|
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:White racists often do not hate literally every single person of color, and often talk about "the good ones" or friends of color they think they have. Voting for Obama and holding racist views are not mutually exclusive, at all. Oops wait should we be talking about this here? "White racists liked Barack Obama." -A person apparently expecting to be taken seriously. Trump spent the entire Obama presidency gaining his base by pushing a discredited racist conspiracy theory about him...but they love Obama so much! FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 04:00 on May 3, 2017 |
#
?
May 3, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Edit: The second page of the sample online (chapter 11) begins: I love that you think Hillary Clinton paying lip service to economic justice a handful of times means that she discussed it frequently enough, with enough conviction.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Or that she was a credible deliverer of such a message.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:Or that she was a credible deliverer of such a message. bingo. flipping through her website's page on economic proposals is p interesting as there seems to be very little that directly impacts workers but a whole lot of oblique stuff. the minimum wage and removing the tipped minimum wage are the only ones striking me as a having a direct immediate impact. everything else is we will help small business grow, which would provide jobs but probably doesn't interest voters who are not also small business owners; we will encourage the creation of low income housing though tax credits to developers, which again would provide cheap housing but probably doesn't interest voters who are not also real estate developers, and so on. then you have the fair tax proposals, reigning in wall street and the banks and tax reform which she lacked credibility on. on the whole her proposals would have actually helped the economy but theres very little for the average person to grab onto as exciting
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
It's obvious that Hillary had only two things going for her: she was not Trump and the 'First Woman President' aspect. For everyone for whom this wasn't enough it's clear that having been primaried by that socialist old fool who wasn't even in the party really brought to bear how much she's a corporate stooge, there is no escaping this: the contrast between the two on this issue was clear as day and it very much had an impact. So in a way I do understand that Hill people are buthurt with Sanders, because in purely practical terms they are right: he cost her the election because that primary put for all to see an aspect that she would've benefitted a lot to keep dissimulated. But the overarching point that Hill people fail or are afraid to grasp is the fact that she IS a corporate shill and that THAT is the most important thing. That, having that as a choice, again and again, is precisely not having a choice at all. Fados fucked around with this message at 04:52 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
The fact that "progressives" like Majorian and centrists like JC are still hashing out exactly how many units of blame should be assigned to Abuela half a year from her defeat is a pretty good summary of how intellectually bankrupt the Democrats are. And a Trumpism if anything, it's easier to poo poo on Obama etc. then move onto anything constructive.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Don't worry guys, Nancy Pelosi's figured out what direction the Democratic coalition needs to take!quote:The Democratic Party should not impose support for abortion rights as a litmus test on its candidates, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday, because it needs a broad and inclusive agenda to win back the socially conservative voters who helped elect President Trump.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
For people ideologically committed to neoliberalism, arguing about how much blame Hillary deserves and where is the sensible strategy. Neoliberalism can't be defended on its merits obviously because it is objectively terrible for everyone except the top 0.1%, and after 2016 it's hard to defend it on pragmatic grounds: losing the Presidency and taking down the House, Senate, Supreme Court, and two-thirds of the states with it is pretty un-pragmatic. But if you can make the whole argument about Hillary's personal failures (while being careful to exempt any of her conservative ideas but blame it all on her progressive ones and her personality), then oh well she failed neoliberalism with her pluralism and her reluctance to criticize Trump and her poor campaign. If we just double down next time and say Trump is really really bad and we spice up the platform with some racism and we get a better computer algorithm we'll win without having to help any Americans at all! Maybe we can even get Mitt Romney, he'll give us all the Republican votes from 2012 and everyone else will have to vote for us because we're not Trump.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:"progressives" like Majorian  shrike82 posted:And a Trumpism if anything, it's easier to poo poo on Obama etc. then move onto anything constructive. You should, you know, try reading the thread before posting in it. A lot of folks (myself included) have proposed a lot of constructive ideas.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Discussion of racism's impact on the election is verboten in the bernout thread I suppose we could discuss yet again how Clinton's supporters were far more likely to express racist beliefs(more likely to do so than even Kasich supporters, amazingly enough) than Sanders supporters, but at this point it kind of feels like twisting the knife.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
An obviously more important factor than any Comey letter or other external stuff is that we now know for sure that Clinton & co literally gave up on entire states, e.g. Michigan, because Bernie did well there during the primaries. Or that her campaign couldn't even figure out why she was running. It's obvious that you're not going to do well in states that you write off and even more obvious why it's dumb to do this in states you rely on to shore up your win, but it's very hard to poll the exact effects in terms of precentage points lost since you have little to compare it to and hence the biggest mistakes of Clinton's campaign will happily be ignored by the Jeffersonclays of the world, which is why they've gotta go from any positions of influence.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
Nah he's fine acknowledging that Clinton stupidly thought that she could wargame her way to the presidency by not campaigning in places where her policies did the most damage and hoping everyone there just forgot there was an election happening. Because then it becomes her fault personally, and the policies of hollowing out our industrial areas, busting unions, and concern trolling any wage increases into the ground (my McDonald's will cost more  ) are blameless.
