The democrats are a waste

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed.
B	77	25.50%
K	160	52.98%
M	65	21.52%
Total:	229 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

bernie posted:

But Sanders claimed Thompson could have won if he had been given greater backing from the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

�It turned out that you had a lot of activists, you had a lot of working people standing up and taking on the Trump agenda and with a little bit more help they may have pulled it off,� he told MSNBC Wednesday. �And I would hope that the Democratic leadership would learn that lesson.�

Sanders added that it was critical for the Democrats to embrace a �50-state agenda� and not to �surrender parts of the country to right-wing Republicans.�

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-tour-democratic-party-584261

bernie sanders is a treasure and i'm glad we've got him.

Condiv fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Apr 14, 2017

# ? Apr 14, 2017 19:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 10:20

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009; Inverted Offensive Battle: Acupuncture Attacks Convert To 3D Penetration Tactics Taking Advantage of Deep Battle Opportunities

Condiv posted:

here's an op-ed piece from the guardian about how much of a waste the dems were in this most recent race:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/13/progressive-democratic-candidates-james-thompson-loss#comments

To underline how obvious it is that the DCCC needs to, you know, learn the right lessons from this, I would like to point out that noted ultra-radical-leftist Matt Yglesias is saying that the Dems really need to back a proper 50-state strategy:

quote:

the idea that national Democrats couldn�t do a single thing to help a long-shot candidate in a red district � advance him a fundraising email list, cut him a modest check, or route a little money his way through a quiet vehicle � is borderline absurd. The simple truth is the DCCC didn�t get involved in the race for the same reason that virtually nobody was paying attention to it � they didn�t think the race would be competitive.

quote:

[The DCCC mindset is] based on the premise that the top political operatives have very good judgment about which races are winnable, which candidates are strong, and which consulting and campaign teams are effective. This premise is critically important because no matter how strong the abstract case for targeting is, it only really makes sense to narrowcast if you can target effectively.

quote:

If your key asset is expertise at identifying winning candidates and helping them win elections, then a record of losing elections becomes a problem. Having lost power at all levels of politics, the strategic acumen of the Democratic Party�s leadership is bound to come into question.

Failure to identify a potential victory in Kansas is hardly the greatest sin in the world, but it reenforces the basic reality that targeting decisions are made by people who are more fallible than they would probably like to admit. Spreading resources thinly would, necessarily, entail a certain amount of waste. But it would also put less pressure on expert judgment to be infallible and give more due to the fickle nature of reality.

Let that sink in for a moment. Matthew loving Yglesias is on the "should have supported Thompson" train.

When Yglesias is quicker on the uptake of a lesson from an election than the DCCC, or indeed, many posters in this thread, that's a problem.

e: A related Vox piece that also gets it better than the DCCC:

quote:

The Democratic National Committee has long talked about the need to start competing early in every district, but those who control the purse strings are deploying a much more targeted approach. A DCCC spokesperson said the Kansas race showed �the great energy� animating the anti-Trump left, but wouldn�t detail exactly how it had changed the committee�s thinking for other races.

"We've long been in touch with the [Quist] campaign and have already invested some money in the race,� said Tyler Law, a DCCC spokesperson. �We are definitely considering investing more. The DCCC has been monitoring these races really closely.�

But the numbers reveal what�s been on the DCCC�s mind. On Monday, the committee announced that the party was spending an additional $250,000 on TV ads in the Georgia race for Ossoff.

That came on top of heavy investment at the beginning of March to send six full-time staffers, paid for by the DCCC, to help build up Ossoff�s campaign in the affluent Georgia suburb. It also has made a five-figure investment in get-out-the-vote ads on the Pandora music streaming site, and a six-figure investment in radio stations targeting African Americans in the district.

By contrast, the DCCC has sent virtually no money or staffers to Montana. It spent no money in the Kansas election and sent no prominent surrogates, while Republican Ron Estes received more than $130,000 from the National Republican Congressional Committee and received direct help from President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.

That�s left some progressive activists fuming. �It was a razor-thin loss, and we were totally abandoned by the national Democratic Party,� said Joan Gedraitis, 46, a volunteer for Thompson�s campaign in Kansas. �A little help is all it would have taken.�

Once again - if Vox writers are more clued-in on the implications of these special elections than the DCCC, that is a problem for the Democrats.

Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Apr 14, 2017

# ? Apr 14, 2017 20:24

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

Majorian posted:

To underline how obvious it is that the DCCC needs to, you know, learn the right lessons from this, I would like to point out that noted ultra-radical-leftist Matt Yglesias is saying that the Dems really need to back a proper 50-state strategy:

Let that sink in for a moment. Matthew loving Yglesias is on the "should have supported Thompson" train.

When Yglesias is quicker on the uptake of a lesson from an election than the DCCC, or indeed, many posters in this thread, that's a problem.

e: A related Vox piece that also gets it better than the DCCC:

Once again - if Vox writers are more clued-in on the implications of these special elections than the DCCC, that is a problem for the Democrats.

Clyburn is almost 80 years old and Pelosi put him in charge. It's really time for new leadership.

# ? Apr 14, 2017 20:37

Sloppy Milkshake: Nov 9, 2004; I MAKE YOU HUMBLE

SSNeoman posted:

OP seems to have chilled out so guess we're gonna listen to stuff like The Beach Boys instead of Bullet for my Valentine. Wise choice.

lol look at this self own by a middle schooler

# ? Apr 14, 2017 20:50

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009; Inverted Offensive Battle: Acupuncture Attacks Convert To 3D Penetration Tactics Taking Advantage of Deep Battle Opportunities

I mean, my God, from further down in the second article:

quote:

But the idea that the DCCC erred in largely skipping the Kansas race is still a controversial one among Democrats. In a widely circulated op-ed endorsed by the current communications director of the DCCC, former Hillary Clinton aide Christina Reynolds defended the committee�s decision not to invest in Kansas�s special election.

She made two key points: 1) that national Democrats had to pick their battles, and given how much Trump won the district by � 27 points � it made more sense to concentrate their limited resources elsewhere; and 2) that Democrats in right-leaning districts often don�t want the DCCC�s help, since it can be used to tie them to widely unpopular House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

�Sometimes the best thing for a candidate is to allow them to get press and support in their own district,� Reynolds writes.

This is why Clintonistas have such a bad rap in left-wing circles, folks: poo poo like the above. That is...loving beyond :psypop:

quote:

Left-wing critics have argued that this defense appears to undercut the purpose of giving to the DCCC. If Democrats in Washington can�t spend money on critical races in competitive seats because it will make their candidates politically toxic, then why does it take donors� money in the first place?

They also say there�s a danger in assuming that Democrats should primarily focus on where Clinton did well.

The median income in Georgia�s Sixth District, where Ossoff is competing, is $83,000 � more than twice the national average. In the Kansas Fourth, it�s $48,100. In Montana, it�s $33,024.

Throwing much of the party�s money at these wealthier districts where Clinton did well makes some sense, given that they appear more winnable. But doing so may also starve Democrats trying to make inroads with the downscale white voters who heavily supported Donald Trump � districts that progressives believe they can win with help from the national party.

�Democrats want to fight in these wealthy, highly educated districts where Trump did not do that well in,� said Trent, of the Justice Democrats. �That's why they're going all out for Ossoff and not willing to go get the Democrats who are living in poverty, and so desperate they turned to Trump.�

Ben Wikler, Washington director of the progressive group MoveOn.org, said the party should realize the Trump resistance is strong enough to fight on multiple fronts � that it doesn�t have to choose as narrowly in picking its battles as it might have during the Obama years, when the liberal base was less fired up.

�Democrats have to realize we�re not in a fixed-pie world anymore. Where there�s leverage to fight Trump, there will be energy and money,� he said.

In Kansas, for instance, Thompson raised $148,000 from small-dollar donors with essentially no help from his state or national party. (He only raised $38,000 from donors who gave over $200.)

�People are waking up and looking for how to help � the resources will be there,� Wikler said. �Progressives are constrained by avenues for fighting now, as opposed to resources for the fight.�

Seriously, JeffersonClay, SSNeoman, et al., I'm not sure how you can defend your position on this, when you're making Vox and MoveOn look like visionaries.

Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Apr 14, 2017

# ? Apr 14, 2017 20:52

Seraphic Neoman: Jul 19, 2011

Sloppy Milkshake posted:

lol look at this self own by a middle schooler

He started with blaztin' Bizket so we went a long way.

