|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
How is the left ever going to succeed if the Democrats never go left? Seriously, how is the country ever going to shift left if it is never given an option for the left, and never given an example of successful leftist policies ever again? The reason people don't trust left policies is because they are entirely rejected by the political class. That there exist leftists at all is kinda amazing given how utterly rejected the very idea is amongst the establishment. Wanting centrist Democrats to win is some cargo cult bullshit. Nobody should want Democrats to win anymore. Everyone should want Republicans to lose. But Democrats themselves have no good reason to root for beyond the fact that they happen to win when Republicans lose. Futuresight fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Jun 21, 2017 |
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
Brony Car posted:I'm not moving the goalposts. I just think you're reading too much into that Resistance Report link. The corporate DNC plan is to wait for the GOP to mess up the country so badly people will clamor for milquetoast liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Futuresight posted:How is the left ever going to succeed if the Democrats never go left? Seriously, how is the country ever going to shift left if it is never given an option for the left, and never given an example of successful leftist policies ever again? The reason people don't trust left policies is because they are entirely rejected by the political class. That there exist leftists at all is kinda amazing given how utterly rejected the very idea is amongst the establishment. My friend, the 2020 Democratic Primaries are going to be an absolute bloodbath. 1968 is going to look like a sandbox fight in comparison if the establishment systematically ratfucks the populist again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Can we try Left wing populism now? No!!! We need to show the Bernard brothers that our way works!!! Triangulation is real!! It's real and strong and the American people will vote in their millions for a radical centrist!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:halfass crotique what is this? Some kind of small pastry?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:My friend, the 2020 Democratic Primaries are going to be an absolute bloodbath. 1968 is going to look like a sandbox fight in comparison if the establishment systematically ratfucks the populist again. gently caress yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
I'm the corporate Dems betting everything on GA to prove centrism can still win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
In order for the Democrats to ratfuck the leftist, the leftist will have to not do worse than Hillary in 2008 and then hang around like a bad smell for months.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I spent like 5 minutes searching for the median wage in Seattle but I couldn't find it and gave up. It's certainly lower than 30, but probably not that much considering the number of professionals in the city. Rejection of ideology is a very ironic pillar of centrist ideology.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
Zikan posted:otoh jeremy corbyn David Graeber: The 2017 general election marked the popping of the Blair-Clinton bubble quote:Everyone is now scurrying around to answer the question of how they all got it so wrong, but almost no one is asking about the concept of “unelectability” itself. How did we get to the point where the candidate of a major party was judged not by his political vision, programme or sensibilities, but by an estimation of how different classes of imagined voters were likely to respond to him? One of the big knocks against Sanders in the primary was that he wasn't "electable", for whatever that was worth; even among many voters who openly preferred Sanders, they ultimately went with Clinton because they bought into the notion that she was the more electable candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Bernie had issues reaching out to minority voters and was counting on economic populism to win them over and it didn't work. Bernie didn't start campaigning until late 2015 out of deference to Clinton. He ran as a left wing protest candidate but didn't want to Nader the election (not that Gore losing was Nader's fault). When his message caught fire and he started winning he had to hastily cobble together a national campaign strategy under the leadership of a guy who ran a comic book store because that was who was available. Unsurprisingly, as people have been exposed to the dogged honesty of Bernie's message they have liked him more and more, and now he ranks as the most popular politician in America. Turns out it really was a question of getting to know him. Also it really didn't help that the centrist establishment did their best to throw Bernie under the bus to protect Hillary and deliberately misrepresented his record to voters who were not yet familiar with him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The corporate DNC plan is to wait for the GOP to mess up the country so badly people will clamor for milquetoast liberalism. Worked for Kansas. We have a lot of work ahead of us. If losing to Donald loving Trump didn't cause the right wing Democrats to literally seppuku on the steps of the Capitol building then no loss, no matter how shameful and pathetic and demoralizing will manage that trick. We need to crush them on our own. Luckily their only message is that they're the sane adults in the room. That's a pretty obvious lie when they're beating their heads against the same wall over and over again and seeing