|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
JeffersonClay posted:Actually some people were saying they're the same thing, which they're not. bad policy is bad campaign strategy bad campaign strategy is also bad policy its not so much that they are the same as much as they describe each other pretty well
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:04 |
|
|
I agree that policy advocacy is part of campaign strategy, but Robbie Mook listening to his computer algorithm instead of activists doesn't have anything to do with policy advocacy. Staffing a campaign with yes men doesn't have anything to do with policy advocacy. Misallocating campaign resources and ignoring important geographic and demographic groups doesn't have anything to do with policy advocacy. The more important those issues are in explaining the loss, the less important "failure to advocate for leftist policy in an honest and believable manner" becomes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/thegarance/status/854516218782507010
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
It's amazing, people are finally dying to vote D and the Democratic party is doing it's best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The more important those issues are in explaining the loss, the less important "failure to advocate for leftist policy in an honest and believable manner" becomes. what is even the point of this silly concern trolling? there's no zero sum game here, how dense are you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I agree that policy advocacy is part of campaign strategy, but Robbie Mook listening to his computer algorithm instead of activists doesn't have anything to do with policy advocacy. Staffing a campaign with yes men doesn't have anything to do with policy advocacy. Misallocating campaign resources and ignoring important geographic and demographic groups doesn't have anything to do with policy advocacy. The more important those issues are in explaining the loss, the less important "failure to advocate for leftist policy in an honest and believable manner" becomes. Hillary Clinton was phenomenally inept at both, which ultimately cost her the election. Which part of this don't you understand?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:It's amazing, people are finally dying to vote D and the Democratic party is doing it's best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/854515040971522049 https://twitter.com/BradOnMessage/status/854515408854016000
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Yet old people have nothing better to do but vote as the rest of those who need to work multiple jobs just to stay afloat and have the most skin in the game cant. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:Hillary Clinton was phenomenally inept at both, which ultimately cost her the election. Which part of this don't you understand? I can't see any reason why its any better to talk about Robbie Mook loving us over than Putin loving us over. Both diminish the argument that policy was the reason dems lost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I can't see any reason why its any better to talk about Robbie Mook loving us over than Putin loving us over. Both diminish the argument that policy was the reason dems lost. err, because Robby Mook is a product of the Democratic party machinery and institutions?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I can't see any reason why its any better to talk about Robbie Mook loving us over than Putin loving us over. Both diminish the argument that policy was the reason dems lost. Uh, agreed? I wish Democrats (including you) would stop doing either and instead focus on progressive/socialist policy at least 80% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
why would some1 interested in reforming the democratic party waste time criticizing an influential democratic campaign operative it makes no sense
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:However, the argument falls apart on two points, IMO. One is the assumption that there's nothing that can be done to ensure that economic justice extends to all Americans, of all races, ethnicities, creeds, genders, and sexual orientations. Remaining vigilant and holding progressive representatives accountable will be an ongoing process. The second problem with the argument is when it does what Submarine Sandpaper did and makes the unfair generalization that white people's privilege exempts them from poverty, misery, and exploitation. As the Vox article that I posted makes clear, this is an absurd perspective. While a poor white person is probably going to have more privilege, on average, than a poor black person, that doesn't mean that both of them aren't suffering from massive injustices that need to be rectified. What annoys me about their argument is that there is literally no defense against it. Even if you say "yes I literally want to do every single thing you also want to do to fight racism (and other forms of bigotry)" they just assume you're lying and secretly want to abandon PoC. And yeah, as you mentioned I feel like it is supremely hosed up to act like poverty is a negligible issue next to racism. Once you're living in poverty, you've basically crossed a threshold where your situation is already terrible to an unacceptable extent, whether your situation is further exacerbated by racism or not. Both racism and poverty cross this threshold and ignoring either is absurd. Also, in Submarine Sandpaper's case, he/she actually does seem to be coming out against $15/hr (or at least saying it shouldn't be a priority), as opposed to just raising the additional concern of needing to address structural racism/sexism. Like, they argued how it is bad because PoC are disproportionately unemployed and increasing the minimum wage would also help poor white people (since, uh, that comes along with the territory of helping poor people in general). They're literally a direct parallel to the "no justice but economic justice" people who ignore everything else (only in this case replacing economic justice with social justice). But they're the only poster I can think of who has really gone to this extent to be bizarrely against economic justice. I think what bothers me the most is that you virtually never see these people actually mention any specific thing they want to do to help the PoC they claim to be championing. They just vaguely allude to fighting racism, and if repeatedly pressed for specifics mention some stuff that like 95% of leftists also support*. It really makes it clear that their main goal isn't actually to help anyone; it's that they feel anger towards a specific type of leftist (the ones that say "all justice