|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Not a Step posted:I agree, cut the South free to be its own hellhole and let the Klan take over. Its their own fault for not voting Democrat hard enough. I'm done having pity for those people. I sense sarcasm in the force. You realize these yokels would gladly agree with you, yes?
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:This isn't an Electorial College. The majority chose this. They can live out the consequences. I'm done having pity for these people. And so we arrive at the blue-state centrist's core argument. If the people will not vote for the One True Party, then leave them to suffer. They genuinely wonder why they lose democratic elections, you know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
I think elizabeth warren is the best prson to tackle pissbaby
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, to answer your second question first, it obviously varies, but I like Tom Frank's broad definition (I'm paraphrasing): people who work for a wage, often in manual labor or industrial jobs, who, until relatively recently, have mostly considered themselves to be "middle class." A significant portion of these folks have traditionally been loyal Democrats, and have been enthusiastic about involvement in unions. Alrighty sure. Majorian posted:As far as speaking to them is concerned, pushing for things like a $15 minimum wage, vocally supporting labor, endorsing Medicare/Medicaid expansion, and promising jobs in new industries that have a chance of revitalizing suffering Rust Belt communities, are all good first steps. I understand the arguments against forcing a $15 minimum wage nationally, but that's part of how electoral politics works: you promise the moon, and sometimes you have to scale back on them a bit, but at least you cared enough to aim high, and fought for your beliefs. That wins you so much more good will from the public than going in ready to compromise from the get-go. I have no problem with a $15 dollar minimum wage, most arguments against it are just the Galtian job creators trying to bluff their way. "Listen if you do this I really will replace you with a robiit" which they would in a heartbeat if they could. Majorian posted:It's not just policy positions that are important, though. Being emphatic about those positions matters a lot, as is being seen as credible when taking those positions. That was the biggest problem for Hillary Clinton: she ended up with decent policy prescriptions by the end of the campaign, but she didn't really seem to believe in them. Given her history of supporting free trade agreements and cuts to the social safety net, and that she didn't seem to care that much about winning votes in the Upper Midwest, it's hard for me to blame people in those districts for not believing her. An economic populist has to "feel their pain," as a certain other Democrat once famously put it. I mean that's a tall order and you're relying on one candidate's charisma to carry it through. Do we have a spokesperson like that in the DNC? Or do you propose this become the DNC's broader message? Ze Pollack posted:And so we arrive at the blue-state centrist's core argument. "these people voted for these policies despite being face-hosed by them so obviously they want them for whatever reason" "You CENTRIST!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:And so we arrive at the blue-state centrist's core argument. If someone chooses to suffere, how does me not stopping them make it my fault? I like the idea of not treating whole populations like they have to be coddled for making their own decisions. If you make the best arguments you can to them, and they still choose to suffer, welp... This is not the same as saying the person is voting against their own self interest therefore they should be educated kind of poo poo either. Let these people choose their own government, and let them continue to wonder why Kansas isn't economically successful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:I think elizabeth warren is the best prson to tackle pissbaby No actually it's Al Franken. "Why not me" indeed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The left has been trying that for about thirty years or more. Turns out that an alliance with nihilists isn't worth much. For someone who's only speaking for themselves you sure do know a lot about the desires and motivations of people who aren't you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yeah, you said some bs about they only wanted to run one test run and they weren't sure thompson could win, but oh they sure wish he could, and that they just happened to choose GA, with the candidate they were familiar with as the testing grounds to throw 8.3 million dollars at. that doesn't explain a lot though, cause 8.3m is a lot and thompson wanted a fraction of that and was told no by perez. You seemed confused by evilweasel's post. Let me help you out - let's start by calculating the percentage of people in KS-04 and GA-06 who voted for the president.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:I think elizabeth warren is the best prson to tackle pissbaby  , although Franken would also be pretty good actually.Just as long as it's not Booker. It absolutely cannot be Booker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Condiv posted:actually you do It's possible to be a dyed-in-the-wool socialist and still think third-party voters are dumb as hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