no results. It's obvious when they buy into conspiracy theories about Putin stealing America's ice cream. They're a gang of idiots with the posture of being adults. Nothing more, nothing less. And everybody except the hardcore Hillary Bros know it. Our boy J. Corbs has shown us that evil can be turned back. Even as the right wing Democrats (and Obama's pal Jimmy Messina) couldn't put the Tories over the top (and it looks like their alliance with Irish terrorists won't last too long). After so many years of Obama rubbing our tummy and telling us he was going to do something, anything we wanted, at least once, we are defused and disorganized. The growth of DSA and other leftist orgs is encouraging but can't be the end of the story. It has been very encouraging indeed to see cooperation between leftist orgs too, at least in Boston, because our enemy's greatest tool against us is how factionalized we are. If we have a strong message, if we have hope on our side, and if we work together we can make America less hosed up. Maybe even not hosed up, at least until we start getting popped with mega-hurricanes. It's gonna suck. The right wing Democrats won't give up an inch. As the whole thing with Keith Ellison and Tom Perez showed, the right wing Democrats can't conceive of giving anybody to the left of Reagan any say whatsoever in the running of the party. We cannot just roll over and accept fake ceremonial positions and empty concessions of words only. We're going to have to go further than Indivisible. We're going to have to build our own candidates from the ground up. We're going to have to primary right wing Democrats. And if we fail to primary them we need to get them out of power yes some Nadering will almost certainly be necessary. It's sad, it's going to hurt, but we have to think long game, not just six weeks down the road. We need an infrastructure to threaten the Democrats, and that needs to be at the ground level. (I am agnostic about entryisming the Democrats or splitting them and replacing their shattered husk... so long as there's a national party that supports my views who gives a poo poo?) But it can be done. It has to be done. We can't let the right wing control literally everything. The vast majority of Americans support many specific left wing causes. Health care. Minimum wage. And we are on a precipice of unprecedented change unlike anything we've seen since the industrial revolution. We can't let America turn into a cyberpunk wasteland or techno-feudalist slave state. Too many people hold their nose and vote for a lovely Democrat so an even shittier republican won't win. That's not how you loving win elections. And make no mistake, there's a huge underclass of people who care deeply about politics but (rightfully) view the Democrats and Republicans as two sides of a nefarious coin that wants to gently caress them hard. And, if Jez is any indication then you can get them to vote, you just have to have a message for them to believe in and not another empty suit they know doesn't care about them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
Gross hyperbole aside, it seems like the problem is how to run a populist campaign without alienating either social justice issue voters or the white working class, which was the needle Bernie couldn't seem to thread. That and nobody knew who he was because of the centrist establishment conspiracy, personally I just found out about him this morning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:This is why I say some chairs better be thrown at conventions. I really do not want to prison for the rest of my life. Also, lol you if you think conventions will allow dissidents in . Edit: I don't have 5 figures of disposable income to deal with the justice system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The average hourly wage in Seattle is above $30 so I wouldn't be surprised if this result holds up to $15. But be careful about generalizing the result to Spokane or Walla Walla. Just a minor note, but median is much better than average in situations like this. Average figures for wages tend to be high because they're skewed upward by wealthy people. edit: Like, I want to say the average yearly income for Americans is like ~$50k or something despite the median being closer to $30k. edit2: In a later post you refer to $30/hr as the median, but it is in fact the mean wage as you originally mentioned. edit3: Oh, you and another poster addressed this later. This is what I get for replying before reading all later posts. VitalSigns posted:I like how zero evidence is required to believe in Chicago School voodoo economics, but if you think people should get paid enough to feed their families whoa we need piles of evidence and by the way you aren't allowed to collect it because it would be too risky to try. It's because the people making arguments like JC's here usually aren't the ones who would benefit from minimum wage increases, so they tend to be very risk averse (since they personally only stand to lose from such a change). I don't think that they necessarily explicitly think this way, but it influences their own biases when they think about this stuff. Kokoro Wish posted:A New Harvard Study Just Shattered the Biggest Myth About Bernie Supporters: In the face of endless propaganda from Democratic establishment leaders, a new poll finds that Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vermont) popularity is greater among minorities and women than among whites and men. In all fairness this is probably true for most Democrats, just because minorities and women are more likely to be Democrats than whites/men. You would have to limit the statistic to just Democrats to properly address that claim (though the statistic in question does at least illustrate that Sanders isn't disliked by women/minorities). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Isn't Ossof just the kind of lovely dem that JC would pop a boner over? "Was it defeat to choose a lesser evil?" - Paul Maud'Dib, 'Dune'
