|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Track record =/= narrow focus on voting record, but a good attempt. what other empirical data should i look at if not voting record? If you say "His positions" you are loving awful at this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Cory_Booker That's a list of center left semi progressive policy positions.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:52 |
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I mean, sure, but don't act like he is somehow not center left leaning overall. He's not, in lots of ways that matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I don't think he calls himself a progressive. Also, I don't see the point of hanging a symbolic vote around his neck like it really mattered. If you don't think people like Cory Booker on on your side, it's no wonder you can't put a majority together. Instead of making GBS threads on him and those that support, you should see he votes with you 95% of the time and not try to push the ideologically impure from your ranks. Cory Booker ins't preventing you from achieving progressive legislative wins, so why focus on him instead of the R's that are actually the issue. For one party discipline is a thing and hence every party politician will likely end up with similar numbers. Second that 5% of times when you vote differently might actually be really loving important. Finally there's more to a politician than the way they vote. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I don;t think i can argue with this. if the DNC tries to run Hillary again for anything they deserve what they get. Well, it's becoming more and more obvious that the DNC and the democrat establishment in general are wither unwilling to or incapable of learning the necessary lessons from their eight-year losing streak. Hence it's very baffling that you storm into this thread and start lecturing people for the crimes of not wanting to double down on a failes strategy and not wanting to keep a bunch of incompetents in positions where they can keep loving up. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:But please, name a national ticket candidate of a major party that is been more progressive than Hillary other than Obama. I am not aware of one. This is a dumb question because evolving social mores make it nearly inevitable that Dem candidates will be more socially progressive as time goes on. But if you insist, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:In case you're clueless the supposed "backstabbing" of Clinton consisted of a bunch of regular-rear end people criticising her on the internet whereas the backstabbing of Corbyn was carried out by Labour MP:s and high-level party officials up to and including his own deputy leader. You might have a case if the progressive caucus had suddenly denounced Hillary in the middle of the election campaign and her own campaign staff had leaked those emails, but since that has not been the case your comparison is off as all gently caress. So you're contending that only party officials can betray their party? In any case Tulsi Gabbard never endorsed her and had no problem airing her reservations about voting for Clinton once she was the nominee.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:what other empirical data should i look at if not voting record? If you say "His positions" you are loving awful at this. What bills has he drafted and proposed? That's generally a lot more indicative than whether or not they follow marching orders. Also, specific examples are more worthwhile - which 5% matters a loving ton. Scalia and RBG on the Supreme Court ruled together on a lot of cases, but it doesn't make Scalia a progressive, it just means a lot of their job isn't strictly ideological.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:what other empirical data should i look at if not voting record? If you say "His positions" you are loving awful at this. Bills drafted/submitted by him would be a better indicator than pure voting record as other posters have already argued, but maybe you should take a look at that link because it doesn't say what you think it says. He looks explicitly socially liberal and economically conservative, aka a centrist. He is even categorized as a libertarian democrat up top you doofus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So you're contending that only party officials can betray their party? In any case Tulsi Gabbard never endorsed her and had no problem airing her reservations about voting for Clinton once she was the nominee. No, I'm contending that people joining Corbyn's first Shadow Cabinet with the intent of undermining him and subsequently leaking information like a goddamn busted sieve constitutes a backstab. I'm also contending that MP:s conspiring to unseat him at the earliest opportunity constitutes a backstab. Finally I'm contending that MP:s, party officials and major donors conspiring to rig the leadership election against him, up to and including trying to get him removed from the ballot by way of completely bullshit legal action, constitures a backstab. This is nothing like people openly criticizing a candidate during an election campaign. Like, you're super intent on pushing this comparison despite admitting that you don't know much about Corbyn or the internal Labour politics during his tenure, and it's making you look even dumber than usual.