|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Because he ran as a Democrat But if he's influential enough to have his people tip the scales in Trump's favor because of Hillary, surely he'd still be the most popular choice of the three?
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
Avirosb posted:But if he's influential enough to have his people tip the scales in Trump's favor because of Hillary, He wouldn't have been actually, and it's hard for me to understand how you could possibly think that. Voluntarily splitting your ticket against a party who regularly gets half of voters to vote for them sounds like a pretty bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:
I haven't read a transcript, so I wouldn't know what the hell he's saying. All I'm trying to say is thatI don't know why giving a speech to some incredibly rich people that isn't just a cry to "eat the rich" is somehow going to turn into a sycophantic blowjob that then turns him into a complete hypocrite. I don't think it's terrible to take the money (although it'd be better from an optics point of view if he didn't), but I also can't imagine our nation being able to progress on a variety of issues if the financial and business sectors don't cooperate because they feel like they're under attack by everyone with a left-leaning bent. Maybe I'm just too far gone to picture what you guys are picturing. Hopefully some good "insurgent" candidates get out there and we'll see how a more confrontational stance works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You're being a real dumbo here because the GOP sure as poo poo won't ignore what Obama is doing and will happily use that to tar the entire Democratic Party by association. Bill Clinton getting a blowjob was used to rile up the GOP base for decades. Bill Clinton signing NAFTA was exploited by Trump to win the rust belt only seven and a half months ago. You don't actually have your preferred fantasy electorate, and this kind of poo poo does matter. Obama taking wall street cash could just as easily be used come the next election to paint the Dems as corrupt corporate stooges in the pocket of big money, which is a really good way of killing grassroots enthusiasm for a Dem candidate because it's actually got truth to it. You would've had a case in 2016. If Democrats run against "but Obama gave some speeches to Wall St after retirement" in 2020, it's an auto-win. And if leftism requires an endless stream of pure Jesus figures to be viable, it's hosed anyway. Edit: not that the most progressive president of my lifetime is actually a lefty, per se.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:You would've had a case in 2016. If Democrats run against "but Obama gave some speeches to Wall St after retirement" in 2020, it's an auto-win. because the GOP just won doing exactly that? why would critisizing obama lead to an "auto-win" for the Democrats, noted losers of elections to Donald Trump
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:He wouldn't have been actually, and it's hard for me to understand how you could possibly think that. It would have been a start, at least. Reform movements don't happen over night. It would also be a good indicator to see whether the Dems or a more Left-leaning party would've had better support. If the latter had come out stronger then the Dems would likely be forced to adapt some of their policies too keep up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:As long as there are democrats more concerned about which gender specific pronouns are appropriate for California limousine liberals instead of directly addressing the concerns of Baltimore, Portland, and the entire Rustbelt, you'll get Republicans running poo poo forever. As opposed to the noble Republicans, concerned about what color Starbucks cups are?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted: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. Not even loving close to being right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
It's really great that every politician in America up to and including the President is given huge sums of free money from Wall Street and other special interests as soon as they leave office. I'm sure this doesn't create any perverse incentives. It's also great that the President plays a purely managerial and functional role and that his actions carry no symbolic weight and say nothing about the internal culture of his party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:It would also be a good indicator to see whether the Dems or a more Left-leaning party would've had better support. why don't we just move the dems leftward from the inside?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It's really great that every politician in America up to and including the President is given huge sums of free money from Wall Street and other special interests as soon as they leave office. I'm sure this doesn't create any perverse incentives. It's also great that the President plays a purely managerial and functional role and that his actions carry no symbolic weight and say nothing about the internal culture of his party. It's a bad look, if anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:But if he's influential enough to have his people tip the scales in Trump's favor because of Hillary, What? No. Any argument that Bernie could have won is predicated on the idea that he'd draw more support from people who stayed home or voted Trump than he'd lose from diehard Hillary voters voting Trump or staying home. We're talking