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
tekz posted:https://twitter.com/wideofthepost/status/877353969420353537 This is literally all you need to know about how utterly unmitigated the establishment incompetence is right now, but I'm sure that the bad dems will find some way to justify blowing 5 millions in their chosen battleground on a wet fart while explaining away massive swings in ignored districts where the elections were fought on a shoestring budget.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 11:19
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:This is literally all you need to know about how utterly unmitigated the establishment incompetence is right now, but I'm sure that the bad dems will find some way to justify blowing 5 millions in their chosen battleground on a wet fart while explaining away massive swings in ignored districts where the elections were fought on a shoestring budget. There's people melting down in the GA election locked thread about BUT THE ALTERNATIVE WAS BETTER WHY DID THEY VOTE FOR THE WORSE CHOICE?!!? They are gonna ride this "It's okay to offer nothing of value but just be a Democrat" train all the way to the bottom
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I'm sure that the bad dems will find some way to justify blowing 5 millions in their chosen battleground on a wet fart while explaining away massive swings in ignored districts where the elections were fought on a shoestring budget. That one's easy. "Not our money" and "it's their problem now".
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:This is literally all you need to know about how utterly unmitigated the establishment incompetence is right now, but I'm sure that the bad dems will find some way to justify blowing 5 millions in their chosen battleground on a wet fart while explaining away massive swings in ignored districts where the elections were fought on a shoestring budget. It's frustrating as hell to see otherwise intelligent people put up blinders to the reality that the Democratic establishment is not serving them at all and are completely resistant to trying other alternatives like some weird collective political Stockholm Syndrome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Gross hyperbole aside, it seems like the problem is how to run a populist campaign without alienating either social justice issue voters or the white working class, which was the needle Bernie couldn't seem to thread. That and nobody knew who he was because of the centrist establishment conspiracy, personally I just found out about him this morning. How does economic populism not also tie in social justice issues? My theory is if we can close the gap between rich and poor, then it makes issues of social justice that much easier to obtain. We have to deal with income inequality to reach those goals IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:How does economic populism not also tie in social justice issues? In order for that to happen you first need to deal with the ongoing war on education. Poor stupid voters are easier to manipulate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:This is literally all you need to know about how utterly unmitigated the establishment incompetence is right now, but I'm sure that the bad dems will find some way to justify blowing 5 millions in their chosen battleground on a wet fart while explaining away massive swings in ignored districts where the elections were fought on a shoestring budget. "We were right when we said that helping those other candidates would only hurt their chances  "
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:How does economic populism not also tie in social justice issues? Hard to deal with income inequality when your dad's in jail because of the war on drugs or your mom was deported, or you were fired for being gay or trans. Also difficult when reproductive rights are diminished and you're now a teenage single mom. You can't solve income inequality without dealing with the social and legal inequalities that cause it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:How does economic populism not also tie in social justice issues? Hey, you don't have to convince me!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
kenner116 posted:Hard to deal with income inequality when your dad's in jail because of the war on drugs or your mom was deported, or you were fired for being gay or trans. Also difficult when reproductive rights are diminished and you're now a teenage single mom. You can't solve income inequality without dealing with the social and legal inequalities that cause it. Why not both?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
kenner116 posted:Hard to deal with income inequality when your dad's in jail because of the war on drugs or your mom was deported, or you were fired for being gay or trans. Also difficult when reproductive rights are diminished and you're now a teenage single mom. You can't solve income inequality without dealing with the social and legal inequalities that cause it. Yea but more money would help in all of those situations. It's not a panacea, but being poor makes everything else harder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
Money virtually solves any issue. It wont solve the meaning of life, but I cant imagine any other situation it doesnt resolve. Even all the stuff you posted Kenner can be eliminated with more money.