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I am talking about the democrats. It depends whether people are actually trying to make the politician fail (and encourage people to not vote for them). I don't really have a problem with centrist citizens in the UK arguing why they don't like Corbyn, provided they aren't actually saying "so you shouldn't vote for leftists!" In the same way, I think leftists who actually wanted people to not vote for Clinton in this election were being stupid/harmful (and I have no problem with attacking people who encouraged that), but not ones who were just criticizing Clinton/centrists (which seems to have been the majority). You can argue "well literally all criticism can potentially increase the chance of losing!" but at that point you're just being crazy and trying to enforce ideological conformity in a way that would intrinsically never allow a political party to change in ways its leadership didn't want it to (because any criticism could always be interpreted as "aiding the enemy"). Also there's a distinction between politicians and voters here. It's inherently more lovely for the more powerful mainstream majority of a party's leadership/politicians to crack down on a less influential movement (assuming the movement isn't something explicitly terrible, like white nationalists or something) than it is for less influential politicians to attack the mainstream/majority ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Bills drafted/submitted by him would be a better indicator than pure voting record as other posters have already argued, but maybe you should take a look at that link because it doesn't say what you think it says. He looks explicitly socially liberal and economically conservative, aka a centrist. He is even categorized as a libertarian democrat up top you doofus. GlyphGryph posted:What bills has he drafted and proposed? That's generally a lot more indicative than whether or not they follow marching orders. Also, specific examples are more worthwhile - which 5% matters a loving ton. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/cory_booker/412598 Wow look at that, he's a center left democrat! I swear to god you guys can't see the forest through the trees.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Keep loving that chicken guys. That drat centrist Cory Booker who votes 95% the same as the most progressive members of congress. He also shares 60% of his DNA with a banana, really makes you think? Hint: the 5% is what matters
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:He also shares 60% of his DNA with a banana, really makes you think? How many Cory Bookers do I have to eat to set of radiation alarms?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Scalia and RBG on the Supreme Court ruled together on a lot of cases, but it doesn't make Scalia a progressive, it just means a lot of their job isn't strictly ideological. The source I provided measured both overall votes and votes on key progressive issues. Booker is 98% in the former and 96% on the latter. Joe Manchin is the 48th most progressive at 58%/71%, and Susan Collins is the 49th at 27%/38%. Booker has a very progressive voting record.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:How many Cory Bookers do I have to eat to set of radiation alarms? None, you just have to support him for president and you'll be as toxic as the rest of them. JeffersonClay posted:The source I provided measured both overall votes and votes on key progressive issues. Booker is 98% in the former and 96% on the latter. Joe Manchin is the 48th most progressive at 58%/71%, and Susan Collins is the 49th at 27%/38%. Booker has a very progressive voting record. Like when he progressively voted against reforming drug imports from Canada.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:None, you just have to support him for president and you'll be as toxic as the rest of them. Banana's are not toxic, you take that back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:How many Cory Bookers do I have to eat to set of radiation alarms? Effect's the other way around, eating one reduces the people voting against even symbolic attempts to regulate drug prices by one. Measurably increases your health.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Banana's are not toxic, you take that back. I don't hold the Banana responsible for having 60% of it's DNA the same as a centrist. That being said, I do hold centrists responsible for being corporate shills.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The source I provided measured both overall votes and votes on key progressive issues. Booker is 98% in the former and 96% on the latter. Joe Manchin is the 48th most progressive at 58%/71%, and Susan Collins is the 49th at 27%/38%. Booker has a very progressive voting record. This isn't the empirical evidence they were looking for apparently. Maybe if you find something more fitting to their conclusions?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Railing against centrists because they aren't politically pure enough for you? gently caress you. What you don't seem to realize is that there is a genuine ideological difference between leftists and centrist Democrats. This isn't some minor fiddling over details, where both groups have the same end goals in mind. What you're saying is essentially no different than a Republican saying to a centrist Democrat "railing against Republicans because they're not politically pure enough for you? gently caress you". It's both ignorant and extremely condescending. If you think that leftist policy is bad, then feel free to argue why, but this "lol you just want a political purity test" stuff is ridiculous and indicative of your own ignorance regarding the issues in question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
ugh can't you just be a good democrat and embrace economic inequality for the great equalizer it is what? you don't want to bomb third world countries? get in line! tax cuts for the rich? can't have that, get in line! healthcare reform? sure! bailouts for the insurance companies ahoy