Maybe guys

Maybe there is hope after all :unsmith:

# ? Apr 14, 2017 21:20

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Majorian posted:

Seriously, JeffersonClay, SSNeoman, et al., I'm not sure how you can defend your position on this, when you're making Vox and MoveOn look like visionaries.

The usual route: massive contradictions and gaps in logic followed by "I never said that" when called out on it. I don't know why you keep assuming that centrist apologists ITT are arguing in good faith, or for that matter even capable of keeping their own bullshit straight, when they keep demonstrating that they wouldn't do so even if they could.

These are the same people who didn't learn any lessons from 2016. To think they'll learn a lesson from a close race in Kansas is laughable.

# ? Apr 14, 2017 22:09

Heck Yes! Loam!: Nov 15, 2004; a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/852989593041481730
Those worthless loving democrats taking all that dirty money.

Some of that dirty corporate money should have gone to kansas! That way we could have complained about how corrupt Thompson was for taking all that dirty money. Ugh, why are the democrats so loving terrible at everything,

Heck Yes! Loam! fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Apr 14, 2017

# ? Apr 14, 2017 22:17

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Am I still a centrist apologist if I think there should have been more support in the Kansas race?

I hope I am :ohdear:

# ? Apr 14, 2017 22:17

Seraphic Neoman: Jul 19, 2011

Majorian posted:

Seriously, JeffersonClay, SSNeoman, et al., I'm not sure how you can defend your position on this, when you're making Vox and MoveOn look like visionaries.

Hey you actually swayed my mind on this. Dems should see if there is indeed that sort of support in other states by throwing money into those races.

I'm just not nailing them to a cross because of Kansas. I'm sorry but if you're so blind to not connect schools closing with the government then there's no helping you. This is a sticking point for me. It's like seeing people say "man I sure hate getting lead poisoning, but poo poo I sure love the guy who says dumping stuff into rivers is cool!"

If they don't learn from Kansas, I'll stand right by you. Maybe away from the OP though, he just rediscovered Skrillex.

# ? Apr 14, 2017 22:24

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Jesus, asking people to learn is not nailing them on a cross. Even if the tone is hostile.

# ? Apr 14, 2017 22:26

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

One issue I think the DNC has is that it makes a lot of the same mistakes some corporations do, in the sense of focusing only on short-term returns (in this case being "the result of the coming election"). Because investing in a solid red area is highly unlikely to yield results in the coming election, they don't do it. But the problem is that even if a Democrat loses, investing in their election still helps communicate their ideas and increase their presence int he area, which could yield returns further in the future. It's not like blue/red states are literally permanently a specific color; they can change over the course of several decades, but that change will be very difficult if the Democrats have little to no political presence.

To be clear, I obviously still think that we should invest a lot more in close races and swing states, but that doesn't mean more money and effort can't be put into regions that are currently more or less abandoned by the party.

Matthew Yglesias posted:

The DCCC mindset is based on the premise that the top political operatives have very good judgment about which races are winnable, which candidates are strong, and which consulting and campaign teams are effective. This premise is critically important because no matter how strong the abstract case for targeting is, it only really makes sense to narrowcast if you can target effectively.

This is an important point many people don't seem to understand, and it doesn't just apply to the political sphere. Making decisions based upon the analysis of "big data" is only useful if the analysis is reliable, and can even be counterproductive if the analysis makes some wrong assumptions. I think that many people who defend the actions of the DNC in the previous election are just sort of assuming "making decisions with the help of Big Data is good because it's better to 'scientifically' make decisions." And this is generally a reasonable assumption to make, but the problem is that an analysis done incorrectly or using the wrong assumptions can quite literally be worse than nothing at all (because it basically lends extra authority to an incorrect conclusion). If you're not sure how sound the assumptions/logic used in your analysis are, it is often a better idea to make decisions using more subjective methods (like the personal experience of someone experienced in campaign strategy).

It's a tricky issue, because people outside of the campaign often don't have any way of determining how sound the analysis guiding their strategy is. If it's sound it definitely is better than subjectively making decisions, after all. I guess the main point here is just that "guiding decisions using data analysis" is not inherently a good thing, since you can't always rely upon the analysis in question being accurate. I think some liberals who aren't actually scientists/statisticians themselves tend to fetishize this sort of thing and assume that any sort of data analysis is useful, regardless of quality/accuracy.

Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Apr 14, 2017

# ? Apr 14, 2017 22:30

Seraphic Neoman: Jul 19, 2011

steinrokkan posted:

Jesus, asking people to learn is not nailing them on a cross. Even if the tone is hostile.

*Looks at thread title*

*looks at OP and defense of third paties*

*looks at centrsitsCENTRISTSCENTRISTS!!! posts*

ah-huh. well okay, if you say so.

# ? Apr 15, 2017 00:05

Agnosticnixie: Jan 6, 2015

Maybe nailing on crosses can be attempted if it turns out to be the only way the centrists will learn but I think you might be selling yourself short.

# ? Apr 15, 2017 00:16

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

SSNeoman posted:

*Looks at thread title*

*looks at OP and defense of third paties*

*looks at centrsitsCENTRISTSCENTRISTS!!! posts*

ah-huh. well okay, if you say so.

If you can't handle mean words, get the gently caress out of politics.

# ? Apr 15, 2017 00:48

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009; Inverted Offensive Battle: Acupuncture Attacks Convert To 3D Penetration Tactics Taking Advantage of Deep Battle Opportunities

SSNeoman posted:

*Looks at thread title*

*looks at OP and defense of third paties*

*looks at centrsitsCENTRISTSCENTRISTS!!! posts*

ah-huh. well okay, if you say so.

Well, look - I get why you're apprehensive at that. But keep in mind, a lot of the anger at centrists Dems in this thread comes from, A, Clintonite dickishness during the election (and holy poo poo, there was a lot of Clintonite dickishness against leftists - just as much as from the Bernie-or-Bust types); and B, some real obtuseness from a lot of those same Clintonites after the election, which you can see pretty clearly in the previous iteration of this thread. Some folks here are just feeling some not-unjustified indignation, and some real frustration with the inertia that exists in the Democratic Party. Don't take it too personally, if at all possible - you seem to be arguing in good faith, and you're posting your thoughts intelligibly, and it's appreciated.

Kilroy posted:

I don't know why you keep assuming that centrist apologists ITT are arguing in good faith

Because I've been arguing with people here since 2004, and for a lot of that time, I was one of them: a dyed-in-the-wool centrist. And I was arguing in good faith through most of it.

Majorian fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Apr 15, 2017

# ? Apr 15, 2017 01:00

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 5 hours!

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/852989593041481730
Those worthless loving democrats taking all that dirty money.

Some of that dirty corporate money should have gone to kansas! That way we could have complained about how corrupt Thompson was for taking all that dirty money. Ugh, why are the democrats so loving terrible at everything,

Yes, correct, if the corporate donations aren't spent to win elections, then it does call into question the defense of taking corporate money because "we need it to win elections"

# ? Apr 15, 2017 01:18

Seraphic Neoman: Jul 19, 2011

Majorian posted:

Well, look - I get why you're apprehensive at that. But keep in mind, a lot of the anger at centrists Dems in this thread comes from, A, Clintonite dickishness during the election (and holy poo poo, there was a lot of Clintonite dickishness against leftists - just as much as from the Bernie-or-Bust types); and B, some real obtuseness from a lot of those same Clintonites after the election, which you can see pretty clearly in the previous iteration of this thread. Some folks here are just feeling some not-unjustified indignation, and some real frustration with the inertia that exists in the Democratic Party. Don't take it too personally, if at all possible - you seem to be arguing in good faith, and you're posting your thoughts intelligibly, and it's appreciated.

It's fine. I just find it absurd how much the word is being thrown around, like a left version of globalist.

The long and short of it is we need to see the DNC's next move. Montana has the next special election up right?

# ? Apr 15, 2017 01:19

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Agnosticnixie posted:

Maybe nailing on crosses can be attempted if it turns out to be the only way the centrists will learn but I think you might be selling yourself short.

I prefer wheels.

# ? Apr 15, 2017 01:33

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009; Inverted Offensive Battle: Acupuncture Attacks Convert To 3D Penetration Tactics Taking Advantage of Deep Battle Opportunities

SSNeoman posted:

It's fine. I just find it absurd how much the word is being thrown around, like a left version of globalist.