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:57 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Don't worry guys, Nancy Pelosi's figured out what direction the Democratic coalition needs to take! What the Republicans figured out is that they can appeal to low-info voters more easily by building a reliable brand. A horrible brand, but if you're a horrible person it's a brand that will appeal to you, and you can vote straight-ticket Republican without sweating the details too much, because at the end of the day even the "moderates" will toe the party line when it really counts (cf John McCain: "This is a terrible idea but I'll still vote for it"). You don't really get that with Democrats; especially with the guild-like characteristics of the DNC very often you'll get pretty centrist candidates in very progressive districts, and there isn't much anyone can do about it without transforming the entire party first. So people who want to criminalize premarital sex (for women) and throw (black) drug users and dealers in mass graves, vote Republican, and while they might not get all the poo poo they want they'll be able to check a few boxes off their list. This is why people like Lieberman and Manchin (and Feinstein, et al), etc., are so bad for the party. It isn't just about passing this or that law, it's also about being able to credibly lay out what the Democratic party actually stands for, other than a Presidential platform every four years that nobody takes too seriously anyway. Does anyone know what we'd get if the Democratic base could effectively elect Democrats like the Republican base can? I guess the Justice Department would continue to look the other way on ending the Drug War one state at a time, while Congress does gently caress-all. I suppose the Justice Department would also continue looking the other ways while local cops shoot up black neighborhoods. The right of gay people to marry would be more secure. Wage stagnation would be addressed with half-measures like raising the minimum wage, but corporations would still rule supreme. They'd be better, but you'd be clawing toward progress knowing that the GOP could swoop in anytime and undo years of work. We're lucky Trump is such an incompetent idiot and incapable of leading the GOP - if they had an actual leader right now this country would be hosed utterly.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Hundreds of different directions, basically. [...] To be fair, the Republicans have their own issues with internal cohesion, as we saw with the Trumpcare disaster among others. But that's a bit off-topic here. The dems seem to be having (roughly) the same debate they've had since the 60's, how do you combine varying brands of technocrats, smug 'centrist' out-of-touch parodies of human beings, and constantly in-fighting progressives under the same tent? The argument from the 'centrists' is that if you do not vote / behave in a sensible centrist way, the horrible fascists will win instead, so sit down and do as you're told. The progressives can't agree on exactly what is the most important issue, be it women's rights, gay rights, trying to fight back against racism, etc., and tend to get caught up in various types of oppression olympics slap-fights. While the 'centrists' have an in-built advantage since they're not actively hostile towards moneyed organizations. What's baffling is that the message Pelosi et al. seem to have taken from the 2016 fiasco is to double down on being sensible centrists, won't someone please vote for us? As appalling as the Trump admin has been, if the 2020 election is fought under the banner "Vote for me, at least I'm not Trump!", will that be enough? And even better, if the dems manage to win with that platform, won't that simply embolden the sensible 'centrists' who can this time point to an actual success? Then there'll be new "Grand Bargains" and the only hope is that the GOP suicide caucus torpedoes them because they don't kill enough minorities and poors. Conversely, there doesn't seem to be enough left-minded people (let alone, gasp, socialists) in the US who are interested in voting for their causes. The phrasing, and presumably largely caused by the centrists looking out for their own, is whether this election dems can fight for women, or for minorities, or for a living wage, etc. It can't be all those things, because that'd be too extreme/unrealistic/there's not enough political capital for that/whatever nonsense to keep a progressive wing from forming. And the progressives keep falling for it 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:The fact that "progressives" like Majorian and centrists like JC are still hashing out exactly how many units of blame should be assigned to Abuela half a year from her defeat is a pretty good summary of how intellectually bankrupt the Democrats are. Here's why we're still rehashing the same arguments months after the election. The left is divided into two groups. Group 1 is establishment centrists that honestly believe that they're preordained to win. It's only a matter of time before demographics fall in their favor and all they need to do is hold the line until we're ushered into magical idpol utopia. Group 2 is jaded democrats that see the complete erosion of this country that the establishment centrists have enabled since the DLC hijacked the party in the 90s. Group 1 refuses to listen to anything