|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
There's two annoying red herrings that keep popping up in this thread again and again: - That the left demands purity. Which is bullshit. Over 90% of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary. Bernie himself wasn't perfect by any left wing standard. Hell, I donated money for Ossof. There is, however, plenty of examples of centrists bailing out on left wing candidates because of purity. See Ellison for DNC chair, Corbyn in the UK, Ned Lamont in the 2006 CT primary - That the left cares about economic issues at the expense of social issues. Again, bullshit. Name a single left wing figure who is also not left wing on social issues. What you do have, once again, are centrists who only care about social issues and not economic ones. See, again, Deray McKesson, who is all about Beyonce videos and talking to Katy Perry about cultural appropriation, but loves to bust unions and fire teachers in his professional life. So the debate isn't economic issues versus social issues. It's economic and social issues versus only social issues. There are a ton of centrist democrats who are perfectly fine with busting unions, cutting social spending and privatizing schools while caring exclusively about representation politics and social issues.
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
To be fair, Poe's Law points out you can't really have irony or satire on the internet without being obvious about it, because some people really are just that loving crazy. No subtlety allowed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:There's two annoying red herrings that keep popping up in this thread again and again: I think part of this is that Bernie voters weren't particularly left compared to Clinton voters. Their policies were 90% similar as well. But it also depends who you mean by left. I don't think the left third of the electorate cares, but the activists do. In any case, it's not really a binary, each person has their own tolerance for how bad the worse evil needs to be to justify the lesser evil.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I think part of this is that Bernie voters weren't particularly left compared to Clinton voters. Their policies were 90% similar as well. But it also depends who you mean by left. I don't think the left third of the electorate cares, but the activists do. In any case, it's not really a binary, each person has their own tolerance for how bad the worse evil needs to be to justify the lesser evil. The 90% thing or the figure that was like "Clinton and Bernie voted the same 97% of the time" or whatever is meaningless when that 3-10% is something so important to people
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Brony Car 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. You are too far gone. Leave the dems and never come back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
It's important to remember that it is liberals, not leftists, who care about ideological purity and who latch fiercely onto specific candidates around whom they've built cults of personality. It wasn't just a lie they were telling about actual leftists - it was straight-up projection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted: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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It's important to remember that it is liberals, not leftists, who care about ideological purity and who latch fiercely onto specific candidates around whom they've built cults of personality. It wasn't just a lie they were telling about actual leftists - it was straight-up projection. I think everyone cares about ideological purity to some degree. Those who pretend that they don't care do it because they have an agenda. I've come to believe the whole "big tent" thing is used by centrists to water down leftist attempts to pass progressive policy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This kind of thinking is poisonous from the start. Money is not the end all be all. There's a pretty inspiring quote2 related to this from a person who worked in Labour's campaign for one of the seats they won: spectralent posted:I was campaigning with him. He teared up when he was describing just how badly the recently-privatised ambulance servicemen have been treated; he's a genuinely great bloke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
I had never seen a Jon Ossoff ad and lmao: https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/877569528158466049
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Jesus christ, that last shot in front of the wealthy homes with him in a suit says everything. "I only care about rich people! Vote for me!" Contrast with that Iron Stache dude's ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6zAyPRbels Shots of families, workers, even black people!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I think everyone cares about ideological purity to some degree. Those who pretend that they don't care do it because they have an agenda. I've come to believe the whole "big tent" thing is used by centrists to water down leftist attempts to pass progressive policy. Well, everyone cares about ideological alignment in the sense that they will not vote for people with whom they disagree on every issue, but you mostly get these insane hagiographies about the perfect policies and qualifications of a candidate from centrists, about centrists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Well, everyone cares about ideological alignment in the sense that they will not vote for people with whom they disagree on every issue, but you mostly get these insane hagiographies about the perfect policies and qualifications of a candidate from centrists, about centrists. Oh, yes. It absolutely feels that way. Sorry, I misunderstood. "Hillary Clinton was the most qualified candidate to ever run for President" was mind-shatteringly stupid on 3 different levels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Oh, yes. It absolutely feels that way. Sorry, I misunderstood. "Hillary Clinton was the most qualified candidate to ever run for President" was mind-shatteringly stupid on 3 different levels. And it feeds into the other thing, which is that it is liberals who refuse to vote strategically or compromise. They will back a losing candidate who completely shares their values over a popular one who only partially does. The tragedy of course is that their values are contemptible so there's not even any nobility in the gesture. Really though I think tekz had it right and it's just graft and nepotism from top to bottom and there's been no actual animating political philosophy for years. Apologies if this already got posted in here, I'm on my phone: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-blathering-superego-at-the-end-of-history/
