|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
EugeneJ posted:I think it will be intriguing if Bernie runs again to see how the DNC treats him this time around (if he doesn't run as an independent) They will openly attempt to discredit him from day one, and smear him as a party splitting racist that cost them the presidency.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:01 |
|
|
Judging from what's happening in Britain, it's the centrist way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Are you guys actually reading that article? I don't see what the major disagreement is here, and I'm lefty as gently caress. It's not about moving party positions to the center, it's about appealing to moderate Republicans through targeted messaging. That is 100% unrelated to "triangulation" or Third Way politics, which are focused on changing actual platform positions to appeal to moderate voters. A hypothetical labor-focused Democratic party should appeal to the white professional class that makes up a lot of the Republican base because those people are part of the working class, even if they don't want to admit it. Kilroy posted:I think you'd be surprised. The only problem is that the message can not be conveyed through the medium of TV spots and snappy one-liners in Presidential debates. It requires a long conversation, over the course of years, with successful policy you can point to which is informed by the principles you're trying to advocate and get people to adopt. It requires grassroots effort and competing in local and state elections to get the message out. It requires a coherent core of policy goals that the party shares nationwide, so people know what Democrats stand for. If you're constantly focused on the gaming the next election to eke out a 50%+1 victory using the minimum of donor assets, then you're totally unequipped to do politics that way, if you even thought it was a thing you should do, which you almost certainly do not. Yeah, I agree with these. It's great and all that the Republican base seems to be on the verge of dying off, but even if that actually threatened their power, it doesn't mean the overton window is going to move to a one party utopia all of the sudden. And anyway, more than likely all the GOP is going to have to do is exactly what's its been doing, continue to gradually soften its blatant racism and other forms of bigotry and it will still stay competitive because it has plenty of other dumb randian, more-money-for-us-gently caress-you, bible thumping morality positions to offer people besides just the opportunity to vote for the party that supports shooting unarmed black people and deporting mexicans. We have to stop being so hostile and averse to reaching across the isle. And as is outlined above that doesn't mean compromising positions ala Obama it means putting in the hours, pounding the pavement, organizing and laying the ground work in these communities for a cultural shift that can actually reach some of these people. It doesn't matter that the GOP is filled with dumb racists, first because they are far from all being that way, and second because if literal White Supremacists can change than so can a bunch of poor rural white people who's primary problem is that they watch too much goddamn fox news. How we treat and communicate with the other side has always been a bit of a sticking point for me because I expect us to know better. Partisanship is eating this country alive, the planet is melting, and we're yucking it up on the deck of the Titanic. All because it's so much more enjoyable to vitriolically mock, ridicule, and rage at the country's cultural equivalent of Charlie Gordon. While at the same time ignoring any possibility that they could ever change, much less approaching them in a less hostile and condescending way that may actually encourage and facilitate said change. At one point it may have actually been possible that our grand kids wouldn't have to learn to breathe under water but that time has past. This is a lesson rich people, who say "gently caress the poor", never learn until they take a wrong turn through the wrong neighborhood on their way back to their gated community and find themselves staring down the barrel of the consequences of their own inaction. There aren't enough walls that we can put up between us and them to shield ourselves from the negative effects of their ignorance. We have to be our brothers keeper, not out of morality, but out of self-preservation. Whether we like it or not, we have to live with these people, and what happens to them also affects us. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Jun 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:We have to stop being so hostile and averse to reaching across the isle. And as is outlined above that doesn't mean compromising positions ala Obama it means putting in the hours, pounding the pavement, organizing and laying the ground work in these communities for a cultural shift that can actually reach some of these people. Again, a painfully naive West Wing view of politics. People don't shift parties based on poo poo like this, they just vote for the more charismatic candidate. How else do you explain Obama -> Trump voters? You can't just magically convert your opponents through words/messaging alone, not in any significant amount.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Don't take this nihilism to the opposite extreme - of course it is possible to change the voting behavior of people. It takes long time to register on an aggregate scale, but it does happen constantly. It also has nothing to do with talking down to people (the "West Wing" approach), and everything with infiltrating the praxis of the community, meaning becoming linked to people who actually do tangible things for these communities, and by providing them with support.
steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Jun 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Don't take this nihilism to the opposite extreme - of course it is possible to change the voting behavior of people. It takes long time to register on an aggregate scale, but it does happen constantly. It also has nothing to do with talking down to people (the "West Wing" approach), and everything with infiltrating the praxis of the community, meaning becoming linked to people who actually do tangible things for these communities, and by providing them with support. "Infiltrating the praxis of a community". Ahahahahahaha.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Don't take this nihilism to the opposite extreme - of course it is possible to change the voting behavior of people. It takes long time to register on an aggregate scale, but it does happen constantly. It also has nothing to do with talking down to people (the "West Wing" approach), and everything with infiltrating the praxis of the community, meaning becoming linked to people who actually do tangible things for these communities, and by providing them with support. This sounds like a loving bad plan to rely on, then. We need a more immediate solution, like "don't run a loving banker scum candidate."
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Partisanship is eating this country alive Because the right is radicalizing. We can't chase after them without joining them. Specifically, what are you recommending people do?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This sounds like a loving bad plan to rely on, then. We need a more immediate solution, like "don't run a loving banker scum candidate." Sure, it's not either or, those things should be happening simultaneously. The party should be composed of many layers of membership and leadership doing with various areas of competence, not just of the Pelosis and Schumers on the top.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
I like the contrast between the belief that moderate Republicans can't be swayed without compromising fundamental principles but apparently nativists can. I mean, I'm 90% sure it's down to how y'all fundamentally believe racism isn't a thing in and of itself than you being generally willing to turn ICE loose on winning elections. But it's still funny.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
One of the elements of the argument that this is all just a matter of education and dialogue I find so confusing is what do these folks think has been happening for well over a century? That conceptualization of the problem is old as dirt and clearly engaged in already presently and much more so historically. When you consider that the bulk of efforts have exactly been on those lines and with meager success I would presume the matter would speak for itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I like the contrast between the belief that moderate Republicans can't be swayed without compromising fundamental principles but apparently nativists can. I mean, I'm 90% sure it's down to how y'all fundamentally believe racism isn't a thing in and of itself than you being generally willing to turn ICE loose on winning elections. But it's still funny. It's because moderate Republicans are typically voting in their (short-term) material interests while poor nativists are typically mistakenly voting against their material interests. That plus FYGMism just seeming to be a natural state for most well off people under capitalism makes people think it would be more useful to try and break nativists from their poisonous ideology than to convince one of the most self-entitled demographics in the entire world that the status quo that helps them currently is actually bad. Or they're secretly all racists who want to link up with their more overtly racist brethren. I'm sure that makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:One of the elements of the argument that this is all just a matter of education and dialogue I find so confusing is what do these folks think has been happening for well over a century? That conceptualization of the problem is old as dirt and clearly engaged in already presently and much more so historically. Efforts at dialogue, or rather outreach, do not happen to be uniformly distributed, right? Isn't it quite uncontroversial that certain areas have been entirely dominated by GOP agents, and vice versa? I mean in the aftermath of this election there was suddenly an avalanche of people trying to get politically involved only to find out their local party office was defunct. And appealing to people through talking heads on TV alone is ineffectual, it only works for the right because there are actually people on the ground, embedded in communities, who integrate right wing talking points into public life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Futuresight posted:It's because moderate Republicans are typically voting in their (short-term) material interests while poor nativists are typically mistakenly voting against their material interests. That plus FYGMism just seeming to be a natural state for most well off people under capitalism makes people think it would be more useful to try and break nativists from their poisonous ideology than to convince one of the most self-entitled demographics in the entire world that the status quo that helps them currently is actually bad. Like I said, y'all don't believe in racism, because white supremacy is in the self-interest of white people, just like how capitalist exploitation is in the self-interest of capitalists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