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
If criticism during a primary means that Sander's sabotaged Hillary, does that mean that Hillary Sabotaged Obama in 2008? Wouldn't that make her a traitor?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:If criticism during a primary means that Sander's sabotaged Hillary, does that mean that Hillary Sabotaged Obama in 2008? Wouldn't that make her a traitor? [insert youtube video of Hillary Clinton telling 60 minutes she's not sure if Obama is a muslim] STEVE KROFT: You don’t believe that Senator Obama’s a Muslim? CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that’s, you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that. KROFT: You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s a Muslim? CLINTON: No. No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:What you don't seem to realize is that there is a genuine ideological difference between leftists and centrist Democrats. This isn't some minor fiddling over details, where both groups have the same end goals in mind. What you're saying is essentially no different than a Republican saying to a centrist Democrat "railing against Republicans because they're not politically pure enough for you? gently caress you". It's both ignorant and extremely condescending. If you think that leftist policy is bad, then feel free to argue why, but this "lol you just want a political purity test" stuff is ridiculous and indicative of your own ignorance regarding the issues in question. Of course there is an ideological difference. that's the loving point. Ideological purity leads to dysfunction. Please explain to me how Cory Booker Is preventing progressive legislation. The difference between Booker and Sanders is TINY compared to the difference between Booker and Jeff Sessions. That ideological difference is GOOD because it means the party SHOULD be able to pull in centrists like myself, and more progressive left wing people to make a coalition, and thus win elections. The only issue here is that one of those groups has decided it makes more sense to purge the centrists than to win an election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Please explain to me how Cory Booker Is preventing progressive legislation. https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12/cory-booker-joins-senate-republicans-to-kill-measure-to-import-cheaper-medicine-from-canada/ Just a tiny difference, Sanders pushes policy that would help Americans, Booker pushes policy that would help the industry group that donated to his campaign
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The source I provided measured both overall votes and votes on key progressive issues. Booker is 98% in the former and 96% on the latter. Joe Manchin is the 48th most progressive at 58%/71%, and Susan Collins is the 49th at 27%/38%. Booker has a very progressive voting record. Does this methodology suggest Hillary is very progressive too? quote:The only issue here is that one of those groups has decided it makes more sense to purge the centrists than to win an election. So it's the fault of progressives that the Presidency, House, Senate, and state governments are in Republican hands? Or is that not an issue here? FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you look at the empirical record of Corey booker's senate votes he's indistinguishable from Tammy Baldwin and Liz Warren. This isn't really a good measure. More than half of Democratic Senators vote together more than 90% of the time (and like 36 of them do if you sort by all votes, not just "crucial votes"). This is because leftist policy rarely reaches a Senate vote in the first place. A politician's stated ideological goals are more important than their Senate votes, unless their Senate votes contradict said goals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12/cory-booker-joins-senate-republicans-to-kill-measure-to-import-cheaper-medicine-from-canada/ So you're mad he voted against a SYMBOLIC amendment, on a bill that did not pass. Well then... Cory Booker posted:In a statement to the media after the vote, Booker’s office said he supports the importation of prescription drugs but that “any plan to allow the importation of prescription medications should also include consumer protections that ensure foreign drugs meet American safety standards. I opposed an amendment put forward last night that didn’t meet this test.” what a loving monster.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:what a loving monster. The stuff you didn't read posted:This argument is the same one offered by the pharmaceutical industry. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which lobbies against importation, maintains that it opposes importation because “foreign governments will not ensure that prescription drugs entering the U.S. from abroad are safe and effective.” With our Canadian brethren falling by the thousands to their bad drugs I can understand why safety would be so paramount.