The long and short of it is we need to see the DNC's next move. Montana has the next special election up right?

Georgia's jungle primary actually. Here's the schedule:

April 18 - Georgia 6th district - "jungle" primary
May 2 - South Carolina 5th district primary
May 16 - South Carolina 5th district runoff
May 25 - Montana at-large election
June 6 - California 34th district election
June 20 - Georgia 6th district runoff
June 20 - South Carolina 5th district election

# ? Apr 15, 2017 01:40

The Insect Court: Nov 22, 2012; by FactsAreUseless

Kilroy posted:

The usual route: massive contradictions and gaps in logic followed by "I never said that" when called out on it. I don't know why you keep assuming that centrist apologists ITT are arguing in good faith, or for that matter even capable of keeping their own bullshit straight, when they keep demonstrating that they wouldn't do so even if they could.

These are the same people who didn't learn any lessons from 2016. To think they'll learn a lesson from a close race in Kansas is laughable.

The problem is their sole claim to legitimacy was the idea that they were the 'serious', pragmatic, sensible types who knew how to actually win elections. The left could engage in utopian daydreaming but centrists were progressives who got results. But the Clinton catastrophe blew that all to hell, and in the aftermath they've doubled down on the idea that they're brilliant political strategists with gems like:

SSNeoman posted:

Hillary for campaigning and buying ad space in Texas despite the fact that the state is actually pretty politically balanced and it could have worked.

# ? Apr 15, 2017 04:24

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/852989593041481730
Those worthless loving democrats taking all that dirty money.

Some of that dirty corporate money should have gone to kansas! That way we could have complained about how corrupt Thompson was for taking all that dirty money. Ugh, why are the democrats so loving terrible at everything,

if they're gonna take it, yes they should spend it effectively. you're right that i hate them taking dirty money. i hate them taking dirty money and then not helping candidates even more

# ? Apr 15, 2017 06:19

Seraphic Neoman: Jul 19, 2011

Condiv posted:

if they're gonna take it, yes they should spend it effectively. you're right that i hate them taking dirty money. i hate them taking dirty money and then not helping candidates even more

Oh man I loving loved Green Day too!

# ? Apr 15, 2017 10:05

readingatwork: Jan 8, 2009; Hello Fatty!; Fun Shoe

It's not that complicated so I'm not sure what to tell you. Money in politics is deeply corrosive and probably the #1 problem in American politics today (do you disagree?). That said if you're going to accept bribes under the pretext of "winning elections" you should at least use the money to win elections.

# ? Apr 15, 2017 15:04

Proud Christian Mom: Dec 20, 2006; READING COMPREHENSION IS HARD

That money is earmarked for defending blue seats against possible left leaning challengers

# ? Apr 15, 2017 17:24

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

please free ssneoman ive really enjoyed his running joke about music or whatever

# ? Apr 15, 2017 17:33

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

readingatwork posted:

It's not that complicated so I'm not sure what to tell you. Money in politics is deeply corrosive and probably the #1 problem in American politics today (do you disagree?).

I think it's a lot more complex than that. In many (probably most) cases politicians aren't voting in ways that benefit corporate interests only because said interests gave them money. There's also the problem that politicians generally get most of their information from said interests. An example is politicians getting information on finance and how to write financial legislation from current or past employees/executives in the financial sector. At the end of the day, it's difficult for people outside of those "wealthy urban professionals" circles to access and influence politicians, even if you remove money from the picture. There's also an inherent issue where most people with expertise in (for example) the financial services industry probably will have experience working there, so you end up with a situation where the most knowledgeable people are most knowledgeable because they're heavily invested in a particular industry.

I mean, I would definitely agree that reducing money's influence in politics is a good idea, but I don't think it will fix things as much as many people think it will.

# ? Apr 15, 2017 18:05

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Ytlaya posted:

I think it's a lot more complex than that. In many (probably most) cases politicians aren't voting in ways that benefit corporate interests only because said interests gave them money. There's also the problem that politicians generally get most of their information from said interests. An example is politicians getting information on finance and how to write financial legislation from current or past employees/executives in the financial sector. At the end of the day, it's difficult for people outside of those "wealthy urban professionals" circles to access and influence politicians, even if you remove money from the picture. There's also an inherent issue where most people with expertise in (for example) the financial services industry probably will have experience working there, so you end up with a situation where the most knowledgeable people are most knowledgeable because they're heavily invested in a particular industry.

