|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
RedSpider posted:The left needs to drop this silly term 'progressive' in favor of the term 'socialism'. Centrists and corporate democrats are deceptively co-opting the term for themselves already. The term 'socialism' cuts through the bullshit, and no centrist will use it to refer to themselves for votes. 
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:He very nearly took home the presidential nomination from a party he didn't belong to with zero national name recognition. I think you might be minimizing what happened a little bit. Name recognition can work both ways, as you saw when HRC went up against the general electorate. Dr. Fishopolis posted:I mean, I think that would be great but not even Corbyn is really there yet and we have Diet Corbyn at best. I think you'll find he's our Prime Minister, mate. Agnosticnixie posted:Joke's on you, Macron is literally the long term end result of the PS neolibs desperately trying to do exactly that. Macron has never been part of the PS, even despite being part of their cabinet. I'd argue his appearance in the fold is more a consequence of Eurozone scale-fingering than a desire by the traitor Hollande to subvert his now-laughable campaign promises all that time ago. Brony Car posted:Who is closest to America's version of the Absolute Boy? Honestly, I've not seen them yet. Currently the closest y'all have is Al Franken and he's not interested. But to be fair Tom Perez has been rocking a great game on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Name recognition can work both ways, as you saw when HRC went up against the general electorate. Yokay, I guess but I was talking about the Democratic primary which is a pretty weird place to show up out of nowhere and almost unseat the incumbent everyone's been talking about for a decade. quote:But to be fair Tom Perez has been rocking a great game on the ground. Are you talking about his run for DNC chair or doing the actual job of DNC chair? Because if you mean the latter I may have some shocking news.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Tom Perez's only talent is sweating
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
From the Ossoff TV/IV thread https://twitter.com/pblest/status/877338718822072325
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxeAWyYiPHM
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
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). You have that backwards. H's plan had a mandate and Obama beat her up in the debates about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The thing is, those ideas aren't inherently progressive unless they're backed up by some idea of the policy that would be used to achieve them. Even conservatives talk about fighting poverty, but that doesn't make them progressive. The things he said could sound good to people from across the political spectrum. I agree that using language like Obama did is useful for winning elections, but I think it would be even better if politicians explicitly mentioned actual progressive/leftist ideas instead of just vaguely alluding to goals like "fighting income inequality." He made a few more specific promises than just that, though - things like extending unemployment insurance benefits, new financial regulations, ending tax deductions for companies that outsource jobs, etc. Of course, he lived up to some of his promises better than others, but I don't think it's fair to say that he only promised vague platitudes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Deregulation, free trade, weak labor protections. So Democrats are the conservaive econics party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Yeah, the problem with the term "progressive" is that it is used to refer to a variety of different ideas. When someone says they're progressive it's not clear if they're referring to being left-wing economically or being socially liberal (or both). Progressive used to mean both.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Progressive used to mean both. Yup. I thought it meant both to everybody right up until "BernieBros" and "But will it solve racism?" started being a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Maybe it's generational. I can vote for the lesser of 2 evils but the younger folks I work with just don't see the point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
They haven't been hosed enough by a sitting Republican government to come crawling to corporate Dems. This is why centrists would rather lose to Republicans than win on a leftist platform, worst case they're in the minority for a bit and rake in the corporate donations until finally America begs for business-friendly liberalism to take away the pain. But if a leftist wins well their friends and donors in business won't like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:They haven't been hosed enough by a sitting Republican government to come crawling to corporate Dems. It's too convincing to  that, even as a joke.Like, I can't unsee it now...
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
gohmak posted:You have that backwards. H's plan had a mandate and Obama beat her up in the debates about it. poo poo,
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:It's too convincing to I'm mostly joking. Mostly. Because Democratic strategists were pretty open that they were pouring millions into Ossoff's race because they needed a win in a wealthy Romney-voter district to shut up the left.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm mostly joking. Mostly. Surprise, surprise, it didn't work. They desperately need to be exiled and scattered to the four winds asap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm mostly joking. Mostly. You're joking? I thought the whole point of this thread was that the Democrats would rather lose indefinitely as a center-right corporate whorehouse than win on an even slightly left-wing or anti-corporate platform.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:someone recruited by Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid is not an outsider Relative to Clinton, he absolutely was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted: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. The Reps have your back, they're dismantling Obamacare as we speak 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
It was loving stupid of obama to try something dumb like giving people health care and not giving the rich the tax money they rightfully deserve.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 08:54
|
|
L
|
if you rearrange letters in Barack Obama, it spells No Bailout
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:You're joking? I thought the whole point of this thread was that the Democrats would rather lose indefinitely as a center-right corporate whorehouse than win on an even slightly left-wing or anti-corporate platform. Well for the establishment if they could have a antiBernie like Ossoff win they could shut us up. Well now he lost and we are going to attack them for funding such a loving loser.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:if you rearrange letters in Barack Obama, it spells No Bailout That's funny, because he did exactly that for the finance, auto, and health insurance industries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well for the establishment if they could have a antiBernie like Ossoff win they could shut us up. Well now he lost and we are going to attack them for funding such a loving loser. "Yes, but if you in any way criticize or critique the Dems then you are really no better than the GOP." -A thing that's said by some people with a straight face.