|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Ytlaya posted: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. So it's not really about trying to "win" an argument with bootlicking shitheads like JeffersonClay. It's just about making sure no one else falls for his disingenuous, facile reasoning. And it's about kicking his stupid rear end around this thread so that when we encounter the same stupidity in real life, our claws are sharp.
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
Why the gently caress would anyone vote osoff other than the other white heap?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Why the gently caress would anyone vote osoff other than the other white heap? Tbf, as uninspiring as Ossoff is, a Democratic majority would be A Good Thing, as it wouldn't be a Republican majority. Plus it would be fun to see Trump get impeached, even if he didn't get removed from office. Ossoff being elected would be helpful in that regard. The Dems do need a better pitch than that if they want to win people who aren't political junkies, though.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The Dems do need a better pitch than that if they want to win people who aren't political junkies, though. Well yes and no. IT'S THE HEALTH CARE, STUPID
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:Well yes and no. Here's hoping he starts running hard on that before the run-off. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
Single payer only has 40% republican support? The public has spoken: that proves it's bad and can never win! Taking Wall Street cash is hated by almost everyone? That proves the public is stupid and should be ignored!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
Hey JC, how does your belovéd TPP poll. Oh wait if corporations love it, who needs political pragmatism. Turns out pragmatism was never a strategy, just a fig leaf to kill progressive ideas that liberals don't like.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Why the gently caress would anyone vote osoff other than the other white heap? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztJlZ3Ndbw4 Jon O is good and cool and also my friend
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Single payer only has 40% republican support? The public has spoken: that proves it's bad and can never win! Single-payer/Medicare-for-all polls better among republicans than the ACA does because they know that Medicare works. Desperate people across this country lie about their income in order to get a subsidy every month; because choosing between groceries and filling prescriptions at the supermarket is all too common. The ACA is a half-assed bill that still leaves people to rot, and it's no wonder that middle-class voters told Hillary to get hosed when she essentially ignored criticisms of the ACA before telling everyone that America is already great.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:Single-payer/Medicare-for-all polls better among republicans than the ACA does because they know that Medicare works. Desperate people across this country lie about their income in order to get a subsidy every month; because choosing between groceries and filling prescriptions at the supermarket is all too common. The ACA is a half-assed bill that still leaves people to rot, and it's no wonder that middle-class voters told Hillary to get hosed when she essentially ignored criticisms of the ACA before telling everyone that America is already great. Let's not forget that when confronted with stories of how the ACA still fails people she told them to 'keep shopping'
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 11:13
|
|
|
Pelosi is a big money status-quo freak.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Tbf, as uninspiring as Ossoff is, a Democratic majority would be A Good Thing, as it wouldn't be a Republican majority. Eeeeeeh... A Democratic majority is only as good as the politicians it's made of. If we get the numbers by electing a bunch of Clintons/Liebermans are we really any better off? Particularly when you factor in the fact that liberals can get away with gutting the safety net in ways conservatives can't. (That's not a commentary on Ossoff specifically btw. I don't know enough about him yet to form an opinion. )
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Eeeeeeh... A Democratic majority is only as good as the politicians it's made of. If we get the numbers by electing a bunch of Clintons/Liebermans are we really any better off? Particularly when you factor in the fact that liberals can get away with gutting the safety net in ways conservatives can't. Yeah, the "Grand Bargain" had support from both sides of the isle and the White House and would have been a complete disaster.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Also this was from a ways back but I still want to respond to it:Despera posted:No one would stop Hillary from banning muslims She wouldn't be stupid enough to frame it that way. She'd wrap it in progressive rhetoric and her allies in the media would applaud it as the most egalitarian executive order of our age. Since the ban would be coming from an austensively progressive source most people on the left would take her at her word and not question it very much. Meanwhile Trump, being a mouthbreathing idiot, just came out and said it was a Muslim ban and got shut down hard by both the public and the courts. So yeah, I'm not happy Trump won but at the same time I'm not not exactly weeping that Clinton lost.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Osoff is going to lose in the runoff because why vote for Diet Republican when you can have the real deal. This is something 'pragmatists' can never wrap their heads around, for some reason. I understand why the party wants to run guys like Osoff, but if you are a normal person who wants to see Democrats get elected then supporting Panera McAusterity is just plain stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Osoff is going to lose in the runoff because why vote for Diet Republican when you can have the real deal. This is something 'pragmatists' can never wrap their heads around, for some reason. I understand why the party wants to run guys like Osoff, but if you are a normal person who wants to see Democrats get elected then supporting Panera McAusterity is just plain stupid. It's loving GA-06 you gaseous gibbon.