I mean, I would definitely agree that reducing money's influence in politics is a good idea, but I don't think it will fix things as much as many people think it will.

i wonder why the rich and powerful have easy access over everyone else

could it be bribery? (it is)

# ? Apr 15, 2017 18:09

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Condiv posted:

i wonder why the rich and powerful have easy access over everyone else

could it be bribery? (it is)

Not wholly. Ytlaya is definitely right that the mere fact that our political class' social circle is going to be composed of a very specific segment of the population ensures that this segment has a huge leg up in terms of access, even before you add varying degrees of bribery. Plus rich people have far more class consciousness than everyone else.

# ? Apr 15, 2017 18:46

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009; Inverted Offensive Battle: Acupuncture Attacks Convert To 3D Penetration Tactics Taking Advantage of Deep Battle Opportunities

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

Those worthless loving democrats taking all that dirty money.

Some of that dirty corporate money should have gone to kansas! That way we could have complained about how corrupt Thompson was for taking all that dirty money. Ugh, why are the democrats so loving terrible at everything,

Progressives wouldn't have blamed the DNC for winning this race; they would have taken it as a vindication of running a populist in a district that voted Trump.

Knock this petulant poo poo off please.

# ? Apr 15, 2017 18:51

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Ytlaya posted:

I think it's a lot more complex than that. In many (probably most) cases politicians aren't voting in ways that benefit corporate interests only because said interests gave them money. There's also the problem that politicians generally get most of their information from said interests. An example is politicians getting information on finance and how to write financial legislation from current or past employees/executives in the financial sector. At the end of the day, it's difficult for people outside of those "wealthy urban professionals" circles to access and influence politicians, even if you remove money from the picture. There's also an inherent issue where most people with expertise in (for example) the financial services industry probably will have experience working there, so you end up with a situation where the most knowledgeable people are most knowledgeable because they're heavily invested in a particular industry.

I mean, I would definitely agree that reducing money's influence in politics is a good idea, but I don't think it will fix things as much as many people think it will.

It's also hard for people outside the professional class to propose meaningful regulation on the financial sector. Warren might not be a banker, but she's first became a law professor 40 years ago, for instance. And that's still a limited world.

# ? Apr 15, 2017 18:56

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009; Inverted Offensive Battle: Acupuncture Attacks Convert To 3D Penetration Tactics Taking Advantage of Deep Battle Opportunities

Ytlaya posted:

I think it's a lot more complex than that. In many (probably most) cases politicians aren't voting in ways that benefit corporate interests only because said interests gave them money. There's also the problem that politicians generally get most of their information from said interests.

Precisely. And by running in those circles for long enough, it affects their worldview and humanizes the people running the financial sector for those politicians. Dems like the Clintons aren't ideologically committed to neoliberalism, nor do they seem to be in it just for the money (if they were, they wouldn't have gone into politics in the first place). It's simply the pond they swim in. That doesn't automatically make them bad people or anything; it just makes them a lot more out-of-touch than they would be if they swam in other ponds.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

It's also hard for people outside the professional class to propose meaningful regulation on the financial sector. Warren might not be a banker, but she's first became a law professor 40 years ago, for instance. And that's still a limited world.

Yeah, but still, it's good to remember that Obama was a law professor too. So it's not so limited that one can't build a connection with the people on the ground.

e: And true, Obama's financial regulations left a lot to be desired. But some of them were still good. I feel like Warren would probably be a little more...dare I say it...persistent.

Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Apr 15, 2017

# ? Apr 15, 2017 19:11

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Majorian posted:

Precisely. And by running in those circles for long enough, it affects their worldview and humanizes the people running the financial sector for those politicians. Dems like the Clintons aren't ideologically committed to neoliberalism, nor do they seem to be in it just for the money (if they were, they wouldn't have gone into politics in the first place). It's simply the pond they swim in. That doesn't automatically make them bad people or anything; it just makes them a lot more out-of-touch than they would be if they swam in other ponds.

Majorian, it's okay, you can just hate them, you don't have to constantly white knight them by claiming this bullshit.