single digit percentages at best here, with the rest of his voters being the Democratic base that would happily vote for anyone with a D next to their name. A third party Bernie run probably would have looked a lot like Perot's '92 run, except with a disproportionate amount of support being drawn off of Clinton. You really seem to be misunderstanding how American politics work and/or drastically underestimating just how partisan this country is. Most people don't identify as left or right, they identify as Republicans, Democrats, or independents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:why don't we just move the dems leftward from the inside? You're right, that's sounds much easier. How much money do you have on you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:You would've had a case in 2016. If Democrats run against "but Obama gave some speeches to Wall St after retirement" in 2020, it's an auto-win. You mean how like Hillary obviously was an auto-win in 2016? PerniciousKnid posted:And if leftism requires an endless stream of pure Jesus figures to be viable, it's hosed anyway. Ah yes, the incedible purity requirement of not taking money you don't need from a widely loathed institution. I also note that you didn't actually address the substance of my post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:You're right, that's sounds much easier. Voters are better than money if you want to move the party There are these things called primaries
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Any argument that Bernie could have won is predicated on the idea that he'd draw more support from people who stayed home or voted Trump than he'd lose from diehard Hillary voters voting Trump or staying home. We're talking single digit percentages at best here, with the rest of his voters being the Democratic base that would happily vote for anyone with a D next to their name. A third party Bernie run probably would have looked a lot like Perot's '92 run, except with a disproportionate amount of support being drawn off of Clinton. It would amount to largely the same outcome, with the Dems & Bernie blaming each other over their losses. You'd still avoid Bernie Sanders endorsing Hillary though, but hey, that's hindsight for ya.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:You're right, that's sounds much easier. This kind of thinking is poisonous from the start. Money is not the end all be all. Like, out of curiosity, how much did the Labor party just spend in the UK? I'm guessing nowhere near what we spend on elections. e: I looked it up, it was only like 7 million pounds, which seems laughably small in comparison to ours. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/02/labour-expects-to-spend-less-than-half-tories-on-general-election-2017-campaign WampaLord fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:I also can't imagine our nation being able to progress on a variety of issues if the financial and business sectors don't cooperate because they feel like they're under attack by everyone with a left-leaning bent. They will never cooperate. That's what Obama thought in 2009, that if he played nice with business and protected them from the millions of people whose lives they ruined, then finance would act in its enlightened self-interest and support Democrats. Instead they stole houses with the most massive forgery operation in history and shrieked that Obama was Hitler if he offered even mild criticism of their crimes in the press. The insurance companies were supposed to support the exchanges and work to keep the health care system functioning in exchange for a mandatory customer base and guaranteed profits forever. They immediately set about squeezing the system and trying to extort the FTC by pulling out of markets if they didn't get favors. Who cares if the system burns down in 5 years if the CEO can get profit now, 5 from now years is someone else's problem. gently caress em. They're less than 1% of the population and everyone hates them, their approval is not required for anything at all and they will actively sabotage you if you try to please them. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
In other words:President Franklin Delano Roosevelt posted:We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This kind of thinking is poisonous from the start. Money is not the end all be all. It certainly is if you want to influence political candidates. Things like showing pictures of dead children have proven pretty ineffective so far.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
We don't need to influence political candidates, we need to primary them
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:It certainly is if you want to influence political candidates. Well then you've lost before you've started, you're already agreeing to pre-sellout. Why would anyone vote for you? NewForumSoftware posted:We don't need to influence political candidates, we need to primary them 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Voters are better than money if you want to move the party That really depends on how many Socialist voters there are compared to the others. I recall there being said that quite a lot less people would've voted for Bernie if he hadn't cozied up to centrist Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:It certainly is if you want to influence political candidates. And this is why Theresa May has a 59 seat majority in the U.K.