|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Majorian posted:And you think that would have been enough to make up for the resentment that people felt at seeing "their" candidate get unilaterally replaced by a group of predominantly old white men, with another old white man, based on a technicality. Yes, the democrats can win an election without rich old white women Majorian posted:Please, dude. Take your meds. Sick burn, very progressive
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
Majorian posted:And you think that would have been enough to make up for the resentment that people felt at seeing "their" candidate get unilaterally replaced by a group of predominantly old white men, with another old white man, based on a technicality. On this, I agree. Sanders still would've had to win fair and square in the primary. A ratfuck is still a ratfuck, no matter how you spin it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:On this, I agree. Sanders still would've had to win fair and square in the primary. A ratfuck is still a ratfuck, no matter how you spin it. Indeed, and I think he would have beaten Trump handily, had he won fair and square. NewForumSoftware posted:Yes, the democrats can win an election without rich old white women You're still living under the delusion that only rich white people supported Clinton. How are you this divorced from reality?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
quote:You're still living under the delusion that only rich white people supported Clinton. How are you this divorced from reality? No those are just the only people who would have voted Trump instead. You seem to think that LGBT and minority groups would abandon the democratic party ("for spite") en masse if they removed Clinton. I guess I just have more faith in the American people than you do. The tide was shifting, is continuing to shift and will continue to shift. The DNC getting in front of it only would have been a good thing. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
IIRC, there were some states that required you to be a registered Democrat for months before the actual vote. Where such rules were in place, that definitely skewed things further toward Clinton. This isn't to say that was breaking the rules like the debate questions thing, it's just another institutional advantage Clinton had that doesn't actually translate to more votes in the general, nor necessarily more support among certain voting blocks even if it might seem that way based on how the primary played out in those states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:No those are just the only people who would have voted Trump instead. Your faith is entirely misplaced; the fact that so many Clintonistas remain salty as all hell against Sanders is proof of that. Imagine how widespread that resentment would have been if the candidate who got the most primary votes, who was overwhelmingly popular among PoCs, and who has been the target of some pretty horrific sexism throughout her career, got replaced with an old white white man by a body of more predominantly old white men. Some PoC voters, women, and LGBT voters would still have turned out for Sanders against Trump, but enough would probably have stayed home to kill any chance he'd have of winning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:IIRC, there were some states that required you to be a registered Democrat for months before the actual vote. Where such rules were in place, that definitely skewed things further toward Clinton. Yeah, the fact that Sanders was so insanely popular with independents really should make Democratic leaders realize how stupid it is to whine about Sanders not being a registered Dem himself. A large chunk of the voters that the Dems need are, in fact, independents. Time to adjust to that reality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Especially since they don't want working class people anymore, except as a buffer of votes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Yeah, seriously, everyone here needs to read Tom Frank's List, Liberal, if you haven't already. It spells out exactly how unions lost their leadership position in the Democratic Party, and how that affected its trajectory so severely after 1972.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
I'm so angry at the DNC rigging elections!!! They should have rigged the election!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, seriously, everyone here needs to read Tom Frank's List, Liberal, if you haven't already. It spells out exactly how unions lost their leadership position in the Democratic Party, and how that affected its trajectory so severely after 1972. http://bostonreview.net/politics/erik-loomis-democrats-and-labor-frenemies-forever Unions never had a leadership position; at best they were junior partners.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:IIRC, there were some states that required you to be a registered Democrat for months before the actual vote. Where such rules were in place, that definitely skewed things further toward Clinton. The alternative is letting Republicans choose the Democratic candidate. I think it's a fair advantage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:http://bostonreview.net/politics/erik-loomis-democrats-and-labor-frenemies-forever That's a fairly meaningless quibble; the point is, even that little say that they once had has been stripped away (as the article you posted acknowledges).