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Brony Car 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. Basically, it is inherently deeply problematic, if not outright corrupt, for politicians to - either during or after their tenures - receive money (or other material benefits) from institutions deeply tied with the decisions they make (or have the potential to make) in the capacity of their political positions. This is one of the reasons presidents are paid a life-long pension in the first place; it allows them to continue to live comfortably without having to rely on the financial support of institutions they may have been involved with during their tenures. It's impossible for the public to know if Obama is receiving this money as a result of his behavior while in office. Think of it like this: a president who behaved in a way that a particular political interest (in this case the financial sector) strongly disliked would be far less likely to receive such lucrative opportunities after leaving office. As a result, stuff like Obama's paid speeches are indirectly a reward for behaving in a way that the organization/business in question didn't dislike. This doesn't mean they said "hey, if you do X we'll pay you $400,000 for a speech!"; it's an unspoken/implied relationship where a politician stands to materially gain for not pissing off a particular business/organization while in office. As things are currently, there is a direct financial incentive for a politician to support - or at least not piss off - powerful interests/organizations. Because of this, we should ideally ban higher level politicians from having any sort of involvement with certain industries/interests after they leave office (or at least do so for a limited time, like 10 years or something). In exchange we can just pay them a high pension (which we already do for the president). While this isn't currently the case, being barred from future involvement with such interests would ideally be a part of the job description if a person becomes president (or senator or whatever). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
I don't think there's any imaginable way to fix this system. America made way too much money and disproportionately enriched too many people. The system is structurally designed to be co opted and controlled by moneyed interests. Not even a Great Depression will bring back another FDR. No one who has a truly economically left wing agenda will ever be allowed near power again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm having some difficulty parsing this. If the Democrats run a good candidate next time, then people won't much care that they previously ran bad candidates, however if they run a bad candidate, well that candidate is bad, so historic support of other bad candidates doesn't make them any worse? Again this isn't really wrong, but it just seems much better to always run good candidates, that way you don't have to worry how much bad candidates' bad actions will rub off on future candidates. Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I think everyone cares about ideological purity to some degree. Those who pretend that they don't care do it because they have an agenda. I've come to believe the whole "big tent" thing is used by centrists to water down leftist attempts to pass progressive policy. The problem with Democrats is they're made up of Americans, who are not particularly leftist. So if you want a political party that has enough members to govern, you need to compromise. At least until your policy groups convince enough voters so that you can win primaries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Obama was not a progressive outsider, like Bernie ran as. So it's harder to lump them together. It has nothing to do with how good a candidate they are, unless good is strictly synonymous with progressiveness. He absolutely was, he ran on extremely progressive ideas and then accomplished literally none of them. He was the definition of "progressive outsider" compared to Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
i love how neolibs try to retcon campaign obama and pretend that never existed
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
The Democrats Are A Waste.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Obama was not a progressive outsider https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA9KC8SMu3o
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:He absolutely was, he ran on extremely progressive ideas and then accomplished literally none of them. He was the definition of "progressive outsider" compared to Hillary. someone recruited by Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid is not an outsider, and Clinton substantively ran to Obama's left on healthcare in 2008 (Hillary's plan had no mandate).
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Yeeeeaaa, "I'll conditionally come join ya if you strike, maybe" is not the same thing as having actual progressive, pro-labor/union policy and law on your agenda to push. I don't remember Obama picking up his shoes for Hostess workers. You don't have to join a picket if the states where unions are needed the worst are Right-to-Work and don't have unions anymore. D.Ork Bimboolean fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:someone recruited by Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid is not an outsider, and Clinton substantively ran to Obama's left on healthcare in 2008 (Hillary's plan had no mandate).
