|
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:It doesn't help that people easily forget that a democratic government is supposed to be the public banding together to resist corporate elites that would do us harm. That's one mantle that the Dems would be very, very wise to adopt: "Don't like corporate greed? Don't like widespread exploitation? Join us and fight back!" Even paying lip service to that principle would go a loooong way. We might finally get that, now that all the "real billionaires" immediately jumped in Trump's arms in the wake of his victory.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:"You maaaaaaaaaaadd you maaaaaaaaaaaaddd!!!" "you know what's a good idea? shifting the party rightwards and making it more centrist, that'll help us win for sure! let me go lick some more koch boot, that'll help us with the working class" -the cleverest poster in d&d
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:We might finally get that, now that all the "real billionaires" immediately jumped in Trump's arms in the wake of his victory. Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Apr 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
stone cold posted:lol that you're so mad though ok
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
stone cold posted:"you know what's a good idea? shifting the party rightwards and making it more centrist, that'll help us win for sure! let me go lick some more koch boot, that'll help us with the working class" the party doesn't have to shift right, you incredibly odd person. FuriousxGeorge is a loving obama voter. a loving sanders voter. thats a libertarian who believes in a progressive state and is posting on an internet message board. i don't care that that doesn't make sense, academically. nothing makes sense, academically, today. either he's a russian bot posting maskirova sentiments on SA or he's a grown-rear end person who believes things for confusing and mutually exclusive reasons similar to how i believe things for confusing and mutually exclusive reasons. what i care about very deeply is that if there is a crumb of merit to the American state it's that it holds up its end with providing a basic kind of aid to its citizens. i don't know you, i don't particularly care about you though i'm sure i would if i got to know you socially. i care very much that you put people on blast for signalling wrong ideologies despite having voted democratic before in a thread about the democrats losing to an orange pissbaby who lives in times square and also a personal hotel in florida when times square gets nippy, y'know on those occasion when the Oval Office just wont do for him. i care very very much about how the democrats lost to that, of all things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:the party doesn't have to shift right, you incredibly odd person. FuriousxGeorge is a loving obama voter. a loving sanders voter. counterpoint: he's also a johnson voter why should we reach out to libertarians when we can reach out to the half of the fuckin country that didn't vote hey guess what dog, i also care a lot like i cannot tell you the despair i feel that we lost to a fucker who thinks routine sexual assault is okay, and millions of people were like, yep that's cool but guess what, we don't have to reach out to fuckin libertarians, either, like i'm sorry that he's confused, but he voted for private prisons mckoch, so he can get hosed they're 3% of the small slice of Americans that voted, there's such a big chunk that didn't bother!!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
stone cold posted:hey guess what dog, i also care a lot lmao then maybe you shouldn't interact with the world in such a way that anyone who talks to you ends up hating the Democrats even more. people like you are literally the reason the Democrats lost. demand more from who you support really enjoying this "GET THE LIBERTARIAN GUYS", gently caress off with your shitstirring.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:lmao then maybe you shouldn't interact with the world in such a way that anyone who talks to you ends up hating the Democrats even more. people like you are literally the reason the Democrats lost. demand more from who you support you once told me that sexual slavery was better than reading my posts why would i ever take anything you say seriously you misogynistic spiteful little piece of poo poo all i want to do is keep the dems left and not try to loving bring in Koch loving idiots, you centrist piece of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It doesn't help that people easily forget that a democratic government is supposed to be the public banding together to resist corporate elites that would do us harm. That's one mantle that the Dems would be very, very wise to adopt: "Don't like corporate greed? Don't like widespread exploitation? Join us and fight back!" Even paying lip service to that principle would go a loooong way. its pretty obvious to me why libertarianism is so popular and widely acceptable. turn on the tv or read an article and you'll see plenty of the people you trust and like talking about how lovely the government is and how its responsible for all your problems then go listen to government sources and there's almost absolute silence on the damage corporations are inflicting on this nation the political class is owned by the ownership class. the owners talk poo poo about the politicians but the politicians can't fight back it would be AMAZING if the dems sold themselves as the party pushing back against monied elites, but it would cost them that sweet, sweet easy money they've become addicted to. it'll never happen and is a total pipe dream. bernie was an anomaly because he actually had a loooooong record of legitimacy so people trusted him. anyone else would be buried long before they established themselves