is economic justice/only class matters", who admittedly do exist) and want to express that anger. In their eyes, literally every leftist who mentions economic issues is secretly the aforementioned "only class matters" sort of leftist, even if they claim otherwise. *This is also the main reason comparisons to the New Deal/Great Society aren't really valid. Back then (especially with the New Deal) a very large portion of leftists were quite explicitly racist and specifically wanted to exclude PoC from the benefits of leftist economic policy. This is obviously not even remotely the case now with all but a tiny minority of leftists. Even the leftists who are bad with social justice would probably be better for PoC than the status quo, because stuff like increasing the minimum wage, improving welfare, and ending the war on drugs would do a hell of a lot more for PoC than what status quo liberals have been accomplishing, even if they don't solve the whole problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Submarine is either trolling or trying to use abrasiveness and personal attacks to paper over that they're not even half as interested in helping PoC as they are in feeding their righteous indignation and smug sense of superiority. The effectronica strategy, if you will.Ytlaya posted:*This is also the main reason comparisons to the New Deal/Great Society aren't really valid. Back then (especially with the New Deal) a very large portion of leftists were quite explicitly racist and specifically wanted to exclude PoC from the benefits of leftist economic policy. I see this repeated often, and it still doesn't make sense. Back in the days of FDR and LBJ the working-class organizations that opposed racial equality were not leftist, they were centrist. The AFL-CIO accepte unions who excluded PoC, while the actual leftist working-class organizations such as the IWW were working to help PoC organize their workplaces and fought for racially integrated unions. So why exactly should history reflect badly on the left?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 10:34
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:Or, maybe... they're humans and deserving of living an existence worth living? Your pithy refutal doesn't need the "Or maybe", as you're only contradicting your strawman version of what he said.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 12:15
|
|
|
Nah
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
I'm sorry but at the end of the day you're acting like a racist when you advocate against something minorities want and need (financial security) and instead advocate for mealymouthed nothingness instead. Put forth a mutually exclusive idea of how to help these people and show proof you're doing it or shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
call to action posted:I'm sorry but at the end of the day you're acting like a racist when you advocate against something minorities want and need (financial security) and instead advocate for mealymouthed nothingness instead. Put forth a mutually exclusive idea of how to help these people and show proof you're doing it or shut the gently caress up. Why are you racist against POC CEOs whose businesses would suffer if they had to accommodate better paid, safer employees?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I can't see any reason why its any better to talk about Robbie Mook loving us over than Putin loving us over. Both diminish the argument that policy was the reason dems lost. If you want to talk about how Democrats should change their policy going forward, I think you might be better off creating a separate thread for that. This thread seems to mainly be obsessed with hating Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
ugh why won't they leave my Abuela alone ps, spoiler alert, he doesn't want them to change (gotta keep that paycheck looking healthy) the policy isn't the problem, russia is!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
quote:Both diminish the argument that policy was the reason dems lost. No one said it had to be either-or, with regard to the policies and the specific people involved in executing them. quote:This thread seems to mainly be obsessed with hating Hillary. What would this thread not hating Hillary look like? Would it pretend the exposes that were recently discussed didn't exist? How would the thread handle them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:If you want to talk about how Democrats should change their policy going forward, I think you might be better off creating a separate thread for that. This thread seems to mainly be obsessed with hating Hillary. this assumes JeffersonClay would like to talk about how Democrats should change their policy going forward he tried creating a thread about what he wants the Democrats to do, it was, in its entirety, "say Donald Trump is Bad," and when it was pointed out that this strategy proved tragically ineffective in the face of some intensely lazy bold-faced lies delivered by a well-known liar and serial groper he proceeded to throw a tantrum over why stupid leftists couldn't acknowledge the tactical genius of not changing a goddamned thing for fear of offending racist white suburbanites.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:this assumes JeffersonClay would like to talk about how Democrats should change their policy going forward Because as we all know when the Democrats ran on "Bush Bad" in 2006 they failed to take back the House and Senate and when the Republicans ran on "Obama Bad" in 2010 and 2014 they didn't make historic gains in the House. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I see this repeated often, and it still doesn't make sense. Back in the days of FDR and LBJ the working-class organizations that opposed racial equality were not leftist, they were centrist. The AFL-CIO accepte unions who excluded PoC, while the actual leftist working-class organizations such as the IWW were working to help PoC organize their workplaces and fought for racially integrated unions. So why exactly should history reflect badly on the left? Yeah it would be more accurate if I said "labor" here instead of "leftist", but since the argument is against the people who were pushing for those social programs I felt like it made sense to draw a parallel between them and the people pushing for leftist economic policy in today's political climate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
axeil posted:Because as we all know when the Democrats ran on "Bush Bad" in 2006 they failed to take back the House and Senate and when the Republicans ran on "Obama Bad" in 2010 and 2014 they didn't make historic gains in the House. Turns out "the other guy is bad" doesn't work as well when your own policy has the strength of a wet fart Obama won because he lied about being progressive. Hillary lost because she couldn't even do that lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