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:It's loving GA-06 you gaseous gibbon. Either GA-06 was a winnable race that the party was correct to throw millions of dollars into through their Panera Bread Strategy or it was a massive boondoggle and the money would have been better spent somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Eeeeeeh... A Democratic majority is only as good as the politicians it's made of. If we get the numbers by electing a bunch of Clintons/Liebermans are we really any better off? Particularly when you factor in the fact that liberals can get away with gutting the safety net in ways conservatives can't. If we were talking about a Democratic majority under a President Clinton, I'd agree with you. But since we're talking about a President Trump, I'm much more interested in having a Democratic Congress that just exists to frustrate him at all turns.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Either GA-06 was a winnable race that the party was correct to throw millions of dollars into through their Panera Bread Strategy or it was a massive boondoggle and the money would have been better spent somewhere else. And no matter which it is you will still complain. You will literally complain if he wins.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Tbf, as uninspiring as Ossoff is, a Democratic majority would be A Good Thing, as it wouldn't be a Republican majority. Plus it would be fun to see Trump get impeached, even if he didn't get removed from office. Ossoff being elected would be helpful in that regard. I don't think impeaching Trump would be a very good idea. Based upon his presidency so far (which has been fairly standard Republican) it wouldn't accomplish much, and it would rile the gently caress out of his base.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I notice you didn't answer the question, though. Ossoff ticks an awful lot of your "don't aggravate the GOP base" boxes, but Republican turnout was still pretty solid. GA-06 is evidence against your assertion - you realize this, yes? Like that's not my opinion or a matter up for argument. It's an objective fact. We can debate whether it's strong evidence against or weak, but it is evidence against. He doesn't support single payer and turnout for the GOP was still good, so let us know what his other positions are that you think are too leftist for the electorate. TIA. You made the claim that increased turnout will always benefit democrats. This is not true in deep red districts. The democrat being too leftist is not the only way to increase turnout among republicans in deep red districts. But it is one the democrats have control over. Adopting single payer in the national platform doesnt have any effect on the democrats in purple and blue districts who already put single payer in their personal platform, it only affects the most marginal candidates in deep red districts who have determined they won't benefit from advocating that platform, so it hurts them by energizing GOP opposition, or forces them to disavow the national platform. Neither is a good outcome. That's why pelosi is against making it a part of the national platform despite personally advocating for single payer for decades.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Osoff is going to lose in the runoff because why vote for Diet Republican when you can have the real deal. This is something 'pragmatists' can never wrap their heads around, for some reason. I understand why the party wants to run guys like Osoff, but if you are a normal person who wants to see Democrats get elected then supporting Panera McAusterity is just plain stupid. Nah, a very large portion (probably most) of liberals don't care that much about the specifics about what Democrats do, as long as they send a variety of signals that tell them they're "one of them." One of the biggest problems with current Democrats/liberals is the fact that the biggest signal they look for is "how aggressively a politician attacks Republicans" (though I believe this is finally starting to change). While they also care to some extent about lip service paid towards issues like social or economic justice, ultimately most liberals think someone is a good progressive if they see them laying sweet burns on Trump/Republicans, regardless of what their own views/policy might be. They're basically a reaction to Republicans and don't have much of their own ideology. This even applies to stuff like social issues, where liberals usually focus more on preventing Republican attacks than actually addressing existing problems. A good example is the way Democrats deal with PoC. They (correctly) talk about and attempt to prevent stuff like Republicans implementing Voter ID laws, but do jack poo poo that will actually make a significant positive difference (I have absolutely zero doubt that the huge inequality between blacks and whites, for example, wouldn't be fixed even if Democrats controlled the government for 100 years). And the worst thing is that voters - and especially people who are the most at risk to Republican attacks, like minorities - are basically stuck with a dilemma where they're forced into continuing to elect Democrats in order to lessen the harm caused by Republicans. There isn't really any choice that will actually do anything to fix their problems, but that doesn't change the fact that voting for the Democrat is still the optimal choice. There isn't really much of a solution here other than being active in primaries and continuing to criticize and attack Democrats for poor behavior. At the very least, the 2016 primary showed that there's a pretty large degree of dissent within the party on these issues, even if mainstream liberals are still the majority (who vote in primaries, at least). I think the biggest thing the "lol people don't actually want leftism" people are ignoring is the fact that Sanders' performance in that primary would have been completely impossible in the past. While it's too soon to say whether they'll actually become a majority in the party, it's obvious that the portion of Democratic voters who support leftist politics is dramatically increasing.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You made the claim that increased turnout will always benefit democrats. This is not true in deep red districts. The democrat being too leftist is not the only way to increase turnout among republicans in deep red districts. But it is one the democrats have control over. Adopting single payer in the national platform doesnt have any effect on the democrats in purple and blue districts who already put single payer in their personal platform, it only affects the most marginal candidates in deep red districts who have determined they won't benefit from advocating that platform, so it hurts them by energizing GOP opposition, or forces them to disavow the national platform. Neither is a good outcome. That's why pelosi is against making it a part of the national platform despite personally advocating for single payer for decades. Literal nihilism. This is loving awesome. "If we hold no positions and believe in nothing, we cannot be attacked for those things. This is our way forward, to victory."