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/cory_booker/412598 So at this point is your argument that you simply aren't willing to do the work of finding examples? It seems like it should be really easy to Demonstrate if he really is just so completely progressive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Of course there is an ideological difference. that's the loving point. Ideological purity leads to dysfunction. Please explain to me how Cory Booker Is preventing progressive legislation. The difference between Booker and Sanders is TINY compared to the difference between Booker and Jeff Sessions. That ideological difference is GOOD because it means the party SHOULD be able to pull in centrists like myself, and more progressive left wing people to make a coalition, and thus win elections. The only issue here is that one of those groups has decided it makes more sense to purge the centrists than to win an election. Yeah, because they've proven themselves incompetent. Like, holy gently caress man, don't you see the  inherent in you railing against removing the people who have lost electon after election from their positions?Besides that, the centrist establishment Dems have spent at least thirty years at best ignoring and at worst actively trying to suppress the left wing of the party, so you really don't get to ride on any kind of high horse here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Does this methodology suggest Hillary is very progressive too? We're dealing with people that probably genuinely believed Hillary Clinton was the most progressive candidate ever. It's why they are averse to actual examples, because it might reveal what they mean by "progressive" isn't what we're concerned about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:what other empirical data should i look at if not voting record? If you say "His positions" you are loving awful at this. Wikipedia posted:Booker championed “enterprise zones,” a free-market approach to solving urban blight credited to the late Jack Kemp, a hard-core supply-sider and occasional Republican presidential contender who helped raise money for Booker’s first mayoral campaign." loving lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Of course there is an ideological difference. that's the loving point. Ideological purity leads to dysfunction. Please explain to me how Cory Booker Is preventing progressive legislation. The difference between Booker and Sanders is TINY compared to the difference between Booker and Jeff Sessions. That ideological difference is GOOD because it means the party SHOULD be able to pull in centrists like myself, and more progressive left wing people to make a coalition, and thus win elections. The only issue here is that one of those groups has decided it makes more sense to purge the centrists than to win an election. Counterpoint: Centrists (of the sort you are) are actually bad, and if we purged them from the party we could pull in more than enough of the moderates and independents (people the centrists drive away so effectively) to replace them. And before you start - it's not about ideological purity, because I disagree ideologically with plenty of those moderates and independents, but I'm willing to work with them so long as they are willing to work with me. But you know, sometimes we have to say "this isn't a group we want to represent".
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:With our Canadian brethren falling by the thousands to their bad drugs I can understand why safety would be so paramount. So wanting safe imported drugs is a bad thing now, got it. Do you guys see centrist monsters under your bed? GlyphGryph posted:So at this point is your argument that you simply aren't willing to do the work of finding examples? It seems like it should be really easy to Demonstrate if he really is just so completely progressive. HE ISN'T A loving PROGRESSIVE, I NEVER SAID HE WAS. S. 842: Fair Chance Act Sponsor: Sen. Cory Booker [D-NJ] Introduced: Apr 5, 2017 Referred to Committee: Apr 5, 2017 S. 793: Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act of 2017 Sponsor: Sen. Cory Booker [D-NJ] Introduced: Mar 30, 2017 Referred to Committee: Mar 30, 2017 S. 742: Community Broadband Act of 2017 Sponsor: Sen. Cory Booker [D-NJ] Introduced: Mar 28, 2017 Referred to Committee: Mar 28, 2017 Those are the last three bills be sponsored.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Any Democrat with a hint of slimy connections to finance or charter schools should be primaried and removed from the party altogether. No exceptions unless we're talking Manchin-level incumbency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:So wanting safe imported drugs is a bad thing now, got it. What makes you think voting yes would have made the drugs less safe? Remember, this was a symbolic amendment...
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:HE ISN'T A loving PROGRESSIVE, I NEVER SAID HE WAS. Yeah sorry that was JCs argument, my bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
So, leaving Booker aside for a moment - who would you guys support as a candidate in 2020?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
People arguing with a straight face that all (D) senators are the same. It turns out that some of those differentiating votes are important, by the way. They are for example a big reason Hillary couldn't beat Obama in 2008, on account of a little thing you might remember? You know, World War II? Dumbasses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:So, leaving Booker aside for a moment - who would you guys support as a candidate in 2020? Sanders
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:52 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Counterpoint: Centrists (of the sort you are) are actually bad, and if we purged them from the party we could pull in more than enough of the moderates and independents (people the centrists drive away so effectively) to replace them. Oh My God a reasonable post that I can respond to without getting upset. See, This position, when articulated properly, has some merit. The issue is the signal gets lost in the noise with all the hate around here. If you think people like Cory Booker are driving voters away in those kinds of numbers, what evidence is there to show that? What super left wing politicians have succeeded in that manner? I sure as hell don't see a whole lot of them. If this voting block was as ripe for the plucking as you indicate, where are they?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:16
|
|