axeil posted:Because as we all know when the Democrats ran on "Bush Bad" in 2006 they failed to take back the House and Senate and when the Republicans ran on "Obama Bad" in 2010 and 2014 they didn't make historic gains in the House. And as we all know, the president is currently Hillary Clinton, thanks to this strategy's brilliance. I have terrible news for you, Axeil. Your Republican friends, as Hillary Clinton learned painfully, vote for Republicans. There is not an amount of pandering to them by talking about how ~uncouth~ the Republican candidate is is that will prevent this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Turns out "the other guy is bad" doesn't work as well when your own policy has the strength of a wet fart or "the other guy is bad" works better against an incumbent than a non-
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
But economic progressivism is just a form of anti rich identity politics, Check mate bernouts http://archive.is/bMjB5
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
axeil posted:Because as we all know when the Democrats ran on "Bush Bad" in 2006 they failed to take back the House and Senate and when the Republicans ran on "Obama Bad" in 2010 and 2014 they didn't make historic gains in the House. The Democrats had more than just "Bush Bad" to run on in 2006 - there was a strong push, from the White House and Republicans in Congress, to privatize social security, as well as an increasingly unpopular war and some very, very unpopular advisers running that war. The Republicans, likewise, had the ACA to run against in 2010. You can't just run on "Trump Bad" and expect to win; you have to actually have a vision to offer the voting public.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
 Can you imagine how much worse Sanders's approval with whites and men would be if he didn't uphold white supremacy in all his policy talk? It's very sound strategy IMO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Fados posted:But economic progressivism is just a form of anti rich identity politics, I knew you had to be linking to the federalist. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
lol look at those African American and Hispanic numbers. Yeah, he would have just gotten DEMOLISHED in the general
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:there was a strong push, from the White House and Republicans in Congress, to privatize social security, the "strong push" lasted from january to may, 2005.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:lol look at those African American and Hispanic numbers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moNHfeBJ81I
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:the "strong push" lasted from january to may, 2005. And Bush promised in 2006 that reviving that effort would be a major objective of his last two years in office. The Democrats successfully ran on it, and took Congress because of how stupid a move it was. e: Indeed, from his '06 State of the Union: quote:Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security. Yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. And every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse. So tonight, I ask you to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. This commission should include members of Congress of both parties and offer bipartisan answers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The Democrats had more than just "Bush Bad" to run on in 2006 - there was a strong push, from the White House and Republicans in Congress, to privatize social security, as well as an increasingly unpopular war and some very, very unpopular advisers running that war. The Republicans, likewise, had the ACA to run against in 2010. The Kool Aid drinkers seem to have no concept of how bad the current Democratic party is. It's in danger of becoming a blocking coalition that doesn't set its sights much higher than palliative care for the idea that government can be a positive influence in an American's life. The 2008 economic collapse gave them an opportunity to not just slow down the decline but offer up an alternative, but it ended with milquetoast finance reforms and a healthcare plan that's not going to be able to deal with costs in the long term. Hell, the ACA only really became popular when the GOP offered up their own Mad Max alternative. The Democrats ran their Bush Bad candidate in 2004 and the Republicans had their Obama Bad candidate in 2012. Funny enough we already had someone run for office trying out the Trump Bad strategy, but that won't stop the Democrats from doing it again. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:the "strong push" lasted from january to may, 2005. And it was national news that even normally disengaged people were concerned/angry about, which is the point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:And Bush promised in 2006 that reviving that effort would be a major objective of his last two years in office. The Democrats successfully ran on it, and took Congress because of how stupid a move it was. sure, but Congress had bailed the year before because they realized they had to get reelected (I still think it was more the unpopularity of the war)
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Y'know, maybe it's just me, but I think that if your only strategy is to sit and wait until your opponent makes such a massive unforced error that you win by default, you might not be the world's finest strategist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:sure, but Congress had bailed the year before because they realized they had to get reelected Well, this is good news for the Dems in 2020 once we've invaded Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Portugal or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:04 |
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Y'know, maybe it's just me, but I think that if your only strategy is to sit and wait until your opponent makes such a massive unforced error that you win by default, you might not be the world's finest strategist. Walking down the path of "lesser of two evils" only leads one way, to evil. As far as I know "better than the other guys" has been the Democrat's messaging since Obama won in 08. He seems to be the only centrist who recognizes you can't run as a centrist because nobody likes centrists. Hillary Clinton celebrated it and got owned by a spray tan factory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 17:30
|
|