I do believe in racism. And I fervently hope racism dies some day because it's a terrible scourge on humanity. But also because then people who think like you will lose the one thing preventing you from loving off to the right where you belong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Futuresight posted:It's because moderate Republicans are typically voting in their (short-term) material interests while poor nativists are typically mistakenly voting against their material interests. That plus FYGMism just seeming to be a natural state for most well off people under capitalism makes people think it would be more useful to try and break nativists from their poisonous ideology than to convince one of the most self-entitled demographics in the entire world that the status quo that helps them currently is actually bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Futuresight posted:I do believe in racism. And I fervently hope racism dies some day because it's a terrible scourge on humanity. But also because then people who think like you will lose the one thing preventing you from loving off to the right where you belong. And yet you can offer no substantial response.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I like the contrast between the belief that moderate Republicans can't be swayed without compromising fundamental principles but apparently nativists can. I mean, I'm 90% sure it's down to how y'all fundamentally believe racism isn't a thing in and of itself than you being generally willing to turn ICE loose on winning elections. But it's still funny. rich suburban republicans are fundamentally good people who are just voting for people like paul ryan through some simple misunderstanding. poor white people in kentucky are just racist in their dna and can never be convinced or won over; indeed their mere presence in a left-of-center political community will inevitably corrupt that community and infect it with racist bernie bro ism
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:rich suburban republicans are fundamentally good people who are just voting for people like paul ryan through some simple misunderstanding. poor white people in kentucky are just racist in their dna and can never be convinced or won over; indeed their mere presence in a left-of-center political community will inevitably corrupt that community and infect it with racist bernie bro ism This is quite the revealing interpretation of my post. I hope you won't engage in it when you're doing that outreach y'all are constantly engaged in while big-city identity politics meomiberals like Maxine Waters exploit the proletariat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Efforts at dialogue, or rather outreach, do not happen to be uniformly distributed, right? Isn't it quite uncontroversial that certain areas have been entirely dominated by GOP agents, and vice versa? I mean in the aftermath of this election there was suddenly an avalanche of people trying to get politically involved only to find out their local party office was defunct. And appealing to people through talking heads on TV alone is ineffectual, it only works for the right because there are actually people on the ground, embedded in communities, who integrate right wing talking points into public life. Depends on the time and place, I think. I won't deny it is certainly one important tool to utilize, that is just objectively true. My confusion comes from the fact that it has been widely utilized as a technique to the point that I think one could reasonably argue it is the primary strategy leftists rely on. And yet the country, in terms of who controls actual power, has been decisively becoming more right wing, more capitalist over time. Even the much lauded New Deal period was accompanied by an incredible expansion of corporate power and influence over the state. Clearly there is a bit more going on than a simple lack of reaching out to folks on their own terms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I like the contrast between the belief that moderate Republicans can't be swayed without compromising fundamental principles but apparently nativists can. I mean, I'm 90% sure it's down to how y'all fundamentally believe racism isn't a thing in and of itself than you being generally willing to turn ICE loose on winning elections. But it's still funny. So you agree with this statement? Chuck Schumer posted:“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
White Rock posted:So you agree with this statement? I don't see how you could conclude that from my post. It'd be like if I were to suggest that Bernie supporters wanted to deport all first-generation immigrants at gunpoint, simply because they rush to defend the idea of catering to nativism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Only if Chuck was referring to the Republican Party. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
I think my favorite part of all this is the guy who conflated "moderate" with "rich", such that he immediately assumed poor Republicans were all reactionaries, but also that they should be catered to anyways. A political organization that merges the left and the right... I wonder what you'd call that...
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I think my favorite part of all this is the guy who conflated "moderate" with "rich", such that he immediately assumed poor Republicans were all reactionaries, but also that they should be catered to anyways. A political organization that merges the left and the right... I wonder what you'd call that... Garbage Poor Republicans should be catered to because they are poor and all poor should be cared for. flashman fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jun 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
B5 thinks moderates aren't reactionaries??