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Not even loving close to being right. I just googled and it and I found the following figures for 2014: Median compensation: $28,851 Average compensation: $44,569 So it doesn't look like I was that far off? And besides, my point was about average income being significantly higher than median income, which is entirely true. Perhaps you were mixing up household and individual income?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
 Can anyone confirm that Rodney Stooksbury is actually a real person who exists? I really want to believe that the democrats just spent $30+ mil to get 10% more votes than what is essentially a write-in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
D.Ork Bimboolean posted:Yeeeeaaa, "I'll conditionally come join ya if you strike, maybe" is not the same thing as having actual progressive, pro-labor/union policy and law on your agenda to push. I'm not saying Obama was an actual progressive or had pro-labor or union policy. What I'm saying is that he campaigned as a progressive to get votes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Obama was a flash in the pan. It was an attractive articulate black man running against an old establishment white man who couldn't communicate nearly as effectively while we were coming off eight years of that as president. Obama was the exception, not the rule. And considering that Obama bait and switched everyone and did more damage to leftist causes and America than anyone else could have, he should be banished to the wastebin of history as a lesson learned on what not to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I'm not saying Obama was an actual progressive or had pro-labor or union policy. What I'm saying is that he campaigned as a progressive to get votes. I agree he assimilated that rhetoric for his benefit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Zhulik posted:
$30 million dollars to get 24 less votes. Money well spent! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Zhulik posted:
They didn't get 10% more votes; the number of democratic voters didn't significantly change. It only looks closer because so many Republicans didn't show up. 30 million spent on no significant change, loving incredible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:
You're wrong.  The idea that there's this overwhelming center where all the voters are is a myth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:There's two annoying red herrings that keep popping up in this thread again and again: And the centrists aren't even good on social issues. They were late as hell to supporting gay marriage, for example. You can't rely on someone who is either paralyzed by polls or just plain a for real bigot to lead the way on social issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You're wrong. which is insane and stupid, but in a different way
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Endorph posted:the idea of the center isn't that 'there's people smack dab in the center of this chart that we need to reach,' it's 'everyone on the left will vote for us anyway because they're so far removed from what the republicans want, so if we stick to the center we might get a few moderate republicans on top of the left, who have to vote for us' I'm responding to a guy that's saying "America isn't particularly leftist" which this chart shows is a lie even if you don't include all the people who didn't vote (45% of the country!) The most popular politician in the country is an old lefty who wants to raise taxes on the rich and implement universal healthcare. If anyone is going to lament America's lack of progressive politics, start by explaining that one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Endorph posted:the idea of the center isn't that 'there's people smack dab in the center of this chart that we need to reach,' it's 'everyone on the left will vote for us anyway because they're so far removed from what the republicans want, so if we stick to the center we might get a few moderate republicans on top of the left, who have to vote for us' That's what Dem strategists and pundits tell each other ("They have nowhere else to go" was a common refrain in the 90's), but when it comes to talking to the public, at least for the past decade or so they parrot the myth of a massive voting block in the center of the political spectrum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
The problem is mainly that centrists tell progressives they are faking being conservative around election time to get votes but observable reality seems to suggest they are more faking being progressive around election time to get votes. Also, when you tell people you are a fake they start to think you are a fake. The conservative voters are, you know, listening too. People need to stop talking like they aren't right here in the room with us at all times.
FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:The problem with Democrats is they're made up of Americans, who are not particularly leftist. So if you want a political party that has enough members to govern, you need to compromise. At least until your policy groups convince enough voters so that you can win primaries. Americans don't "naturally" have any sort of political views, with the possible exception of certain things very personal to them. The political views of the American public (or any large group of people) are mostly the product of the society they grow up in, the media they consume, etc. If you took Americans and suddenly put them in a society filled with media that generally prayed socialism positively and right-wing economics poorly, you'd probably see their views shift over the years (especially with subsequent generations who grow up exposed to that media). People of various different political persuasions tend to make this mistake of assuming that people statically have certain opinions, when they're actually usually quite flexible when it comes to all but a handful of issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I'm responding to a guy that's saying "America isn't particularly leftist" which this chart shows is a lie even if you don't include all the people who didn't vote (45% of the country!) The people in power in the Democratic party aren't leftists, the people they socialize with aren't leftists, the authors they read aren't leftists, the people they watch on TV aren't leftists and their good friends in the Republican party aren't leftist; therefore no one in the country is a leftist! Better run more centrists! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:$30 million dollars to get 24 less votes. Money well spent! Retards comparing general elections and special elections. Most special elections have less than 25% turnout. A lot have less than 10. Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You're wrong. According to this the Democrats biggest mistake was supporting gay marriage, trans people, and minorities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:44
|
|