|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Condiv posted:dems kinda abandoned ACORN like scared little babies though
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:50 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's not about getting moderate republicans to flip, it's about not giving republicans red meat to energize their base with. this has been such a successful strategy over the last 10 years i'm shocked anyone would consider abandoning it tbqh
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:nice meltdown kilory. Sorry, this isn't the place to discuss racism. Condiv posted:less than a year ago you were telling us that no-one was waiting for socialism. are you sure you're the one who's not deluded? you seem to be relying on the same old conventional wisdom that has seen the dems become increasingly absent from most state governments No, I was telling you there's no massive secret reserve of would be socialists just waiting for the Democratic Party to get pure enough to vote for. And now I'm telling you that even if this silent socialist majority exists, it's not clustered in deep red districts. Conventional wisdom is what Hillary ignored in her failed campaign.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Democrats running in heavily republican districts absolutely need to worry about pissing off moderate republicans. That's why candidates like Rob Quist and James Thompson don't campaign on single payer, even if they probably support it. So democrats putting it in the platform will either hurt them with voters (bad) or force them to disavow the platform (bad). Democrats are not going to turn deep red districts blue by running hard to the left. That's a fantasy. This is simply false (again). 41% of republicans favor single-payer. 82% of them oppose the ACA. A candidate that runs on single-payer in a Presidential campaign would siphon off more republican voters than a horrible neoliberal candidate like Hillary would. http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, I was telling you there's no massive secret reserve of would be socialists just waiting for the Democratic Party to get pure enough to vote for. And now I'm telling you that even if this silent socialist majority exists, it's not clustered in deep red districts. Conventional wisdom is what Hillary ignored in her failed campaign. and you base that off what? people seem to support bernie v strongly across party lines, despite him being socialist prime
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, I was telling you there's no massive secret reserve of would be socialists just waiting for the Democratic Party to get pure enough to vote for. And now I'm telling you that even if this silent socialist majority exists, it's not clustered in deep red districts. Conventional wisdom is what Hillary ignored in her failed campaign.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
i would not be surprised if there are secret socialists in this country considering we still have people being investigated for possibly being communist
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:If you don't give Republicans "red meat" they'll just mix some sawdust and animal fat together instead, and call it red meat. You illiterate poo poo. You inconceivable horse's rear end in a top hat. Nah, it's not like Republicans were able to energize their base over a garbage healthcare bill they initially pushed back during the Clinton era and the politically-unaware masses view the failure of that bill as a failure of the Democrats attempting to inject government into healthcare (thus harming our chances of ever passing single payer) And it definitely didn't put Democrats in a position where they forever have to defend/try to "fix" Obamacare instead of pushing for single payer.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:So does Corey Robin think that religious people are unreachable and certain areas of the country are lost? but what the gently caress do those things have to do with a womans autonomy over her body?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
"Democrats, who usually benefit from increased turnout, should craft an electoral strategy around decreasing turnout. Christian conservatives who actually voted hard for Donald Trump, are finally going to stop showing up to the polls because they forgot they want to institute literal Gilead." - This is a thought that was formed in an actual human brain. Mother nature is so weird.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, I was telling you there's no massive secret reserve of would be socialists just waiting for the Democratic Party to get pure enough to vote for. And now I'm telling you that even if this silent socialist majority exists, it's not clustered in deep red districts. Conventional wisdom is what Hillary ignored in her failed campaign. There's a massive, not so secret reserve of people who don't want to loving die of a preventable disease while in debtor's prison. I'm reasonably sure nobody is alienating those people by talking about single payer healthcare. What sort of amazes me is that you are living in the same country as us, you can see what's going on, you watched trump get elected and you still think politics works like a god drat Aaron Sorkin script. The unwavering ideological block of right wing thought is crumbling in front of you, and instead of celebrating and figuring out how to take advantage of it, you're weeping huge alligator tears because centrism is dying at the same rate.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Nah, it's not like Republicans were able to energize their base over a garbage healthcare bill they initially pushed back during the Clinton era and the politically-unaware masses view the failure of that bill as a failure of the Democrats attempting to inject government into healthcare (thus harming our chances of ever passing single payer) Is that why you voted for Trump? I've been trying to figure it out.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
