|
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 | ||
|
Why even have primaries if they are such a liability? Why not allow everything to be decided by the technocrats, I'm sure they would have done splendidly without interference from riffraff.
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted: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? This is literally what the hillfolk demanded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes, and trump adopted some of Bernie's arguments entirely when doing so. The reason you think it's incoherent is because you don't believe Clinton had any real flaws. Because you don't believe Clinton had any real flaws, you are thinking of what Sanders' arguments as something he came up with. In this frame, then yes, something that Sanders is responsible for 'damaged' Clinton. In this frame, something that Sanders is responsible for was 'adopted' by Trump. But Clinton did have flaws, and those flaws predate Sanders' campaign. He didn't come up with anything. They are not 'Bernie's arguments'. He said what many/most Americans believe. That's why Clinton lost in 2008, it's why Sanders got way closer than expected, it's why Trump won in 2016. Everyone uses the same arguments because they know that's how people feel about the Clintons! The issue is that between 2008 and 2016, mainstream / standard liberals/Democrats forgave and forgot Clinton's flaws and got used to the idea of her being the future candidate, and they incorrectly thought that the rest of the country had too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
JC was a babby in 2008 so he doesn't know what a contentious Dem primary looks like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
I can sort of understand being mad about Sanders in June and July; the way he retired from the race was kind of silly, and you could tell there were a lot of hard feelings. The thing is, at the time, a lot of people wanted to believe that Sanders' campaign getting as many votes was meaningless. They wanted to interpret the primary not as a serious political disagreement and a sign that there were real rumblings in the Democratic Party, but as just something that had happened that we didn't have to care too much about. People wanted to move on and have unity. I can understand that. But the election happened, and Clinton lost. Taking everything that happened in 2016, including not only Democratic and Republican primaries and general election, but other developments around the world, it's pretty clear that this wasn't just a personality-driven slapfight. You really have to think about how you interpreted some of the things that were happening at the time and whether time has shown that interpretation to be right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
JC has been on record in this forum saying that criticizing policy (be it the ACA or Hillary), rightly or wrongly, carries a political cost that people need to consider. Why he feels the need to make this obvious point is clear: he would rather have the base just suck it up and shut up, just like the GOP base does, even if that has an absurd chilling effect, is terrible for the state of the discourse, and allows lovely ideas, policies, and candidates to go unfettered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted: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'm not suggesting Bernie shouldn't have run or criticized her. Again, I don't think he negatively impacted her in the general because I don't think the perception that she wasn't a real leftist was a significant factor in the defeat. But for the people who do think that's why she lost, the conclusion that Bernie hurt her in the general is unavoidable. If I accept that narrative for the sake of the argument, then yes, I think that we should consider that the downside of attacking our primary candidates as insincere is the possibility of helping the right to win in the general. I don't think criticism should be eliminated, but that criticism needs to be nuanced enough to allow a smooth transition from attacking a primary opponent to supporting them in the general if they win. Bernie certainly campaigned for Clinton, but he couldn't bring himself to contradict his arguments in the primary and tell voters they could trust her. MooselanderII posted:JC has been on record in this forum saying that criticizing policy (be it the ACA or Hillary), rightly or wrongly, carries a political cost that people need to consider. Why he feels the need to make this obvious point is clear: he would rather have the base just suck it up and shut up, just like the GOP base does, even if that has an absurd chilling effect, is terrible for the state of the discourse, and allows lovely ideas, policies, and candidates to go unfettered. Please tell the posters that are disagreeing with this argument that the argument is so obvious as to be banal, thanks! JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
It is a real indictment of your lovely and naive views that you think that objectively lovely candidates and policies should be immune from criticism due to the political costs of criticizing them. It is like you are trapped in a bubble and can't imagine that perhaps the political costs associated with legitimate critiques could be negated by, I don't know, listening to and substantively addressing them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
It's like you didn't actually read that post where I explicitly state I dont want to eliminate criticism of policies or politicians! Like I don't know how a politician can listen and substantively respond to criticism like " you can't trust her because she supported NAFTA" without a time machine. Maybe publically reverse her position on free trade agreements and promise to oppose them? Did that work? I think you're right that criticism is good if it pushes politicians to be better. So we need to make criticisms that are malleable enough that if the politician does change in response to the criticism, the criticism isn't a drag on the candidate in the general. Let's imagine a world where Bernie won the nomination, and where Clinton had criticized him as too far to the left. If that criticism sounds like "Bernie's policies are shallow and rely on magical thinking to pay for themselves", Bernie could easily respond to the criticism by addressing the shortcomings of his policies. If the criticism sounds like "Bernie is a secret commie who wants to nationalize your small business" he can't reasonably respond to it. He can say it's false, but there's nothing he can reasonably do to reassure the democrats who believed the criticism. And it doesn't really matter if Republicans are making the same argument, right? JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's like you didn't actually read that post where I explicitly state I dont want to eliminate criticism of policies or politicians! The why do you keep pointing out that criticism of such policies or candidates carries a political cost? Are you too naive to see what the logical implication of what you are asserting is?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