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:its pretty obvious to me why libertarianism is so popular and widely acceptable.  counterpoint: they got 3% of the people who actually voted
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
stone cold posted:
yeah, no republican voters harbor libertarian ideals at all… 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
stone cold posted:counterpoint: he's also a johnson voter because from being out with and interacting with that half, they're more libertarian-with-benefits than democrats-who-think-the-democrats-need-another-chance or sovcits or whatever, and the politician--whoever that is!!--who appeals to that general aesthetic wins. this is why libertarians can vote for democratic socialists but not democratic capitalists. i miss the days when i was surprised i had to explain this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It doesn't help that people easily forget that a democratic government is supposed to be the public banding together to resist corporate elites that would do us harm. That's one mantle that the Dems would be very, very wise to adopt: "Don't like corporate greed? Don't like widespread exploitation? Join us and fight back!" Even paying lip service to that principle would go a loooong way. Yeah Dems can win on an anti-monopoly platform. There's villainy there, what Sanders showed is that having a target works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
stone cold posted:"you know what's a good idea? shifting the party rightwards and making it more centrist, that'll help us win for sure! let me go lick some more koch boot, that'll help us with the working class"  menino posted:Yeah Dems can win on an anti-monopoly platform. Except administrations don't enforce it anymore, especially with that last Democrat President, Obama:  
Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Apr 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Darn, I was hoping this thread had thoughts on Tom Perez coming down against having pro-life Democratic candidates. I'm not delighted with it as a blanket statement but I am confirmed pragmatist scum. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
So who are his top picks to primary Bob Casey?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
stone cold posted:counterpoint: he's also a johnson voter You have the same reactive view of politics that many Democrats do. What you don't seem to understand is that politics don't have to be reactive. They can be proactive. When we talk about engaging 'white working class', or 'Johnson voters', or whoever, we are not talking about 'adopting the political beliefs of these people'. We are talking about creating a platform that has things that address these people's material and political needs, and confidently selling it to them. Convincing them that it's a great platform and that they should support it. That is what we mean. When Sanders does a town hall with Trump voters, he's proactive. He doesn't go there saying "well, Trump voters are racist and hate the government, so I'll tailor my answers to them", he just goes and tries to sell them on nationalized healthcare. Part of why Trump won is because he was proactive. He went to a bunch of states that are a long shot for Republicans, and actually campaigned and tried to appeal to people's interests. And he succeeded. Clinton was a fully reactive candidate. Her policies were based on the idea that the world is a certain way, people believe certain things, and you can only navigate within that. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Apr 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:You have the same reactive view of politics that many Democrats do. This is why they get offended when people talk about the white working class (because they believe it means Democrats should just do what 'the white working class' tells them to. buddy don't try to loving speak for me, i get offended when people a. pretend white dentists in waukesha are the white working class and b. speak only for the white working class you're necessarily being exclusive, and i really question whether we can fix trump voters. they're losing social programs as we've seen in a billion weepy articles and they still support trump. again, for the nth time, im saying let's push for the people who didn't vote when turnout is higher we win
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
stone cold posted:when turnout is higher we win We've seen it time and time again: the candidate that energizes the base more wins. Everybody I know voted Hillary. Well, pretty much. But very few of them were excited to do so. It was more of a grim obligation. I can't fault people for not following through on a grim obligation when they have better things to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:We've seen it time and time again: the candidate that energizes the base more wins. i can because now we have president trump
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I can't fault people for not following through on a grim obligation when they have better things to do. And now they can enjoy the gradual disintegration of the social safety net, schools and important government functions. Hopefully they will also be the first to be smashed in the face by their decision too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Darn, I was hoping this thread had thoughts on Tom Perez coming down against having pro-life Democratic candidates. Pragmatism lies in keeping a winning coalition together. We can't afford to back down on reproductive rights, just as we can't afford to continue backing down on economic justice and workers' rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