Group 2 has to say and dismisses literally every point they bring up. Anybody that questions their dogma is just a misguided simpleton (or hate-filled racist) that can't comprehend the divine truth. Group 2 can't comprehend how Group 1 can continue to behave the same way they've always have when reality obliterated everything G1 believed. The only way forward in G2's eyes is radical change aimed at everybody. Group 1 is fine with a republican running as a democrat as long as that person pays lip service to certain (politically safe) social issues. Group 2 is fine with a progressive running as a democrat even if they're willing to sacrifice one or two sacred cows that's a political kiss of death in certain portions of the country. We can't agree on the way forward for the party...so it shouldn't be a shock that we can't come together to oppose Trump. Group 1 is willing to support or do anything that discredits Trump. Turning a blind eye to their own party's behavior, supporting red-baiting/warmongering, getting (further) into bed with neocons. By hook or by crook. If it hurts him or his administration, it's ok. They only have to make Trump look like a lame duck for four years then America will come to its senses and elect our Abuela. Group 2 sees their ideals as an advantage. They aren't willing to sacrifice them so they can discredit Trump or hold the line on half-measure policies they already don't like (like ACA/Obamacare). Trump will discredit himself over four years then America will come to its senses and elect our Whichever way the democratic party goes, it's going to be messy and it's going to be much harder than both groups think it will be.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
The Democrat party has never been the party of group 2? Join the DSA if you feel like you fall in that category.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
I think group 2 actually wants something to change in this country, and the Democratic Party is literally the only route through the ballot box.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
It's become a truism that the Democrat party needs to move left to win again but is there any empirical evidence that there's a desire for it? Sanders lost at the end of the day to Abuela. You can argue about the DNC weighing the scales on one end, but there was also how singularly terrible Abuela was as a candidate. It's not clear to me that a Sanders analogue will be able to beat someone more Obama-like (lite) like Booker in 2020. The UK which moved away from Third-way Blairism to a musty old labor-focused movement is dying under the leadership of a true leftist. France is going through the same. It seems like Chapo Traphouse strain leftists are putting forward true leftism as a solution to the Democrat party's ailments when the two best Democrat politicans we've had in our lifetimes are Bill Clinton and Obama.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:The UK which moved away from Third-way Blairism to a musty old labor-focused movement is dying under the leadership of a true leftist. In what world is Hollande a leftist?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
Ah, the no true scotsman argument applied to leftism. I guess you weren't here in 2012 when the leftists on the board were crowing about how Hollande's election was heralding a new era of leftism in Europe because Hollande at the time was pushing for pretty left measures such as a robin hood tax, a new punitive income tax bracket for the wealthy, and a reduced retirement age.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Ah, the no true scotsman argument applied to leftism. Hollande got elected on a leftist platform, did neoliberalism instead and then his popularity tanked as a result.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
So a leftist gets replaced by a centrist technocrat? Isn't that exactly the reverse of what people here are arguing? What happened to true leftist "France should join a Bolivarian socialist union" Hamon?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It seems like Chapo Traphouse strain leftists are putting forward true leftism as a solution to the Democrat party's ailments when the two best Democrat politicans we've had in our lifetimes are LBJ and LBJ.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:What happened to true leftist "France should join a Bolivarian socialist union" Hamon? He was doomed from the start because of Hollande. Seems like an alright politician otherwise. Also I'm pretty sure that comment was from Melenchon, not Hamon.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
A guy who slid into office on the death of a proto-neoliberal and lost to Nixon with the collapse of the New Deal coalition? You guys really need to catch up on your American history because it's becoming increasingly clear that there's a naivete about a latent leftism in American politics which doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It's become a truism that the Democrat party needs to move left to win again but is there any empirical evidence that there's a desire for it? Now the centrist reveals himself and proves my point  Hillary Clinton lost the general to one of the worst candidates in modern history. We're seeing a backlash towards globalism and a rise of far-right politics worldwide in response to the legacy of third way politics. But does that really mean people don't want third way politics??? Sure Obama campaigned as a progressive both times around before enacting third way/republican-lite policies for eight years...but is there any empirical evidence that his behavior hurt Hillary (who was basically running as a third term) against an opponent that was willing to push all the right buttons in terms of economic change??? Nah, we just can't prove any of this. Third Way is the only way. You radical dreamers are better off joining the DSA 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