The Most Qualified Candidate in History™ was not only let down by her opponent and his supporters, but she wasn't given a fair shake. Thx for the great insight!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Like I don't know how a politician can listen and substantively respond to criticism like " you can't trust her because she supported NAFTA" without a time machine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Like I don't know how a politician can listen and substantively respond to criticism like " you can't trust her because she supported NAFTA" without a time machine. Luckily, Abuela had a million dollar PAC of online posters correcting her record to address just this kind of problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
twodot posted:Huh? You explain why supporting NAFTA was a good idea that shouldn't invalidate people's trust. If supporting NAFTA was a bad idea, then you get to carry that baggage, and if it's too heavy just retire. We should be punishing politicians for doing bad things, if someone has done sufficiently many bad things that they can't get elected anymore, regardless of their current platform, that is a good and proper consequence. So your position is "if criticism of a primary candidate ends up empowering the right, then too bad"? I guess that's a valid position, but not one I share.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Dude, just quit the chuffing and skip to your point. "I want an absolute monarchy back." - Fuckerson Clay
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Yes, my interest in democrats winning elections is a stalking horse for Royalism, how droll.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm not suggesting Bernie shouldn't have run or criticized her. Again, I don't think he negatively impacted her in the general because I don't think the perception that she wasn't a real leftist was a significant factor in the defeat. But for the people who do think that's why she lost, the conclusion that Bernie hurt her in the general is unavoidable. If I accept that narrative for the sake of the argument, then yes, I think that we should consider that the downside of attacking our primary candidates as insincere is the possibility of helping the right to win in the general. I don't think criticism should be eliminated, but that criticism needs to be nuanced enough to allow a smooth transition from attacking a primary opponent to supporting them in the general if they win. Bernie certainly campaigned for Clinton, but he couldn't bring himself to contradict his arguments in the primary and tell voters they could trust her. Hilariously, Hillary did everything she possibly could to undermine Bernie's credibility and attack him as untrustworthy, racially insensitive and generally out of touch during the primary. Had Bernie won, how was Hillary going to smoothly transition into supporting the things she had spent months attacking him over? The answer, of course, is that you didn't think Bernie was going to win and therefore never considered the possibility. As it was, all of those attacks she carried out made her whole blithely adopted progressive platform ring hollow to anyone who had been paying attention. And trust has been Hillary Clinton's issue for far longer than this cycle. Obama attacked her on trust (and she attacked him on race, because shes a garbage person). Shes just a naturally secretive, untrusting and untrustworthy person who wasn't even blessed with the ability to lie convincingly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes, my interest in democrats winning elections is a stalking horse for Royalism, how droll. Your interest in the "shut up and fall in line peasants, criticism is heretical it helps the heathens" part gets that across just fine. Which monarch you happen to want at the top is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Yes Hillary Clinton is bad, do you have any substantive response to what I'm saying other than whataboutism ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes Hillary Clinton is bad, do you have any substantive response to what I'm saying other than whataboutism ? If you have so much baggage that there is no substantive response for your crappy policy decisions other than time machines, perhaps running for the Presidency is not for you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Playstation 4 posted:Your interest in the "shut up and fall in line peasants, criticism is heretical it helps the heathens" part gets that across just fine. Which monarch you happen to want at the top is irrelevant. JeffersonClay posted:It's like you didn't actually read that post where I explicitly state I dont want to eliminate criticism of policies or politicians!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:If you have so much baggage that there is no substantive response for your crappy policy decisions other than time machines, perhaps running for the Presidency is not for you? JeffersonClay posted:So your position is "if criticism of a primary candidate ends up empowering the right, then too bad"? I guess that's a valid position, but not one I share.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
The leaders of the Democratic party would rather be in charge of a rump party that perpetually loses congress, the presidency, and most state houses than to move left. Both because it is absolutely unacceptable to their actual constituents (their donors) and because if the party actually moved to the left people like Schumer and Pelosi would no longer be leaders at all. Why should they change at all?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
"I don't want to stop criticism, unless it nebulously empowers those I disagree with, then it has to be tamped for the good of
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
If you don't disagree with your opponent then why even have a primary? Just pick whoever has the right combination of physical features to appeal best. I'm thinking a tall black woman with a hint of grey at the temples to convey authority would absolutely hit it out of the park. I do think that having a wide ranging team of surrogates and media operatives to slander your opponent in ways that can't be directly connected to you, or just not caring and using your *daughter* to tell Americans your opponent will destroy healthcare, probably isn't good for the public discourse, no. Maybe don't do that. E: And again, if you've made so many lovely policy and personal decisions in your past that you have no justifications for and would need a time machine to resolve, don't run for the Presidency. Bad candidates running empowers the right. A less garbage candidate than Clinton probably wouldn't have lost to Trump at all. Her hubris in running empowered the right and hurt America. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's like you didn't actually read that post where I explicitly state I dont want to eliminate criticism of policies or politicians! Ultimately the fact that a politician has a substantive liability, like Hillary's waffling on the issues from things like NAFTA, the crime bill, Iraq, etc., does not go away just because it doesn't come up during the primaries. The fact that you have a liability should push you to address them in a meaningful way. In the case of NAFTA and the underlying issues it represents in the public consciousness, a recognition of the legitimacy of the problems her earlier position posed would be great for starter's. The push to silence these criticisms and sweep them under the rug did no one any favors, Hillary least of all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I also don't think Hillary lost because she wasn't a credible messenger for leftist policy. While Hillary is not a credible messenger for leftist policy, you're right that she didn't lose for that reason. She lost because she's widely distrusted by people who aren't registered democrats and because she ran a terrible campaign whose basic message was 'Actually, things are great!' in an electoral system where she needed people in the Rust Belt to vote for her. MooselanderII posted:In the case of NAFTA and the underlying issues it represents in the public consciousness, a recognition of the legitimacy of the problems her earlier position posed would be great for starter's. The push to silence these criticisms and sweep them under the rug did no one any favors, Hillary least of all. Trump had made trade a cornerstone of his campaign all the way back during the GOP primaries, so even he can't really believe something like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Playstation 4 posted:"I don't want to stop criticism, unless it nebulously empowers those I disagree with, then it has to be tamped for the good of I guess I assumed everyone here disagrees with the right in general and Trump in particular, and agreed that they are bad for the country. MooselanderII posted:Ultimately the fact that a politician has a substantive liability, like Hillary's waffling on the issues from things like NAFTA, the crime bill, Iraq, etc., does not go away just because it doesn't come up during the primaries. I don't know how you can think Bernie making criticism of those prior positions the heart of his primary campaign would have no impact on the electorate. If you're arguing that it's not important if they made it easier for trump to win, OK, thanks for the honesty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I guess I assumed everyone here disagrees with the right in general and Trump in particular, and agreed that they are bad for the country. But I said that Bernie, or anyone else in the primary for that matter, not pointing them out does not make them go away? edit: forgot a not MooselanderII fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I guess I assumed everyone here disagrees with the right in general and Trump in particular, and agreed that they are bad for the country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yeah, it's just that we additionally think that subverting democracy by running information suppression campaigns is also bad. If democrats don't support the right with shortsighted primary attacks they'll be subverting democracy? Thanks for your brilliant contribution. MooselanderII posted:But I said that Bernie, or anyone else in the primary for that matter, not pointing them out does not make them go away? not pointing them out won't make them go away. Pointing them out amplifies those criticisms and gives them bipartisan credence. "Even Bernie says she's corrupt!" JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't know how you can think Bernie making criticism of those prior positions the heart of his primary campaign would have no impact on the electorate. If you're arguing that it's not important if they made it easier for trump to win, OK, thanks for the honesty. In JC's perfect world, the primary is just a bunch of people saying how much they like and admire whoever the Party Establishment has decreed will be the nominee, and then after the primary is over every other candidate abases themselves and eagerly tells everyone how wrong they were to even think of opposing their perfect and glorious nominee. If that nominee happens to be an underhanded slimeball then they praise how gracious the nominee was in deigning to notice them long enough to smear their character, and how utterly appropriate those smears were. Anything less results in an instant public lynching.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
The right is pure trash made manifest in skin suits. Your idiocy about criticising our own is approaching a level of stupid like theirs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Playstation 4 posted:The right is pure trash made manifest in skin suits. I'm literally saying we should be careful about criticizing our own so the right can't turn things against us you dolt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Except you go about defining "careful about criticism" in the most transparently self-serving way possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
I think they could have had a substantive debate on the practicality and the benefits of single payer vs. ACA expansion without attacking motives, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
I don't think Sanders was hard enough on Hillary personally nor do I think she adequately defended herself on the points he brought up against her She never developed a good answer for questions about NAFTA and TPP and Trump crushed her on those
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm literally saying we should be careful about criticizing our own so the right can't turn things against us you dolt. The right will make up poo poo to use against us, who gives a gently caress what they do?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't know how you can think Bernie making criticism of those prior positions the heart of his primary campaign would have no impact on the electorate. If you're arguing that it's not important if they made it easier for trump to win, OK, thanks for the honesty. Literally any negative attack during a primary can feasibly have a negative impact during the general election. This is why I brought up that your argument here is basically implying that negative criticism within the party should be off-limits during the primary and general election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:52 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I think they could have had a substantive debate on the practicality and the benefits of single payer vs. ACA expansion without attacking motives, maybe? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG7w3Oey3xs JeffersonClay posted:I'm literally saying we should be careful about criticizing our own so the right can't turn things against us you dolt. I love that they included the second clip where 2008 Hillary criticizes Obama for weakening party unity and strengthening Republicans because he attacked her on healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:19
|
|