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Oddly union power subsided at the same time as membership but I think that you and I would take opposing views on cause and effect
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Like there was never a golden era of labor power: it just used to be less lovely
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Oddly union power subsided at the same time as membership but I think that you and I would take opposing views on cause and effect Perhaps. My explanation is that after the '68 election, there was a deliberate push by party leaders like Fred Dutton and the McGovern Commission to realign the Dems towards the professional class, and away from labor. Union membership waned because the Dems stopped pushing for pro-labor policies, and also stopped resisting Republican anti-labor policies. Labor unions also played a sizable role in their own downfall, of course - they backed Johnson w/r/t Vietnam and made some other questionable choices. But the biggest factor was that the Dems simply left them out to dry. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Like there was never a golden era of labor power: it just used to be less lovely Of course there wasn't. I don't think anyone here claimed that there ever was. e: On the other hand, if you have a look at what Dutton himself wrote in Changing Sources of Power: quote:The principal group arrayed against the forces of change is the huge lower-middle income sector - "working America," made up of almost twenty-five million white families whose breadwinners are typically white-collar clerks and blue-collar workers. The left has long held as a testament of faith that "the workers" are the main historical agents of social progress, but an important portion of this group is now providing the most tenacious resistance to further broadening the country's social, economic, and political base. Having gained a larger share of the power institutionally during the last third of a century, this sector generally opposes - more accurately, is anxious about and therefore against - much additional change. The "change" that Dutton was referring to was a shift towards the young professionals of the "Now" Generation, who, (his words again) "define the good life not in terms of material thresholds or 'index economics,' as the New Deal, Great Society, and most economic conservatives have done, but as 'the fulfilled life' in a more intangible and personal sense." Yet when there is such terrible poverty and deprivation in large parts of the country (regions which used to be stolidly Democratic, at that), it is difficult to blame the voters there for not seeing this shift in attention as A Good Thing. Majorian fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I don't think that the war chest made a difference given how many states Sanders outspent in only to lose Name recognition and association with the 90's was a HUGE factor (and is probably a very big reason why Clinton's support was so much higher among older Americans). Almost certainly a much bigger factor than money spent. Most voters aren't exactly that intelligent or informed, so for many people their only thought was "the 90's were a good time for me. Clinton is clearly associated with her husband, who was president during the 90's, so maybe if I vote for her she'll do whatever Bill Clinton did that made the 90's good." I mean, don't get me wrong, there were also low info Sanders voters who voted based upon a vague sense of wanting someone anti-establishment, but someone wasn't going to vote for him unles they were at least somewhat engaged in the race and specifically wanted him, while Clinton benefited from essentially being the default choice. Most people who went into the polls not really having an opinion one way or the other would have voted for Clinton. I think that if the primary had occurred a second time, after the nation was already much more familiar with Sanders, the results might have been very different. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Because it pisses you off so much This is basically at the core of most liberals who spend most of their effort antagonizing leftists. It was never about some desire to actually make things better; it's because, as long as a non-zero number of dumb leftists exist, they simply cannot repress the urge to express their disgust for people who are (in their minds, at least) so much less intelligent and pragmatic than they are. edit: As an honest response to this, I think you should do some introspection regarding why it is that you feel the need to target leftists specifically. I used to basically be the same as you, until I thought long and hard about why I was doing that and realized that, ultimately, my motivations weren't exactly positive. I would try to dress it up with excuses like "well I don't want dumb people to make my side look bad" but that wasn't the real reason. I just enjoyed laying down burns on people I thought were dumber than me. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:The alternative is letting Republicans choose the Democratic candidate. I think it's a fair advantage.  yes so many gop guys will turn out in enough numbers to swing the primary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