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
jfood posted:Literal nihilism. This is loving awesome. Do you think single payer healthcare is literally the only issue on which politicians might hold a strong position? Democrats like Ossoff and Quist certainly have strong beliefs about repealing the ACA and are campaigning on those beliefs. I'm happy they're not listening to the morons in this thread more worried about their purity than winning elections.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:winning elections. Yea... about that... lol. 'We have nothing to offer our constituency and we fight for nothing. Vote for us.' I just love how naked and shameless it is. The politics of the disconnected laid absolutely bare, perversely beautiful in it's own way.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
You have a reading problem, friend. Promising to oppose Trump's agenda is not nothing, and until we get a new president that's literally all democrats can do. They can promise single payer in the future, but they should only do that if it will help them get elected. And that promise probably will help in blue and purple districts, just not in red ones. Your purity tantrum is boring.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
BardoTheConsumer posted:And no matter which it is you will still complain. You will literally complain if he wins. Bingo, the politics of the online "purist" left is that of endless complaining, blame shifting and taking your ball home.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Your purity tantrum is boring. XyrlocShammypants posted:Bingo, the politics of the online "purist" left is that of endless complaining, blame shifting and taking your ball home. i'll cross post this from the other thread quote:[purity test] is used in the same way virtue signaling and political correctness are—dismissing criticism of real social problems by misattributing the reason for the person complaining as coming from their personal need to feel better than other people rather than that complainer's actual empathetic concern for how a problem hurts people. the person complaining feels bothered by the information they have, while the person using a dismissive term doesn't want to know more about the problem and it's easier to dismiss it as a character flaw than acknowledging that a hard-to-solve systemic problem exists.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
We're not friends but I do absolutely love what you're posting. I sincerely think it's loving amazing. Politics, stripped of ideology and cause, only leaving the belief that you're somehow entitled to be there because you're 'not them'. I don't even know how you get there, but it's like sitting on the event horizon watching a star collapse.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
If you want democrats to pass single payer, and that's really important to you, purity test has nothing to do with it. If you want democrats to pass single payer, and you want the DNC to dictate to every candidate that they must support single payer or disavow the national platform, and you don't care that your suggestion will make it harder for these Democrats to win, purity test is an accurate description of your position. If you're posting stupid poo poo like "If Democrats don't support single payer they're literally nihilists who campaign on nothing and hold no beliefs", purity test is an accurate description of your position.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
"wanting democrats to pass single payer is okay but god help you if you try to make democratic politicians take action on it"
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
these leftists are putting their virtue signaling about free healthcare above mommy and daddy getting business done
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
I don't really care about 'the purity' of your political beliefs, I'm fascinated by the complete absence of them.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Wanting Democrats to pass single payer is good, but demanding that every single candidate campaign on passing single payer is dumb because it will make it harder for the ones in deep red districts to win.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
so instead we'll build a majority where neither the national party nor half of the democratic congressional conference support it, thereby ensuring the passage of single payer!!!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You made the claim that increased turnout will always benefit democrats. This is not true in deep red districts. The democrat being too leftist is not the only way to increase turnout among republicans in deep red districts. But it is one the democrats have control over. Adopting single payer in the national platform doesnt have any effect on the democrats in purple and blue districts who already put single payer in their personal platform, it only affects the most marginal candidates in deep red districts who have determined they won't benefit from advocating that platform, so it hurts them by energizing GOP opposition, or forces them to disavow the national platform. Neither is a good outcome. That's why pelosi is against making it a part of the national platform despite personally advocating for single payer for decades. This is nothing but anecdotal bullshit. You have been saying that single-payer is the boogeyman among republicans for a long time now while providing zero evidence for it. You have been linked to polling data that concludes single-payer/Medicare For All is more popular among said republicans than the ACA is. jfood posted:We're not friends but I do absolutely love what you're posting. I sincerely think it's loving amazing. Even the script of the film Event Horizon is more based in fact than JeffersonClay's posting. Alienwarehouse fucked around with this message at 00:46 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
[in a 1968 version of jeffersonclay voice] why is mlk, the "reasonable" civil rights guy protesting the vietnam war and putting together a 'poor people's march' and putting pressure on the democratic party with these things? that's really damaging their relationship with lbj and their reputation with mainstream liberals all for some utopian morality politics.
Rodatose fucked around with this message at 00:51 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:This is nothing but anecdotal bullshit. You have been saying that single-payer is the boogeyman among republicans for a long time now while providing zero evidence for it. You have been linked to polling data that concludes single-payer/Medicare For All is more popular among said republicans than the ACA is. 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. Republicans are really secret socialists is probably the dumbest thing I've read in this thread, and that's saying a lot. Here's what the polling looks like when you don't frame the question around repealing obamacare. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Republicans are really secret socialists is probably the dumbest thing I've read in this thread, and that's saying a lot. Here's what the polling looks like when you don't frame the question around repealing obamacare. I agree that your 'secret socialist' strawman is pretty dumb. My claim was that single-payer is more popular among republicans than the ACA is (which it is), which would bring more republicans into the Democratic Party, especially the more poorer ones. And framing the question without it replacing Obamacare is especially dumb because thats not the reality that we live in.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
Does it improve the numbers if you frame it around repealing Obamacare?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 01:08
|
|