Confounding Factor fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
"Livable wage?! Bwhaha gently caress off." - Republicans courting their voters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
kenner116 posted:Hard to deal with income inequality when your dad's in jail because of the war on drugs or your mom was deported, or you were fired for being gay or trans. Also difficult when reproductive rights are diminished and you're now a teenage single mom. You can't solve income inequality without dealing with the social and legal inequalities that cause it. and likewise, you can't actually solve social issues without trying to fix income inequality, because income inequality is a massive component in a lot of social issues (black people paid less than white people, women paid less than men, etc). economic justice and social justice are inseperable parts of the whole known as justice. trying to work towards only one or the other just means you're striving towards injustice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and likewise, you can't actually solve social issues without trying to fix income inequality, because income inequality is a massive component in a lot of social issues (black people paid less than white people, women paid less than men, etc). economic justice and social justice are inseperable parts of the whole known as justice. trying to work towards only one or the other just means you're striving towards injustice. But I think Kenner is trying to make an argument where social and economic issues can be mutually exclusive. Every issue he brought up in his post can be addressed with money. That's why I find it very difficult to imagine a situation that can't be fixed by having more money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:But I think Kenner is trying to make an argument where social and economic issues can be mutually exclusive. Every issue he brought up in his post can be addressed with money. One word: Drugs. Doesn't matter if you sell them on the playground or over a counter; drugs make dosh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
kenner116 posted:Hard to deal with income inequality when your dad's in jail because of the war on drugs or your mom was deported, or you were fired for being gay or trans. Also difficult when reproductive rights are diminished and you're now a teenage single mom. You can't solve income inequality without dealing with the social and legal inequalities that cause it. Do tell me how letting and/or helping the 1% hoard most of the wealth in the country contributes towards solving any of these problems. sirtommygunn posted:"We were right when we said that helping those other candidates would only hurt their chances I think it's going to be this, because it's the dumbest possible reply.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I think it's going to be this, because it's the dumbest possible reply. No, here's the hot take (in regards to getting rid of Pelosi): https://twitter.com/Drew_Hammill/status/877358746434887680 "Change leadership? But $$$$!!!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No, here's the hot take (in regards to getting rid of Pelosi) "Change leadership? But $$$$!!!" He's got a point. Elections spanning entire years tend to be pointlessly expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:He's got a point. Didn't Bernie (and Obama, for that matter) both raise a crazy amount of money through small dollar donations, aka donations from the common people. The idea that we should hang on to Pelosi due to her fundraising ability is disgusting, to me. There might be other reasons she is worthwhile (whatever the gently caress "consensus building" refers to) but it's just a gross sentiment to express. "We can't change things, she brings in the dollars."
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No, here's the hot take (in regards to getting rid of Pelosi): That's pretty good as well, but at least it doesn't imply that the Dem establishment is so toxic that having anything whatsoever to do with them is a sure kiss of death for a candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Do tell me how letting and/or helping the 1% hoard most of the wealth in the country contributes towards solving any of these problems. Trickle-down economics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Didn't Bernie (and Obama, for that matter) both raise a crazy amount of money through small dollar donations, aka donations from the common people. Obama is taking money from Wall Street now, and Bernie owns 3 houses now. Heck, Bernie ain't even a Dem, what's he hanging around 'em for? Don't you have Liberal parties in America?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:Didn't Bernie (and Obama, for that matter) both raise a crazy amount of money through small dollar donations, aka donations from the common people. Crazy by small donation standards, or crazy like fund every race in the country standards?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 13:38
|
|