As a side note, I do want to mention that Sanders' support of that pro-life guy is kind of hosed up and I haven't really seen a reasonable defense of it. The only possible defense that comes to mind is if he wasn't aware of this guy's pro-life views and just supported him after hearing some of his other opinions. Otherwise I think it's important to acknowledge that being pro-life is, in fact, unacceptable for a Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:edit: As an honest response to this, I think you should do some introspection regarding why it is that you feel the need to target leftists specifically. I used to basically be the same as you, until I thought long and hard about why I was doing that and realized that, ultimately, my motivations weren't exactly positive. I would try to dress it up with excuses like "well I don't want dumb people to make my side look bad" but that wasn't the real reason. I just enjoyed laying down burns on people I thought were dumber than me. Yeah, I was 100% in the same boat. It is amazing to me how much of a gulf there is between how powerful centrists think leftists are in the Democratic Party, and how weak the leftists have actually been up until now. The default position, and the inertia, lie completely with the centrists. And yet it's somehow left-Dems that they have to expend the most energy defending against, because reasons. e: Ytlaya posted:As a side note, I do want to mention that Sanders' support of that pro-life guy is kind of hosed up and I haven't really seen a reasonable defense of it. The only possible defense that comes to mind is if he wasn't aware of this guy's pro-life views and just supported him after hearing some of his other opinions. Otherwise I think it's important to acknowledge that being pro-life is, in fact, unacceptable for a Democrat. Yeah, I still think Sanders probably heard the "100% Planned Parenthood Nebraska rating" thing first, which turned out not to be true (or at the very least, misleading). I'm pleased that Mello has said that he won't do anything to abridge women's reproductive rights, but still, this was not a good look for Bernie. Reproductive rights, solidarity with BLM, LGBT rights, humane immigration reform, etc - these things all need to be sacrosanct to leftists and left-Dems. Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, I still think Sanders probably heard the "100% Planned Parenthood Nebraska rating" thing first, which turned out not to be true (or at the very least, misleading). Based on his comments to NPR, seems unlikely. https://twitter.com/scottdetrow/status/855179744731697156
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
fsif posted:Based on his comments to NPR, seems unlikely. I saw that, but to me, that reads like an ex-post-facto justification: "Well, poo poo...I backed the wrong horse. Now I'm in for a penny, in for a pound. Guess I'd better pretend like this was my plan all along..." Which doesn't make that the right thing for Sanders to do, IMO. I think fessing up that he was misinformed about Mello would be wiser, at least for his own brand. But I don't think Sanders went into this endorsement completely aware.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
fsif posted:Based on his comments to NPR, seems unlikely. Wow, bernie sanders is saying the exact same thing i did, are you guys going to poo poo on him for being a centrist?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Wow, bernie sanders is saying the exact same thing i did, are you guys going to poo poo on him for being a centrist? The difference is, there's no real wide-scale current of pro-liferism in the Democratic Party at the moment. The pro-business, pro-Wall Street, anti-labor mindset is the default of the Democratic leadership. The Democrats' chances of winning in 2018 and 2020 are not going to be significantly harmed by a mayoral candidate or two being personally pro-life. They will be absolutely shipwrecked, however, if they do not turn left significantly on economics. e: I mean, this is how you couched your argument in your first post in this thread: Heck Yes! Loam! posted:If someone chooses to suffere, how does me not stopping them make it my fault? You can see why what you expressed here is a slightly bigger deviation from left-wing principles, than Sanders still endorsing a dude who is personally pro-life but won't restrict women's reproductive rights, I hope? Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
It's a pretty lovely position for Sanders to back, regardless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
fsif posted:Based on his comments to NPR, seems unlikely. Ugh, loving neoliberals and their excuses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Ugh, loving neoliberals and their excuses. "Neoliberalism" refers to economic policy, not reproductive rights or ideological heterodoxy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:"Neoliberalism" refers to economic policy, not reproductive rights or ideological heterodoxy. Lots of words have meanings, no one is actually bothering with any kind of rigor in their use in this thread though. Except maybe glyphgryp. edit- and obviously you. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Lots of words have meanings, no one is actually bothering with any kind of rigor in their use in this thread though. Ahh yes, the classic "neoliberalism actually doesn't mean anything"
