|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Radish posted:Based on May and the Tory's longstanding racism, their alliance with the BNP, and now their partnership with anti-LGBT politicians that's all we really need to know how incredibly committed they are to the social side of leftism. Kilroy was right when he said that Democrats literally stand for nothing except I guess for watered down economic conservatism. I'm becoming increasingly convinced they will intentionally let Trump win again regardless over what minorities he screws over or government programs he scraps since the alternative of someone to the left of Cory Booker is worse for them and everyone else be damned.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 01:13 |
|
|
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the conservative Democrats who were so frightened of the left that even though they were winning the primary they couldn't stop cheating just to be sure regardless of whether that helped Republicans win the general, are also siding with reactionaries abroad lmao.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
The Tories want to privatize the NHS to kill the poor, the Clinton Democrats ran on "we will never let anything like the NHS happen here, get hosed poors", of course they support each other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
quote:AXELROD: Just a couple more things. Are you worried about the Corbynization (ph) of the Democratic Party? Saw the Labor Party just sort of disintegrated in the face of their defeat and move so far left that it's, you know, in a very -- in a very frail state. And there is an impulse to respond to -- to the power of Trump by, you know, being as edgy... Mmmm, so hard to figure out what Obama thinks of Corbyn. And surely the former deputy chief of staff for Obama, who has a history of leading the biggest Democratic superpacs and nonprofits is just a strategist trying to make ends meet when he campaigns for May.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
bernie is a pretty centrist politician relative to corbyn, it's true
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:bernie is a pretty centrist politician relative to corbyn, it's true that's the crazy thing. why are the dems running right wing candidates like clinton?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
There's a part of me that really wants to see the meltdowns that would happen if the left dems run (and win) in the 2020 primaries with someone who makes Sanders look like an outright neocon, but I fully expect that in a timeline where it happened the immediate reaction would be a third party bad dem run by someone like Rahm or Bloomberg.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Condiv posted:that's the crazy thing. why are the dems running right wing candidates like clinton? Lack of viable third parties in the US encourages behavior in line with Hotelling's Law. It makes sense for the Democrats to run a centrist to maximize vote share as progressive voters will have no-one else to vote for (assuming they bother to vote at all). However this model predicts Republicans would similarly choose to run a bland centrist instead of an orange hued proto-fascist. Unfortunately Jeb was too good for this timeline and never got the chance to reveal his final form.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
I'm real loving sick of apologists for center-right democrats. Hillary and Obama can both go gently caress themselves and continue fellating corporate interests. My access to healthcare and wellbeing isn't a pawn in a political game where comfortably wealthy people get to hem and haw about issues they will never have to worry about
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:I am holding him as representative of the current Democratic establishment because what he said is in line with the current Democratic establishment. Obama should just stay on vacation. Also, good for Steve Coogan. It's always nice to find out there's one less person I have to hate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Lack of viable third parties in the US encourages behavior in line with Hotelling's Law. It makes sense for the Democrats to run a centrist to maximize vote share as progressive voters will have no-one else to vote for (assuming they bother to vote at all). However this model predicts Republicans would similarly choose to run a bland centrist instead of an orange hued proto-fascist. Unfortunately Jeb was too good for this timeline and never got the chance to reveal his final form. Hotelling makes some assumptions that probably don't hold up in politics, such as everyone wanting to vote badly enough to go with whatever party best represents them. In reality it looks like many would be voters just don't bother to show up if the party is too far away from them ideologically. The Republicans might be in a sweet spot of throwing meat to the right while still holding some marginal centrist appeal, while the Democrats are fine with abandoning and sometimes even antagonizing the left in pursuit of sliding ever right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Lack of viable third parties in the US encourages behavior in line with Hotelling's Law. It makes sense for the Democrats to run a centrist to maximize vote share as progressive voters will have no-one else to vote for (assuming they bother to vote at all). However this model predicts Republicans would similarly choose to run a bland centrist instead of an orange hued proto-fascist. Unfortunately Jeb was too good for this timeline and never got the chance to reveal his final form. Bolded where the theory falls apart in practice. People are all too willing to stay at home if they don't like any of the options available to them or they don't see a difference between their choices. In my experience, "both sides are bad so why should I bother" has been the second most common reason for not voting, behind only "my one vote won't make a difference".