Just say they're out of touch idiots, which is perfectly true. You're like the definition of the bleeding heart liberal who doesn't want to offend anyone.

Majorian posted:

Yeah, but still, it's good to remember that Obama was a law professor too. So it's not so limited that one can't build a connection with the people on the ground.

Obama smoked weed like the common people but didn't even bother to deschedule it, so I don't really think he had a "connection with people" he was just good at being charismatic and faking it.

# ? Apr 15, 2017 19:20

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

majorian please stop sympathizing with creatures like hillary clinton

# ? Apr 15, 2017 19:23

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009; Inverted Offensive Battle: Acupuncture Attacks Convert To 3D Penetration Tactics Taking Advantage of Deep Battle Opportunities

WampaLord posted:

Majorian, it's okay, you can just hate them, you don't have to constantly white knight them by claiming this bullshit.

Jesus Christ, dude, you are whiny. Remember when I said put me on ignore if you don't like my posting? I wasn't joking. :psyduck:

I'm not going to stop trying to take a nuanced, precise view of the problems in American politics, no matter how much you bitch about it. So seriously, put me on ignore if it bothers you so drat much.

quote:

Obama smoked weed like the common people but didn't even bother to deschedule it, so I don't really think he had a "connection with people" he was just good at being charismatic and faking it.

That's what I meant OP.

# ? Apr 15, 2017 19:35

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

majorian i demand you cease your attempts at institutional analysis itt immediately

# ? Apr 15, 2017 19:42

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Majorian posted:

Jesus Christ, dude, you are whiny. Remember when I said put me on ignore if you don't like my posting? I wasn't joking.

I'm not going to stop trying to take a nuanced, precise view of the problems in American politics, no matter how much you bitch about it. So seriously, put me on ignore if it bothers you so drat much.

Sigh. I don't hate your posting.

Never mind, you're literally incapable of getting my point.

# ? Apr 15, 2017 19:43

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009; Inverted Offensive Battle: Acupuncture Attacks Convert To 3D Penetration Tactics Taking Advantage of Deep Battle Opportunities

WampaLord posted:

Sigh. I don't hate your posting.

Never mind, you're literally incapable of getting my point.

That you don't think I need to treat the Clintons with kid gloves? No, believe me, I get that point pretty clearly. I also think I've been pretty clear that I think they need to be relegated to the dustbin of history, as A Smart Dude once said. They and their circle should never have a controlling interest in the Democratic Party again, because they are very, very bad at winning nowadays. I don't see how I can have been more clear about that over the past few months, actually.

e: And "not offending anyone" has never really been one of my objectives in posting online.

# ? Apr 15, 2017 19:47

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Not wholly. Ytlaya is definitely right that the mere fact that our political class' social circle is going to be composed of a very specific segment of the population ensures that this segment has a huge leg up in terms of access, even before you add varying degrees of bribery. Plus rich people have far more class consciousness than everyone else.

the main leg up in access aside from bribery is the institutional barriers to anyone but the ultra-wealthy running for office. but even if we suddenly injected a ton of poor people into congress, they'd still enter .1%er social circles cause of the favors they would receive, which are far too legal nowadays.

we need to make poltiical office accessible to the poorest man, not only the richest ones. in fact, it'd be kind of fun to ban anyone in the 1% richest part of the population from holding office at all

# ? Apr 15, 2017 20:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 10:20

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009; Inverted Offensive Battle: Acupuncture Attacks Convert To 3D Penetration Tactics Taking Advantage of Deep Battle Opportunities

Condiv posted:

the main leg up in access aside from bribery is the institutional barriers to anyone but the ultra-wealthy running for office. but even if we suddenly injected a ton of poor people into congress, they'd still enter .1%er social circles cause of the favors they would receive, which are far too legal nowadays.

we need to make poltiical office accessible to the poorest man, not only the richest ones. in fact, it'd be kind of fun to ban anyone in the 1% richest part of the population from holding office at all

Not a terrible idea. I've been reading Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal, and one of his big points is how too much emphasis on meritocracy has hurt the Dems. Rich people go to Ivy League schools, Ivy League schools pump out politicians, those politicians swim in the same schools as other Ivy League alums, rinse and repeat.

# ? Apr 15, 2017 20:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

«‹›483 »