Its gonna be Booker and you know it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I mean that's a tall order and you're relying on one candidate's charisma to carry it through. It does rely on some charisma, but here's the thing: it doesn't take that much charisma to pull this off. More than Hillary Clinton, but you don't need to be Barack Obama or 1992 Bill Clinton to do a convincing "I feel your pain." I do think it's a message that the DNC should adopt, and use it as one of the twin poles for their Big Tent party. (the other, of course, being social justice/antiracism/anti-sexism/anti-LGBTphobia, etc) The message of the Democratic Party needs to not just be social, or economic, justice. It needs to be justice, pure and simple. quote:"these people voted for these policies despite being face-hosed by them so obviously they want them for whatever reason" There are a lot of people in those states who didn't want what the Republicans are offering, who are going to suffer, though. Also, I'd contend that most Trump supporters in the Rust Belt weren't exactly "informed consumers," so to speak. Not a Step posted:Its gonna be Booker and you know it. They'll try to make it Booker. We need to do everything we can to stop them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:If someone chooses to suffere, how does me not stopping them make it my fault? Welcome to the Republican party 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Probably worth DNC spending on KS race if only as outreach even if doomed effort
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:If someone chooses to suffere, how does me not stopping them make it my fault? This is...kind of a ghoulish viewpoint.  People deserve health care and a living wage not because they deserve it, but because these are human rights. The fact that a bunch of low-information voters whose quality of life has plummeted got bamboozled by a conman shouldn't strip them of those rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
axeil posted:Yeah the Hillary campaign in general was just absurdly bad. I can see why you might want to stop down in a state you win in a wave if there's an important Senate or Governor's race there but Hillary's strategy of map expanding was anything but that. You win the Presidency with 270 EVs, you don't get bonus points for winning 400 EVs. Yeah, but my point goes double for Congressional races, since you're never going to win big as long as some bunch of Beltway hacks with their heads up their asses have control over where you'll even bother to run. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:If someone chooses to suffere, how does me not stopping them make it my fault? I'm sure that the 46% in Kansas who voted Dem yesterday and their compatriots in other traditionally red states will be super motivated to show up and vote D in the future when they get this kind of positive and uplifting message.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:26
|
|
Majorian posted:This is...kind of a ghoulish viewpoint. We don't live in shouldland, as much as I hate having to quote everyone's dad. These people chose what they wanted in spite of all evidence, and in the end there is nothing we can do to stop them. I'm not even sure what point you're making here other than to keep the moral high ground, and, well, look how great that turned out for democrats.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
I remember when the centrists blew a gasket over suspicions that Bernie Sanders wasn't going all in in the south because a plurality of dem voters there are poc. I guess it only matters when you can use it to punch left.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:We don't live in shouldland, as much as I hate having to quote everyone's dad. These people chose what they wanted in spite of all evidence, and in the end there is nothing we can do to stop them. I'm not even sure what point you're making here other than to keep the moral high ground, and, well, look how great that turned out for democrats. 52,5% of the voters chose what they wanted. Meanwhile ~55000 voters went for the good option. Your insistence of abandoning those people along with the people you blame is not only ghoulish, but super loving dumb. What message do you think it sends to the rest of prospective dem voters in non-blue states?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It does rely on some charisma, but here's the thing: it doesn't take that much charisma to pull this off. More than Hillary Clinton, but you don't need to be Barack Obama or 1992 Bill Clinton to do a convincing "I feel your pain." I do think it's a message that the DNC should adopt, and use it as one of the twin poles for their Big Tent party. (the other, of course, being social justice/antiracism/anti-sexism/anti-LGBTphobia, etc) The message of the Democratic Party needs to not just be social, or economic, justice. It needs to be justice, pure and simple. You're gonna have a hard time selling that second pole to the red base. Economic hardships and social issues are points that are linked together for them. Which one caused the other is a matter of debate, but so long as they are linked, they will not compromise. Like these people don't mind losing jobs. It sucks, but they accept it. They don't accept the idea that they lose their jobs to immigrants or other countries. I don't think we can win them over without compromising our stance on social justice and I don't think we should do that. There's also an issue of identity. These people believe their identity is being eroded away and voting D is a way to destroy it completely. They're still sore about the lack of recovery from 2008 in their parts, they're pissed about Obama's anti-coal stance and other ways the evil Ds wronged them. You can make an argument that it's true, but it serves as a major roadblock to our cause. Majorian posted:There are a lot of people in those states who didn't want what the Republicans are offering, who are going to suffer, though. Also, I'd contend that most Trump supporters in the Rust Belt weren't exactly "informed consumers," so to speak. It's tragic, but it can't be helped. If Dems were smart, they'd use Kansas as a warning to what happens when you pull the R lever. We can turn it blue later when Dems get more power. And again, they chose this. I don't care if it was out of arrogance or ignorance. There's being an "informed consumer" and then there's just being a lemming with no sense of self-preservation. If Kansas implodes in Republican hands, that gives Dems a lot of clout and a lot of angry voters. Majorian posted:This is...kind of a ghoulish viewpoint. I agree. However, these people are really loving happy to be stripped of these rights, at least 60,000 of them are. So what can we do? Leopards eating faces party and all that. Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:We don't live in shouldland, as much as I hate having to quote everyone's dad. These people chose what they wanted in spite of all evidence Did they see the evidence? I mean, I keep seeing people assume that these were informed voters. A lot of them really aren't - particularly among those who swung the election to Trump. In fact, the biggest predictor for who would vote for Trump turned out to be education. SSNeoman posted:You're gonna have a hard time selling that second pole to the red base. Economic hardships and social issues are points that are linked together for them. Which one caused the other is a matter of debate, but so long as they are linked, they will not compromise. Like these people don't mind losing jobs. It sucks, but they accept it. They don't accept the idea that they lose their jobs to immigrants or other countries. I don't think we can win them over without compromising our stance on social justice and I don't think we should do that. But the Democrats managed to win these Rust Belt states in 2008 and 2012 without sacrificing their stance on social justice. Obama ran as someone who was supportive of the social safety net, and cast his two opponents as austerity-loving, pro-tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy ghouls. I don't see why the Democrats can't win over the same communities with the same message that worked before. You're treating these voters like they're Louie Gohmert supporters down in Tyler, Texas. But they're not - these are communities that have voted straight Dem since 1984, until now. Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Why are you still pretending that midwestern voters are some unreachable and inscrutable Other one day after it turned out that one of the reddest districts in the country actually was competitive?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Why are you still pretending that midwestern voters are some unreachable and inscrutable Other one day after it turned out that one of the reddest districts in the country actually was competitive? Because it took an administration that took a state to its knees, probably in its worst shape it's been in recent history, and people still went and pulled the lever to keep the same party in power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Because it took an administration that took a state to its knees and people still went and pulled red. In an election that the national or state party didn't even bother to contest seriously. If 46% of the voters in KS04 can be reached it shows that no district is a lost cause, and your dumbshit attitude is literally the problem here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Because it took an administration that took a state to its knees, probably in its worst shape it's been in recent history, and people still went and pulled the lever to keep the same party in power. So it's up to the Democrats to explain to them why it's Republicans' fault that the state is on its knees, and give them an alternative path. The Dems haven't been doing much of that in Kansas at all, for a good long while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
The problem with cutting the South loose is the same it's always been, there are huge populations of minority people who live there and the majority wants to gently caress them over. If it wasn't for that, I'd be all for the State's Rights you get what you vote for train.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:The problem with cutting the South loose is the same it's always been, there are huge populations of minority people who live there and the majority wants to gently caress them over. If it wasn't for that, I'd be all for the State's Rights you get what you vote for train. And the same applies to the Rust Belt. A majority of people in those states made a bad choice with their votes, but there are a lot of minorities in those states. They deserve to be defended. The working class isn't just white people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This is...kind of a ghoulish viewpoint. Endgame of the kind of politics that likes to call itself "pragmatist" to obscure its fundamental cowardice. An actual pragmatist accepts that when a strategy fails, doubling down on it is ill-advised. But to the centrist technocrat, who has no real principles or convictions beyond 'my personal comfort is good,' who views the very concept of representative governance as morally suspect on the grounds a plurality of America does not give a drat about their personal comfort, pragmatism's sole value is as an excuse for never offending upper-to-upper-middle-class suburbanites. Thus, the 'pragmatists' claiming that the correct path, for the Democratic Party, in a democratic system of government, is to avoid doing anything for the people it supposedly seeks to represent. Martin Luther King stripped their supposed "pragmatism" bare for what it actually was in the Letter from Birmingham Jail. The White Moderate, who will always have a more convenient season to address injustice in mind, and whose support of equality extends precisely up to the point it starts mildly inconveniencing them personally, and not a millimeter further. At which point the checkbooks come out and the donors lurch into action, because those goddamned leftists need to be shown this party is not going to be run by a filthy socialist muslim and shown it good. After all, for every one working-class voter we lose, the Pragmatic Centrist will pick up two in white suburbia, and isn't white suburbia what -really- matters?