I know it's a thing to hate Obama as the anti-left satan but he's leaving office with an extremely high approval rating kinda deflates the notion that people are sick of Obama-Clinton third-way ism.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:A guy who slid into office on the death of a proto-neoliberal and lost to Nixon with the collapse of the New Deal coalition? How is any of what you describe worse than Bill "stealth left the country with a collapsed economic bubble that 9/11 covered up" Clinton and Barack "I'm being succeeded by a far-right media mogul while my signature legislation teeters on the precipice of repeal" Obama? Also, I don't think you know why Obama kept getting elected - hint, it wasn't because he ran as a Third-Wayist, but someone who is beyond politics as usual. Those aren't necessarily the same thing, even if the Clintons thought they were.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
I'm perfectly happy to put him on the same level as Obama and Clinton. And i said in our lifetimes, so I guess you guys are boomers then.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
I mean, naming the only two Democrat presidents in my lifetime and saying, "See? This is the best the party can offer," show more how Third Wayism is failing than anything else.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
"Naming the zero leftist presidents in my lifetime and saying, "See? This is the best leftism can offer", show more how leftism is failing than anything else". Hmm, that sounds bad.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
Guy who goes on about everyone else needing to know their US history conveniently overlooks the wild successes of the FDR administration to say, "Is there any... any... evidence that America wants more leftism in their politics?"
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
LOL, now we're moving further back in time. This grappling at anything that makes the Democrat party come off as remotely leftist is kinda sad. I guess we can hope zombie FDR runs and wins against Corey Booker in 2020.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
I thought the lesson from FDR was that you could go left as long as you could guarantee them darkies won't benefit?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Ah, the no true scotsman argument applied to leftism. Hollande was the Obama of French politics shrike. He promised leftism, and when he was elected he lost all will to do anything leftist. Then he appointed a bunch of centrists like macron who implemented austerity. Now his party is dead because of how lovely he was and macron abandoned the ship and is pretending to be a radical independent
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
Looking at the approval ratings of Hollande versus Obama at the respective ends of their administration, that's false. Sorry but Obama is still loved by the Democrat base, whatever you guys wail about.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
If we're going by popularity polls, well, guess who's the most popular politician in the country? Hint: It's Bernie Sanders.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
*ignores the fact that obama campaigned as a progressive twice before reneging twice and the growing frustration of people worldwide as the people in power attempt to preserve the status quo* heh heh you dumb leftists are really reaching back in history for any example that backs up your theory. meanwhile us adults living in the reality know our history. the world loves third way politics. america is already great. obama's poll numbers were fantastic. hillary won the popular vote. now lets put aside all this pointless squabbling and focus on our true goal of
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Looking at the approval ratings of Hollande versus Obama at the respective ends of their administration, that's false. Shrike, if you don't know anything about French politics why are you commenting on them? Hollande is deeply unpopular because he implemented austerity instead of the programs he promised during his campaign. He's not completely the same as Obama, but he did ride into office on the promise of leftism he never delivered on (and never attempted to deliver on) As for hamon, he was stabbed in the back by the centrists of the PS. As soon as he won the primary, his centrist opponent, Valls (a self-described clintonian politician) endorsed macron who ditched the PS he helped run into the ground
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
Actually both Obama and his wife poll better than Sanders so good job? This narrative of Obama being hated by the electorate for his backstabbing leftism in the back is bizarre and not founded on any evidence. If he could have run a third time, he'd have won qed.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 09:08
|
|