not enough voters in Rust Belt swing states felt that Clinton was offering them anything that could materially improve their lives and communities. You said that it wasn't the policies she was advocating, rather her past associations with neoliberalism, and that her pivot to the left didn't work because it was unconvincing. The Bernie Sanders critique of Clinton during the primary was that you can't trust her to implement a leftist agenda. Like he was still unwilling to say she could be trusted to do so in July. How can you believe that Sanders had no impact on the general election when he campaigned heavily in the primary on the issue you think sunk her campaign? quote:Like, the fact that you automatically lump promises to strengthen the social safety net as a "leftist issue" is extremely telling. Most people don't tend to view their personal access to healthcare as a left-wing or right-wing issue. What, when Trump promised to replace the ACA with something that was magically cheaper and covered more people, do you think his supporters objected because it was a "leftist issue"? Jesus, yes, strengthening the social safety net is a leftist issue. Yes, many conservatives balked when Trump suggested universal health coverage for exactly that reason. But they voted for him anyway because they didn't think he was serious, and they were right. Pedro De Heredia posted:You are missing the obvious fact that Trump also attacked Clinton. That bridges the gap between 'Sanders not convincing anyone' and 'trust killing Clinton in the end'. Yes, and trump adopted some of Bernie's arguments entirely when doing so. I dont think Bernie caused Clinton to lose. But I also don't think Hillary lost because she wasn't a credible messenger for leftist policy. I don't understand how you can believe the latter, and then deny that the Sanders primary campaign did not damage her ability to win in the general. It's just incoherent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You said that it wasn't the policies she was advocating, rather her past associations with neoliberalism, and that her pivot to the left didn't work because it was unconvincing. The Bernie Sanders critique of Clinton during the primary was that you can't trust her to implement a leftist agenda. Like he was still unwilling to say she could be trusted to do so in July. How can you believe that Sanders had no impact on the general election when he campaigned heavily in the primary on the issue you think sunk her campaign? let me put it this way your candidate loses a campaign, miserably, to a laughably unqualified second-grade con man. in a later campaign, someone points out you did this. you proceed to lose that campaign as well. did that person cause you to lose campaign number two?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I dont think Bernie caused Clinton to lose. But I also don't think Hillary lost because she wasn't a credible messenger for leftist policy. I don't understand how you can believe the latter, and then deny that the Sanders primary campaign did not damage her ability to win in the general. It's just incoherent. It's because Bernie only pointed out poo poo that was on the public record already and because Hillary's own primary campaign did incomparably more to alienate the left than Bernie pointing out poo poo that, again, was on the public record. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but I guess it can seem incoherent if you lack the brainpower to determine which things are more important than others.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You said that it wasn't the policies she was advocating, rather her past associations with neoliberalism, and that her pivot to the left didn't work because it was unconvincing. The Bernie Sanders critique of Clinton during the primary was that you can't trust her to implement a leftist agenda. Like he was still unwilling to say she could be trusted to do so in July. How can you believe that Sanders had no impact on the general election when he campaigned heavily in the primary on the issue you think sunk her campaign? This sort of logic leads to some very bad places. Do you really want it to become the status quo that primary candidates who are unlikely to win are condemned for merely criticizing the favored candidate? Where does this logic end? Should everyone remain silent with regards to their misgivings towards a candidate lest they risk hurting their chances in the general election? I would agree that Democrats in the 2016 election had a responsibility to vote for Clinton in the general election to stop Trump (assuming they lived in a state with the remote possibility of becoming a swing state), but no one has a responsibility to remain silent about their political opinions (assuming those opinions aren't explicitly racist or something).
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:40
|
|