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Lots of words have meanings, no one is actually bothering with any kind of rigor in their use in this thread though. Except maybe glyphgryp No, but I do think this is one word that we should be clear about, because it's not a byword for "pragmatism," nor is it synonymous with "centrism." By being loose with its meaning, we obfuscate the core of the left's criticisms of Hillary Clinton and Democratic leadership: opposition to labor, apathy towards the working class, and too much willingness to entertain deregulation. A turning away from the New Deal and the Great Society, to their own peril.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Are these the same people that believe flyover states must EARN the privilege of being able to vote for a party that despises them and wants to see them beaten into submission?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Name recognition and association with the 90's was a HUGE factor (and is probably a very big reason why Clinton's support was so much higher among older Americans). Almost certainly a much bigger factor than money spent. Most voters aren't exactly that intelligent or informed, so for many people their only thought was "the 90's were a good time for me. Clinton is clearly associated with her husband, who was president during the 90's, so maybe if I vote for her she'll do whatever Bill Clinton did that made the 90's good." Democrats kneecapped labor far earlier with overriding the veto of Taft-Hartley
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Are these the same people that believe flyover states must EARN the privilege of being able to vote for a party that despises them and wants to see them beaten into submission? Well, I'm glad you asked that, because I found another quote from 1981 that kind of speaks to that: quote:I'd love the Teamsters to be worse off. I'd love the automobile workers to be worse off. You may say that's inhumane; I'm putting it rather baldly but I want to eliminate a situation in which certain protected workers in industries insulated from competition can increase their wages much more rapidly than the average without regard to their merit or to what the free market would do, and in so doing exploit other workers. That was Alfred Kahn, an economist, former adviser to Jimmy Carter, major proponent of deregulation, and Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This is basically at the core of most liberals who spend most of their effort antagonizing leftists. It was never about some desire to actually make things better; it's because, as long as a non-zero number of dumb leftists exist, they simply cannot repress the urge to express their disgust for people who are (in their minds, at least) so much less intelligent and pragmatic than they are. I mean I think calling social democracy leftism is really selling leftism short, I think the structural barriers to actually enacting leftist policies that are baked into the Constitution are possibly insurmountable within the next few generations, and this is also Just Posts. Nobody thought that France became less French with the collapse of the Fourth Republic, but leftists really don't think much about how to replace our Madisonian federalism
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
And also lol at "you liberals." I'm a firm believer that the choice of the future is socialism or barbarism. I supported Hillary as a status quo to hopefully buy time to create a mass movement for socialism before barbarism came, but a) I was wrong about her electability and b) I was wrong as to the timeframe of when the barbarism would hit; I didn't and don't see Bernie's campaign as either a) a mass movement or b) socialist. I mean I joined DSA post-election, specifically because it is looking to do the former, and arguably the latter (soc dem vs. demsoc, etc. etc.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I mean I think calling social democracy leftism is really selling leftism short That's more of a commentary on where the Overton Window sits in America than anything. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:And also lol at "you liberals." I'm a firm believer that the choice of the future is socialism or barbarism. I supported Hillary as a status quo to hopefully buy time to create a mass movement for socialism before barbarism came, but a) I was wrong about her electability and b) I was wrong as to the timeframe of when the barbarism would hit; I didn't and don't see Bernie's campaign as either a) a mass movement or b) socialist. It's hardly just about Bernie, though. It's about Elizabeth Warren, and Sherrod Brown, and hopefully Kamala Harris. Possibly Al Franken too. These are the leaders that seem to get it, at least to a degree not common among other Democratic leaders. They're probably not going to bring Full Communism Now or anything quite so dramatic, but they do present a way forward - one that is both morally right, and also has a better chance of winning back the government, than sticking to the failed old Clintonite plan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Ahh yes, the classic "neoliberalism actually doesn't mean anything" Nothing matters.gif 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's more of a commentary on where the Overton Window sits in America than anything. I don't think that that form of welfare liberalism goes anywhere near far enough in combatting income inequality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I don't think that that form of welfare liberalism goes anywhere near far enough in combatting income inequality. Surely you must realize that we're not going to get to what you consider acceptable without getting there through gradual steps, though?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I don't think that that form of welfare liberalism goes anywhere near far enough in combatting income inequality. I don't think I ever claimed anything of the sort. The New Deal didn't go anywhere near far enough either, but guess what? It needed to loving happen!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 00:23
|
|