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:I'm real loving sick of apologists for center-right democrats. Hillary and Obama can both go gently caress themselves and continue fellating corporate interests. As a Canadian (and secret Ameriphile  ) I give ya'll permission to create a third party. A... New Democratic Party™  .
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:Bolded where the theory falls apart in practice. People are all too willing to stay at home if they don't like any of the options available to them or they don't see a difference between their choices. In my experience, "both sides are bad so why should I bother" has been the second most common reason for not voting, behind only "my one vote won't make a difference". Sure, I'm not saying it's the optimal long-term strategy but Hotelling is a good working theory for why for any given race in a two-party FPTP system centrist candidates are favored for either side. It's at least part of the reason why Hillary was nominated over wild-eyed crazy-haired noted-racist socialist Sanders. Recent events may have demonstrated the problems of this approach wrt depressing turnout as you describe, but that will probably all be forgotten by next election. FPTP is also exactly why lots of people believe their individual votes don't matter or are essentially wasted, because they often are. Good luck getting that changed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Sure, I'm not saying it's the optimal long-term strategy but Hotelling is a good working theory for why for any given race in a two-party FPTP system centrist candidates are favored for either side. It's at least part of the reason why Hillary was nominated over wild-eyed crazy-haired noted-racist socialist Sanders. Recent events may have demonstrated the problems of this approach wrt depressing turnout as you describe, but that will probably all be forgotten by next election. It only accurately describes the behavior of one side though. The left moves to the right, towards the center, and the right also moves to the right, away from the center.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Mmmm, so hard to figure out what Obama thinks of Corbyn.  Honestly, I don't think guillotines are going to be enough. We're going to need to peer further back in history for more creative examples of how to purge these fuckers from politics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 05:37
|
|
Kilroy posted:And the faint praise of Bernie Sanders there: "Corbyn's an even bigger nutter than he is!" Part of the issue is that a great portion of the people on the left do not participate in politics because they've realized that no one wants to represent them. The only chance there is for this to change is for those people to become more involved on a local level and move things left within their own city/county. Like, the reason the nuts on the right managed to garner as much political power as they have is because they kept on pushing for their policies at a local level and made it work in smaller scale. What happens at a local level affects what happens at the higher levels. Keep in mind that showing up for marches is not what I'm talking about when I say "participate in politics." It takes actually showing up at local meetings and applying pressure in smaller group settings where a single person is a big deal, so being able to round up 10 of your friends to consistently show up makes a big splash. It's real hard compared to showing up with signs calling trump a oval office and being mad a weekend out of every 3 months, but that's what it actually takes.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:I'm real loving sick of apologists for center-right democrats. Hillary and Obama can both go gently caress themselves and continue fellating corporate interests. Exactly. I will never understand how anyone can defend that failure of a president in Obama. He was gifted the biggest oppurtunity in this century to change course and put those corporate interests on notice, but he blew it when it came to responding to the Recession. If anyone wasnt disappointed by Obama's term I have to seriously question if they are really leftist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Squandered? He was never going to take advantage of it at any point. Like Trump, he was basically lying through his teeth to get votes. He immediately shut down the grass roots orgs that got him in power once he was through the door. That he's still popular is a testament to just how drat charismatic the man is.
Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Jun 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:Squandered? He was never going to take advantage of it at any point. Like Trump, he was basically lying through his teeth to get votes. He immediately shut down the grass roots orgs that got him in power once he was through the door. That he's still popular is a testament to just how drat charismatic the man is. if they really were grass roots, how could he shut them down from on high
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
By not mobilising them and leaving them directionless. He basically left them high and dry with no real causes to work towards. He used them to mobilise a vote for himself. The orgs were then poised to do whatever he wanted to push for policy. He didn't use them for anything and gave them no backing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
The Democratic party decided rather intently what their play would be despite/through/immediately after the disastrous Bush term---them and the media were delighted with their little triangulated trifecta of Obama/Clinton/Edwards(sideshow foil even as their luck had it). The earnestness, and outright desperation at the time, of Gravel and Kucinich while they still had enough energy in them to not succumb to circumstances otherwise and try to plead a case for actual extreme course correction----all of that was pointedly smashed to pieces and buried as business far and away trumped governance and the public good. That Sanders was able to manage what he did against this sort of freshly reinforced deck was something, but still only so much given the stakes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:By not mobilising them and leaving them directionless. He basically left them high and dry with no real causes to work towards. He used them to mobilise a vote for himself. The orgs were then poised to do whatever he wanted to push for policy. He didn't use them for anything and gave them no backing. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:And the faint praise of Bernie Sanders there: "Corbyn's an even bigger nutter than he is!" You're not going to purge anyone or do anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Not with that attitude.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:You're not going to purge anyone or do anything. Guess you get to look forward to the GOP continuing to dominate US politics then?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:You're not going to purge anyone or do anything. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:At this point I wish I could cast a vote for Le Pen just on the off chance it'll mean jackboots smashing in this guy's door. bad dem also lol at admitting "I'd rather have facism than have my taxes go up"
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah but then how can you call them really grass roots huh seriously though how do you even think that a group that relies on outside political leadership for direction is grassroots?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
may i perhaps suggest that an organization that is the direct descendant of obama's 2008 campaign apparatus is not and never was a grassroots organization and the expectation that it ever would be is misplaced at best
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Money definitely helps (although a passport application is $135 not hundreds, it's still too much), but I'm actually pretty stunned to see someone downplay the importance of trans people being able to get the correct gender marker on federal ID without having surgery. This was a big, big deal especially for people in states with lovely policies towards trans people (most of them). And for me personally. I don't mean to down play what she did, just that it's. ..kind of irrelevant for those at the bottom of the pile, economically speaking. Fwiw, I'm a poor Trans woman living in a red state, and I'd take economic help over Trans rights, at least in this moment in time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/873712830486392832 https://twitter.com/therealroseanne/status/873715666435489792
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:wonder if this has any salience to the situation here... None, because we don't have a two-round system
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Corbyn's not even that left wing, his "unelectability" is mostly a result of wacky foreign policy positions, not domestic economic ones It's hard not to suspect that the party establishment, despite the constant screaming about left-wing purity politics, would actually rather lose on a centrist platform than win on a left one. The alarm at Corbyn is actually caused by him winning
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Exactly. I will never understand how anyone can defend that failure of a president in Obama. He was gifted the biggest oppurtunity in this century to change course and put those corporate interests on notice, but he blew it when it came to responding to the Recession. Obama is the greatest disaster in the history of the United States, far worse than the Civil War or WW2 or 9/11. Anyone who considered themselves a true leftist or liberal that doesn't spit on the ground when they say Obama's name is a fraud and a charlatan. We would have been better off with eight years of Sarah Palin than eight hours of Barack Obama.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:seriously though how do you even think that a group that relies on outside political leadership for direction is grassroots? You're right, of course; Obama's gotv efforts aren't 100% accurately described as grassroots, given that they were largely organized and lead by Obama staffers. This is despite the media using the term grassroots over and over again to describe the movement. At the same time, though, your quibbling about semantics - it may not have been a pure grassroots efforts, but it was still a very long distance from the Koch-funded Tea Party, and regardless of how Obama's Lost Army got started, the fact remains that his administration not only failed to utilize that movement post election, but his administration was actively antagonistic toward the movement thanks to its pernicious expectations of his presidency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
it's because the liberal intelligentsia class believes campaign staffers are the lowest-status individuals in the country who should be allowed to vote, and thus a movement of staffers is the most democratic possible thing they can imagine
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:I don't mean to down play what she did, just that it's. ..kind of irrelevant for those at the bottom of the pile, economically speaking. I can't really think of a major left wing movement these days that wouldn't push for both (octogenarian trots and DGR don't count as major). But yeah, it's frustrating to get lip-service when economic policies like at-will employment retain the discrimination that nominal non-discrimination laws are supposed to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:You're right, of course; Obama's gotv efforts aren't 100% accurately described as grassroots, given that they were largely organized and lead by Obama staffers. This is despite the media using the term grassroots over and over again to describe the movement. I mean its current post-2014 incarnation is largely driven by institutional Democratic Party individual donors, but whatever
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 01:13 |
|
|
The thing that pisses me off most about organizing for action is the name, who the gently caress are they organizing
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:27
|
|