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Well then you've lost before you've started, you're already agreeing to pre-sellout. Why would anyone vote for you? Nobody votes for the NRA, yet they keep putting money in Republican pockets. Money buys influence, that much is evident.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Zikan posted:And this is why Theresa May has a 59 seat majority in the U.K. I don't follow UK politics but from what I've heard, I wish her the best of luck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:In other words: 80 years on, that is incredibly depressing to read. Obama came to power at a similar time and turned out to be a conman on the side of capital, what a trash fire president.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Maybe the Dems could try Radical Centrism next time instead of just run of the mill Centrism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:Maybe the Dems could try Radical Centrism next time instead of just run of the mill Centrism. "she's against a living wage? well i'm for bringing more sweatshops to america!!! checkmate republican  "
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:Nobody votes for the NRA, yet they keep putting money in Republican pockets. NRA members seem to vote very reliably and the NRA has a large sway on non-member voters too. Even Sanders has a mixed record on guns because of how going "too far" on gun policy can costs you in many states where owernship rates are high.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:Maybe the Dems could try Radical Centrism next time instead of just run of the mill Centrism. Isn't that the Libertarian party?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:I don't follow UK politics but from what I've heard, I wish her the best of luck. The joke is that May's Tory party outspent Corbyn's Labour 3:1 in an election May called and still lost their majority because it turns out that a leftist policy platform is very popular.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You mean how like Hillary obviously was an auto-win in 2016? Hillary was a candidate, Obama is not. Has there ever been an example of a candidate whose post-presidential non-political activities impacted their party's election fortunes? Did JFK and Nixon debate Truman's retirement activities? I'm just not aware of any reason to think Obama's speeches will have an electoral impact. Plus Obama never campaigned as a Sanders-style progressive such that he's being obviously hypocritical. And how much heat did Trump take for the war in Iraq, an actual political decision by his party? I mean, if you want to take down your Obama Teen Beat poster, I understand. I just don't see how it has any projected electoral impact. Edit: I'm pretty sure Bill was still in office when he signed NAFTA. tekz posted:80 years on, that is incredibly depressing to read. Obama came to power at a similar time and turned out to be a conman on the side of capital, what a trash fire president. PerniciousKnid fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Plus Obama never campaigned as a Sanders-style progressive such that he's being obviously hypocritical.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:That really depends on how many Socialist voters there are compared to the others. To use the old 90s line, "Where else are they going to go?" If we get a socialist elected in the primary are these imaginary "centrist Democrats" going to vote for Republicans?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Glazier posted:To use the old 90s line, "Where else are they going to go?" If we get a socialist elected in the primary are these imaginary "centrist Democrats" going to vote for Republicans? Thing is, even if a socialist got elected s/he'd still be a political pariah of sorts, like Trump is now except he's with the GOP, and s/he'd have to contend with obstructionism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
How many people have used the "You celebrated when Corbyn lost, y u not celebrate Ossof?" take so far?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:This might be a new one, Obama being in the pocket of the financial industry isn't a big deal because he was always in their pocket? I can't say you're wrong, but I also can't see how Democrats can argue we should support them when their party leadership behaves this way. What I mean is, if Bernie Sanders 2.0 runs, it's hard to paint them with the same brush and call Sanders a hypocrite by association. Similar to how Candidate Trump's apostasy on GOP issues would make it difficult to tie him to Iraq. If a candidate non-progressive enough to be tied to Obama is running, everyone here will be rooting for their failure anyway. Even if someone demonstrates that Obama's retirement matters. steinrokkan posted:How many people have used the "You celebrated when Corbyn lost, y u not celebrate Ossof?" take so far?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:Those who don't abstain from voting will probably vote Dem regardless, or somewhere more along the middle. Not if they have long coat tails ridden by local candidates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
On the topic of scisms, have an article: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/the-difference-between-liberalism-and-leftism Although it is nice to see more attention drawn to the distinction between liberal and left, this is unfortunately a misrepresentation of the left as having the same handwavy high level goals as liberals, with only a disagreement on purity and approach.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:56
|
|