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Dizz posted:It was loving stupid of obama to try something dumb like giving people health care and not giving the rich the tax money they rightfully deserve. That's quite interesting framing of a right-wing healthcare bill that leaves tens of millions uninsured and is currently on the brink of repeal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:It's too convincing to Regarding Democrats being more willing to lose than oppose certain business interests, I think that it's usually not so much some shady thing where politicians go "mwahaha I want to sell out the American people in order to financially enrich my donors and certain business interests!" It's more that they usually genuinely believe and trust the perspectives of the lobbyists, donors, etc they speak with (and it doesn't hurt that they often come from a similar socioeconomic background themselves, so these are "their people", so to speak). Some lobbyist or representative will explain (for example) why a certain financial regulation is bad, and they do it in a way that can be convincing to to the politicians they speak with (who are usually laypeople when it comes to specific industries and rely on industry lobbyists* for information). Basically, they see things as a mutually beneficial relationship where they work together with the industry in question to craft helpful legislation and what have you. They often genuinely trust these people to know what's best, and the industry lobbyists/executives/whatever probably genuinely believe that what's best for their industry is also what's best for the country as a whole (what a coincidence!). I actually saw this happen with a friend of mine who went to work for SIFMA, which is an organization that basically lobbies the government on the behalf of financial firms. After she started working there, she began to adopt a defensive, pro-industry stance towards any issue involving finance. And this isn't surprising; from her perspective, she's exposed to all these well-educated, articulate people who are giving what seem to be reasonable arguments about why criticism of the financial industry is misguided/wrong. The same thing basically goes for politicians, since organizations opposed to powerful industries don't really get as much access and exposure. * Or people who otherwise have or had a connection to the industry in question Majorian posted:He made a few more specific promises than just that, though - things like extending unemployment insurance benefits, new financial regulations, ending tax deductions for companies that outsource jobs, etc. Of course, he lived up to some of his promises better than others, but I don't think it's fair to say that he only promised vague platitudes. The first two of those promises you linked are either not particularly impressive (extending unemployment by 13 weeks) or vague enough to be interpreted in a wide variety of ways (new financial regulations). I'll grant you the third, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:That's quite interesting framing of a right-wing healthcare bill that leaves tens of millions uninsured and is currently on the brink of repeal. A more generous bill wouldn't have passed
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:It's too convincing to That's not a joke, that's the only gameplan they have for 2018 -- hope that AHCA and Trump screws over enough people that they come crawling back to the dems. The problem with that, of course, is that nobody likes the dems anymore but the establishment types and they offer nothing to voters to get them excited about. That strategy might take back the House, but its far from guaranteed, and it definitely won't get back the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
SlipkPIe posted:A more generous bill wouldn't have passed How do we know if nobody was willing to even talk about it, let alone campaign for it? Also, the Democrats were in a position to pass literally whatever the gently caress they wanted and they chose not to because they thought preserving the filibuster was more important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
If there's one thing I've learned growing up with a parliamentary system of government, it's that "bipartisanship" is for loving chumps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:If there's one thing I've learned growing up with a parliamentary system of government, it's that "bipartisanship" is for loving chumps. FPTP is the garbage that created this and it needs to be undone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:because they thought preserving the filibuster was more important. more like because they didn't want to. the filibuster is just another convenient excuse that establishment politicians will throw around to ensure the people dont realize that the system is built to gently caress them the entire concept of decorum while 65,000 people die every year from inadequate healthcare is a joke
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:That's not a joke, that's the only gameplan they have for 2018 -- hope that AHCA and Trump screws over enough people that they come crawling back to the dems. The problem with that, of course, is that nobody likes the dems anymore but the establishment types and they offer nothing to voters to get them excited about. That strategy might take back the House, but its far from guaranteed, and it definitely won't get back the presidency. That will only work if Republicans recieve massively lower turnout. I promise you Black, Latino and youth turnout will be abysmal. 2018/2020 barring some serious changes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
gohmak posted:That will only work if Republicans recieve massively lower turnout. I promise you Black, Latino and youth turnout will be abysmal. 2018/2020 barring some serious changes. I know. That's why I'm on the side of serious changes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
New House Minority Leader stat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Randy Bryce, the @IronStache twitter dude with the nice ad, is being backed by David Brock and his rich donors. Bummer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Randy Bryce, the @IronStache twitter dude with the nice ad, is being backed by David Brock and his rich donors. Bummer. Could be that Brock is trying to change tactics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Could be that Brock is trying to change tactics. Well Brock tried to get Real Leftist David Sirota on board and they parted ways after about a month. Not hopeful. When I saw that Bryce ad I assumed it had been produced through Our Revolution or Justice Democrats but if it came from the centrist ghouls - and if they're backing him - it's not great. Unless, of course, this is the critical moment where the consultants finally realize which way the wind is blowing and start backing real leftist ideas (and even then, my theory is the minute tax increases come up, they'll jump ship or call in their favors). Edit His interview with New Republic also has him weirdly bringing up protecting Obamacare when asked about single-payer (which he says he favors "working toward", the classic centrist dodge that got us Obamacare). I don't know. This feels off. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Well Brock tried to get Real Leftist David Sirota on board and they parted ways after like, a month. Not hopeful. When I saw that Bryce ad I assumed it had been produced through Our Revolution or Justice Democrats but if it came from the centrist ghouls - and if they're backing him - it's not great. Unless, of course, this is the critical moment where the consultants finally realize which way the wind is blowing and start backing real leftist ideas (and even then, my theory is the minute tax increases come up, they'll jump ship or call in their favors). I say, adopt a wait and see approach then to ironstache. If he keeps saying the right things, back him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 20:00
|
|