I propose a new mental disorder I'll call "political anosognosia" and suggest it's added to the next DSM. Usually caused by damage to the frontal lobe of the brain. Symptoms include shrieking "I'm not owned!" as you continue to lose elections, doubling down on clearly failed strategies, and incessant confabulation to maintain the self-delusion that one is a smooth political operator and theorist in the face of ongoing, crushing defeat. Prognosis is never good. The only known treatment is that the subject is flown to a remote region and dropped in a wide lake.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Just on this page we had some moron take a fake tweet about Pelosi at face value. "Bu-b-b-but CENTRISTS!!!" You know what? No. Horseshit. This isn't about criticism, this is you guys firmly convinced that democrats can do no right. And as such you all use any bullshit post-hoc rationalizations to do it. You aren't wrong that there are a bunch of leftists who jump at any sort of information that seems to confirm their preexisting worldviews, but this is also true for a huge portion of people from literally every political persuasion. Go to almost any random mainstream liberal/Democratic group of people and tell them Trump/Republicans did (insert bad thing) and I can guarantee a bunch of them will also immediately believe it for the same reason. What people are sensing from posts like yours is both 1. a strange disproportionate targeting of such behavior on the left (which, again, occurs regardless of political persuasion) and 2. an unnecessarily condescending, aggressive tone. I'm not asking that you don't point out when incorrect things are said or bad arguments are made, but there's a difference between saying "lol stupid loving leftists" and specifically saying "no, I think this is wrong because _____." The specific way you point this stuff out clearly attempts to associate it with all leftists in general. Ultimately the concerns at the core of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party are very valid. Huge swathes of the country are seeing stagnant or falling incomes (adjusted for inflation, and that's not including the rising cost of things like healthcare or college), and it seems extremely unlikely that Democrats will ever do anything to reverse this trend.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Single payer won't help in red states I've realized... you're the problem
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:This is simply false (again). This isn't really a good argument, because the ACA was specifically tarred by its association with Obama/Democrats. If a single payer system was proposed by a Democratic Congress/administration, you'd see that support dwindle real fast. That being said, your statistic is sufficient to show that there's little basis to the idea that Republicans would lose their poo poo (any more than they normally do, anyways) and become more energized if Democrats supported single payer. edit: Oh, as an unrelated but important point, I feel like "more leftist candidates usually lose to more centrist ones in Democratic primaries, therefore people want centrism more than leftism" is not good logic. More mainstream/centrist Democrats/liberals have the full force of huge swathes of the mainstream media and existing politicians behind them (or at least their ideology), so it's not like people are making these decisions based upon their true, unchangeable beliefs or something. That being said, I do feel like it's a reasonable argument against the claim that leftism will necessarily cause politicians to win. But it isn't a reason to think that mainstream Democratic policy moving to the left will hurt them. If mainstream Democratic figures suddenly started endorsing more leftist positions, you'd almost certainly see support for such positions among the public increase as a result. Most people decide whether an idea is "reasonable" by how it is treated in mainstream discourse and how widely it is supported by other people/politicians. I feel like this idea that what you see in polls represents voters ~true feelings~ (as if such a thing even exists) is very, very wrong, and that using such polls as a strict guide will just result in endlessly perpetuating the status quo. If you change what people see/hear in the media and from existing politicians, their views about most things are also open to changing, with the exception of a handful of wedge issues that people are strongly committed to. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:02 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:"Democrats, who usually benefit from increased turnout, should craft an electoral strategy around decreasing turnout. Christian conservatives who actually voted hard for Donald Trump, are finally going to stop showing up to the polls because they forgot they want to institute literal Gilead." Increased turnout doesn't actually help democrats in deep red districts. High turnout stopped ossoff from getting to 50%, for instance. More republicans showed up to vote against Hillary than for trump. They show up more to vote against poo poo they hate than policy they like. Boosting turnout works in districts where there are more democrats than republicans, but it's obviously dumb in deep red districts. Ytlaya posted:This isn't really a good argument, because the ACA was specifically tarred by its association with Obama/Democrats. If a single payer system was proposed by a Democratic Congress/administration, you'd see that support dwindle real fast. Your second point only follows if democrats are choosing between proposing single payer and some other change to the healthcare system. They're not. They're choosing between defending the status quo (or, worst timeline, attacking the AHCA) and proposing single payer. That's a significant difference.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
dox posted:I don't understand why there are so many Democrat centrist apologists in this thread who want the party to embrace the platform that Hillary already tried and failed at: attempting to bring in "moderate" or "centrist" Republicans... it clearly didn't work for her on top of everything else. Meanwhile the "socialist" Bernie had and continues to have immense popularity across the aisle, and yet the party needs to continue to move to the center and not to the left? Most of us aren't stupid enough to argue with a guy on permanent meltdown because there are people to the right of Lenin on the political spectrum
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Hey guys, maybe you could stop your pointless slapfighting with each other for a second and instead focus on how the Montana race just got a whole lot more interesting:Rigel posted:The Republican candidate in Montana was caught saying two different things to two different audiences on the same day, telling voters he's undecided about AHCA, while privately telling donors and lobbyists that AHCA is great.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Hey guys, maybe you could stop your pointless slapfighting with each other for a second and instead focus on how the Montana race just got a whole lot more interesting: too bad the DNC isn't more supportive of quist, cause he's real good