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:It's great and all that the Republican base seems to be on the verge of dying off This lovely salve needs to go away. Never underestimate the power of propaganda to convert more reactionaries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Romney Republicans are big on education and infrastructure, as evidenced by their support of the Republican party. We get them on our side instead of the poors imo
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
So do any of y'all see any inherent conflict between left-wing principles and catering to nativism? If you don't know what nativism means, feel free to ask.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Feel free to define the special terms you use without prompt
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Feel free to define the special terms you use without prompt Wow, what kind of college education are you getting where they don't teach you what "nativism" means? Is your college accredited?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Feel free to define the special terms you use without prompt
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/Ref...0973c89fbfa3eba K so what does this have to do with not crafting your policy around "moderate Republicans"
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Wow, what kind of college education are you getting where they don't teach you what "nativism" means? Is your college accredited?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So do any of y'all see any inherent conflict between left-wing principles and catering to nativism? If you don't know what nativism means, feel free to ask. Who specifically is calling for catering too nativism? What does that entail? Are you referring to reaching out to blue collar workers in Trump dominated constituencies? Hey before you answer, how about you spend like more then 50 words trying to explain what the hell your trying to say,
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I think my favorite part of all this is the guy who conflated "moderate" with "rich", such that he immediately assumed poor Republicans were all reactionaries, but also that they should be catered to anyways. A political organization that merges the left and the right... I wonder what you'd call that... When Schumer talks about Suburban Moderate Republicans, and when that Ossof staffer talks about Panera Suburbanites, the people they are referring to are rich, and implicitly white. The fact you seem to think those people aren't 100% as racist as the Klanniest white dude in Kentucky says a lot about your burning hatred of the left and of the public at large, inasmuch as they both threaten the status of elite liberals icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Jun 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
flashman posted:K so what does this have to do with not crafting your policy around "moderate Republicans" One of your fellow mouth-breathers decided to cast aspersions on a familiar historical and political term, so it was necessary for someone to offer correction. Kilroy posted:I think we all know what nativism means, but we kinda want to be clear on what you think it means, because one of your many lovely gimmicks is using terms like that to mean something other than the usual, and then claim that everyone else is talking past you or not making sense because they didn't read your mind before (making the mistake of) replying to your posts. Sure you do. You are the most virtuous people on the face of the planet, unfairly bedeviled. White Rock posted:Who specifically is calling for catering too nativism? What does that entail? Are you referring to reaching out to blue collar workers in Trump dominated constituencies? You are rejecting the idea of trying to attract moderate Republicans on the grounds that there is insufficient common ground to bring them in without compromising on principles. But, you do not offer an iota of this skepticism when it comes to the common ground and differing principles when it comes to nativist beliefs like: Call Me Charlie posted:You've been reading (and making fun of) my posts for two years now and you still haven't put together the puzzle pieces to realize that I'm a union bred Democrat that heavily anti-free trade/immigration? So do you just believe that being anti-immigration doesn't compromise left-wing principles, or do you believe that nativists will just automatically abandon their xenophobia if you say "Medicare for all" enough times? icantfindaname posted:When Schumer talks about Suburban Moderate Republicans, and when that Ossof staffer talks about Panera Suburbanites, the people they are referring to are rich, and implicitly white. A moment's reflection should be enough to realize that I can hardly be both of those people, and am not likely either. Also don't capitalize like you've got unmedicated schizophrenia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
It's OK to actively support the death of those less fortunate than you as long as you abstract the mechanism of their death to something neat and rationalized - dignified, like the market. Thus the moderate Republican of the Romney camp is much more respectable than a redneck, despite having infinitely more blood on his hands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:01 |
|
|
In other words, I love to cause death and suffering while maintaining a moral high ground in the strictly cordoned off area of acceptable public discourse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 20:21
|
|