stone cold posted:you're necessarily being exclusive, and i really question whether we can fix trump voters. they're losing social programs as we've seen in a billion weepy articles and they still support trump. again, for the nth time, im saying let's push for the people who didn't vote You're making a million unwarranted assumptions here. About Trump supporters, about marginal Trump supporters, about turnout, about why people turn out, etc. The main one being that, again, you seem to think people have rigid ideological beliefs that cannot be changed, and it's just a matter of getting 'your' people out. But you don't 'own' any people. Trump went to states that were Democratic strongholds, campaigned, tried to sell his ideas to people, and most Democrats laughed, because they (incorrectly) thought that you could not actually convince people to change their minds. But you can, and he won. In the Obama era, the whole notion of partisanship was the big fad: there were just Democrats and Republicans. You needed to completely ignore Republicans, and just go for Democrats. That would work well. But it wasn't really true. There are actually people who'll give a candidate a chance, and they will often vote for the better candidate, not for the one of the political party they voted for the last time. Obama had a lot of turnout, sure, but he also had plenty of people voting for him who'd voted for Bush. It's almost like a good political platform and campaign ensnares a bunch of different kinds of people! Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Apr 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:And now they can enjoy the gradual disintegration of the social safety net, schools and important government functions. Hopefully they will also be the first to be smashed in the face by their decision too. Many of the people who don't turn out are the poor. They already don't have poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:And now they can enjoy the gradual disintegration of the social safety net Bill Clinton already took care of that:  
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Bill Clinton already took care of that: hey it's my nightmare, wanting to be made flesh by neoliberals who insist they are a hair better than fascists (they'll just imprison us, not gas us)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:And now they can enjoy the gradual disintegration of the social safety net, schools and important government functions. Hopefully they will also be the first to be smashed in the face by their decision too. The same disintegration of the social safety net that you describe didn't exactly slow down all that much under Democratic presidents...like, a little bit, but not that much. Not to the point where people who don't routinely pay close attention to politics would notice. You're placing a lot of blame on some pretty disadvantaged people, as opposed to the party leaders that have failed them rather dismally. Why, exactly, should they know to place the blame for the failure of the social safety net on the Republicans, as opposed to both parties equally? Just because Hillary Clinton's website said so? Majorian fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Apr 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
stone cold posted:so your solution is to shift the party right to appeal to ayn rand fandies You don't need to shift right to appeal to people who lean Democratic but aren't already reliable Democratic voters. "Only engage with the people who were already going to vote for us no matter what" only serves to shrink Democratic voter turnout in the short term and to shrink the Democratic base in the long term. You need to appeal to both the reliable base and the broader bloc of sympathetic but less-engaged voters if you actually want to win elections, and that means getting out there and selling your message to people who aren't already fully sold on it. (Of course, in order to sell your message you first need to have a message, and that's been a real stumbling block for the Democratic Party for decades.) The working class and the poor lean Democratic by and large, and voters under 40 by an even larger margin. Not only do the Democrats not have any sort of coherent messaging to actually get those groups to turn out and vote for them, many Democrats are openly contemptuous of the notion that they actually have to appeal to these groups to win elections. Just look at the people who see "working class" and immediately read that as "working-class whites" so that they can dismiss appeals to working-class needs as appeals to white racism, never mind that the working class in 21st-century America is majority-minority.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 10:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The same disintegration of the social safety net that you describe didn't exactly slow down all that much under Democratic presidents...like, a little bit, but not that much. Not to the point where people who don't routinely pay close attention to politics would notice. You're placing a lot of blame on some pretty disadvantaged people, as opposed to the party leaders that have failed them rather dismally. Why, exactly, should they know to place the blame for the failure of the social safety net on the Republicans, as opposed to both parties equally? Just because Hillary Clinton's website said so? I'm starting to think perhaps you are too optimistic that these people would understand economic populism since apparently everything else is beyond them. Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 11:02 on Apr 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I'm starting to think perhaps you are too optimistic that these people would understand economic populism since apparently everything else is beyond them. Oh for sure, those plebs definitely don't have serious animosity towards the banks and congress. It's extremely telling that Hill Folk are extrmely into the idea that poor people are all stupid idiots, with no consideration of any of the circumstances around why the working class may not care about welfare as much as holding the top accountable. Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Apr 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
stone cold, why are you saying libetarians are all white suburbanites in response to a poll that talks about non whites supporting him. Also why are being anti drug war and anti interventionost so contrary to leftist goals exactly? Libertarian idealogues may be crazy but plenty of their voters are good folks doing their best to pick from a sea of bad options.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
I'm far from a libertarian myself, but the actual philosophy of Libertarianism isn't bad. It's just that executing said philosophy in this world would be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:From a reply: I wonder if she and Romney ever met up.  I'm not really sure which is worse: being anti-Vietnam war protests because you are so disconnected that you think it's actually a good thing for America or because you think it will embarrass your college. I guess the modern Democrat's obsession with appearance over actual substance goes back pretty far. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Apr 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I'm starting to think perhaps you are too optimistic that these people would understand economic populism since apparently everything else is beyond them. They understood economic populist rhetoric when Obama used it, and they understood it when Trump used it as well. Clinton deliberately refused to speak this way to them, and lost what should have been an easy election because of it. And why wouldn't they understand/care about economic populism? It affects them directly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:
Good reads --what is this from?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The same disintegration of the social safety net that you describe didn't exactly slow down all that much under Democratic presidents...like, a little bit, but not that much. Not to the point where people who don't routinely pay close attention to politics would notice. You're placing a lot of blame on some pretty disadvantaged people, as opposed to the party leaders that have failed them rather dismally. Why, exactly, should they know to place the blame for the failure of the social safety net on the Republicans, as opposed to both parties equally? Just because Hillary Clinton's website said so? I mean castigate the ACA exchanges for what they are, but the Medicaid expansion was a major strengthening of the safety net
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Good reads --what is this from? Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? by Thomas Frank. It's so good I bought it again, just to post pages on D&D. Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Apr 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? by Thomas Frank. I need to pick this up -- thank you!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:They understood economic populist rhetoric when Obama used it, and they understood it when Trump used it as well. Clinton deliberately refused to speak this way to them, and lost what should have been an easy election because of it. And why wouldn't they understand/care about economic populism? It affects them directly. I wonder why she didn't do that. I don't think it would be because she was afraid of angering her donors (and corporations who support her), since politicians are entirely capable of secretly making their real interests clear to those people/organizations while saying other things on the campaign trail. I don't see any real down-side to doing what Obama did and vaguely sounding economic populist while not mentioning many actual specific policy. I get the impression the Hillary Clinton is the sort of person who is very afraid of saying wrong or incorrect things, which ironically leads her to speak in a lawyer-esque way (where she does stuff like speak in a wishy-washy way in order to avoid promising anything that can't definitely be delivered) that comes off as insincere. I'm actually kind of similar to her in this way, but I also don't want to be a politician and can't imagine how someone could become a politician without also becoming good at public speaking in a way that makes people vote for you. I think this is mainly because, contrary to what a lot of her supporters said, Clinton actually had very little experience as a politician (and what experience she did have involved the massive advantage of being connected to BIll). She never really needed to become good at campaigning until the presidential election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
Hillary clearly thought she'd win professionals and women simply for being the cultured, educated, Anti-Trump, and expecting the poors and minorities to vote for her out of fear of Trump, because "lol what other choice do they have?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 17:44
|
|