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Because it took an administration that took a state to its knees, probably in its worst shape it's been in recent history, and people still went and pulled the lever to keep the same party in power. You have tried nothing to get their votes, and you're all out of ideas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
did you really just loving compare the letter from birningham jail to the rhetoric of people who crow about IDENTITY POLITICS? holy poo poo my dude
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:did you really just loving compare the letter from birningham jail to the rhetoric of people who crow about IDENTITY POLITICS? MLK didn't have much patience with centrists who didn't concern themselves with income inequality. Dude was pretty outspoken on economic justice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:did you really just loving compare the letter from birningham jail to the rhetoric of people who crow about IDENTITY POLITICS? One of us just finished arguing we need to abandon every PoC in the American South to the tender mercies of the Republican Party on grounds you don't want to try to win elections there, friend. Turns out MLK wasn't a fan of that line of argument, for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:did you really just loving compare the letter from birningham jail to the rhetoric of people who crow about IDENTITY POLITICS? Considering you guys are jerking off to the idea of cutting the south loose. Its very much comparable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:One of us just finished arguing we need to abandon every PoC in the American South to the tender mercies of the Republican Party on grounds you don't want to try to win elections there, friend. Majorian posted:MLK didn't have much patience with centrists who didn't concern themselves with income inequality. Dude was pretty outspoken on economic justice. That's really funny because I thought the letter from Birningham jail was complaining about exactly the sort of people who are too concerned about violence to help. You know, exactly like these 60k yokels in Kansas. I must have read the wrong one I guess. We're not talking about people who lack equal rights due to racism, we're talking about people who took the rights they had and hosed them. You are loving insane to equate the two.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Majorian posted:MLK didn't have much patience with centrists who didn't concern themselves with income inequality. Dude was pretty outspoken on economic justice. Also on finding the kind of coward who hid behind "oh, it would be too ~haaard~ to try to sell Not Getting Turbofucked By Racist Idiots south of the Mason-Dixon" unhelpful. But hey, SSNeoman wants to punish red-staters for that red-statery, guess the black population of the bible belt's all just acceptable losses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:That's really funny because I thought the letter from Birningham jail was complaining about exactly the sort of people who are too concerned about violence to help. You know, exactly like these 60k yokels in Kansas. I must have read the wrong one I guess. Considering that before he was murdered MLK was planning a huge march on DC with alot of poor yokels. I don't think you know anything about MLK.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Remind me again when did Martin Luter King's followers advocate for the free market in lieu of having government regulated coverage, or something similar? And then go "well I want to repeal Obamacare, I get my healthcare from the ACA  "
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Remind me again when did Martin Luter King's followers advocate for the free market in lieu of having government regulated coverage, or something similar? Oh, the people against him were quite adamant about how he stood for communism, race-mixing, the usual assortment of white suburbanite fears. And then as now, the White Moderate responded to the conservative presence in the American South by telling the left there "while i'm a big fan of equal rights on ~paper~, it's simply not ~pragmatic~ for me to expend any effort on trying to make that come to pass." Isn't it fascinating? Scratch a "pragmatist" and you find someone whose solution to all problems of inequality is telling the oppressed "sit down and shut up, you deserve it."
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
I don't recall Mr. King ever commenting on LGBTQ rights, so I can't say how devoted to social justice he really was. Is it possible for someone to be judged as pragmatic retroactively based on how they fought (or didn't, as the case might be)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Oh, the people against him were quite adamant about how he stood for communism, race-mixing, the usual assortment of white suburbanite fears. I'm far from a moderate my dude. You need to try harder than this weak poo poo. You're not gonna compare my disdain for southern conservatives with racist whites of MLK's day. But go on and try. I can use a laugh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 01:20
|
|