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Condiv posted:too bad the DNC isn't more supportive of quist, cause he's real good They gave him 600k so far.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Is that why you voted for Trump? I've been trying to figure it out. It's not too hard to figure out. I despise centrists and thought Hillary Clinton would do far more damage to the country (just like Bill Clinton did in the mid 90s and Obama did in 2008-2016 as the democrats turned a blind eye to them obliterating everything we're suppose to stand for) than Trump could. I figured that Trump would either be a typical republican and lose reelection (where hopefully we'd be able to get a more progressive candidate in for 2020) or he'd do part of what he said he'd do and potentially change traditional republican dogma (in regards to free trade and infrastructure) Both of those possiblities were better (IMO) than another four (or eight) years of this weird situation we've been stuck in where both sides pretend that the warmongering centrist is actually a radical progressive while the right becomes even more radicalized in response.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:They gave him 600k so far. just from some cursory research, i've found at least $700k dropped on ossoff, and there's certainly more since $450k of that was for a single DCCC ad. again, wish quist was getting more support
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:It's not too hard to figure out. See why would anyone waste time arguing with this guy?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Condiv posted:just from some cursory research, i've found at least $700k dropped on ossoff, and there's certainly more since $450k of that was for a single DCCC ad. again, wish quist was getting more support im glad youve finally come around to giving money to the Democratic party establishment institutions
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:im glad youve finally come around to giving money to the Democratic party establishment institutions where'd i say that? the DNC doesn't need normal people money, that's why they decided to take fat stacks of cash from lobbyists
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Despera posted:See why would anyone waste time arguing with this guy? TBF he's not completely wrong. Bill did way more damage to the social safety net than Rebublicans were ever able to. Notice the way Trump is met with deep institutional resistance (almost) any time he tries to do something lovely. You just wouldn't get that with Clinton in charge.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, I was telling you there's no massive secret reserve of would be socialists just waiting for the Democratic Party to get pure enough to vote for. And now I'm telling you that even if this silent socialist majority exists, it's not clustered in deep red districts. Conventional wisdom is what Hillary ignored in her failed campaign. Republican primary voters rejected a bunch of standard-issue conservatives in favor of a guy who sounded more like Huey Long than GHWB on the campaign trail.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Despera posted:See why would anyone waste time arguing with this guy? Instead of behaving like that, why don't you try to explain how the rise of Third Way/New Democrats haven't undermined the progressive movement as they do (or attempt to do) things that were considered unconscionable under a Republican (Bill Clinton with welfare "reform", the 1994 crime bill, NAFTA, repealing Glass-Steagall and Obama with solidifying/expanding Bush-era surveillance, destablizing other countries, attempting to do a 'Grand Bargain' to cut Social Security/Medicare)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Hey guys, maybe you could stop your pointless slapfighting with each other for a second and instead focus on how the Montana race just got a whole lot more interesting: tbh, i do like this news (though i saw it in the quist thread first). next time why don't you just post news you think is relevant instead of taking a combative tone from the start?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Condiv posted:next time why don't you just post news you think is relevant instead of taking a combative tone from the start? The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste combative tones wrt to politicians are fine. you can say bernie is a shithead all you want (though people might not agree with you). however, if you come in the thread saying "hey idiots, why don't you talk about this instead of whatever idiot thing you're talking about", people are probably not gonna be super receptive to what you want them to discuss. just sayin
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:TBF he's not completely wrong. Bill did way more damage to the social safety net than Rebublicans were ever able to. Notice the way Trump is met with deep institutional resistance (almost) any time he tries to do something lovely. You just wouldn't get that with Clinton in charge. No one would stop Hillary from banning muslims
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
And now we're back to Trump actually isn't so bad because the Democrats will actually resist him.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Increased turnout doesn't actually help democrats in deep red districts. High turnout stopped ossoff from getting to 50%, for instance.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Despera posted:No one would stop Hillary from banning muslims I'm more concerned about her murdering muslims than banning them Let's be honest, the US unleashing unspeakable horrors on the muslim world is a certainty at this point, even Bernie wouldn't have stopped that
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:So, bearing in mind that Ossoff came out against single-payer, can you enlighten the thread which of his nasty leftist positions aggravated Republicans enough to turn out against him? Are you really so brain dead that you think the only thing that can increase turnout is single payer?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Lmfao at JeffersonClay's lovely rear end still posting here. Have a little shame bro.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
I don't think the best approach is to say that moving to the left will necessarily increase turn-out (it might, but there isn't really enough evidence to say for sure), much less that it's the *only* way to. I think it's better to focus on the idea that left wing politics are 1. a good thing and 2. won't be any less palatable to the public than the status quo (this puts the burden on others to prove that moving to the left would cause problems, rather than giving them room to - completely reasonably - demand evidence that it will improve electoral results). By focusing the argument on the idea that moving to the left will necessarily help win elections, you allow centrists (or whatever it makes sense to call the contrarians in these threads) to hide their own ideology behind arguments about whether that specific claim is accurate. If you focus on the ideology itself, they're forced to either explicitly renounce leftism or provide proof that moving to the left will harm Democrats electorally.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:50 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Are you really so brain dead that you think the only thing that can increase turnout is single payer? Or you can just stop posting. That would be better, actually.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 05:55
|
|