The democrats are a waste

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed.
B	77	25.50%
K	160	52.98%
M	65	21.52%
Total:	229 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

D.N. Nation: Feb 1, 2012

Skex posted:

Oh and what is wrong with people with this whole "Replace Pelosi" nonsense. She's literally one of the founding members of the Progressive Caucus you nitwits so if you claim to be a leftist while calling for her to be replaced you are just doing the DLC and Blue dog's dirty work.

Nancy Pelosi won't successfully destroy capitalism, and is also vilified by Republicans, so we must replace her with someone that 1) will not be vilified by Republicans; and 2) will successfully destroy capitalism. Yes, these two can absolutely live in harmony because thingy

# ? Jun 23, 2017 20:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 10:04

Mister Facetious: Apr 21, 2007; I think I died and woke up in L.A.,
I don't know how I wound up in this place...

Avirosb posted:

Yes, but what makes them so different from Dems and Reps exactly?

Rubio has better boots.

Seriously though, my point is that it doesn't matter if they're different or the same; the Greens and Libertarians aren't any better (and are generally worse), so why give a poo poo about them.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:20

Mister Facetious: Apr 21, 2007; I think I died and woke up in L.A.,
I don't know how I wound up in this place...

D.N. Nation posted:

1) will not be vilified by Republicans;

If you have a candidate where this actually happens, then you have picked someone that doesn't give a poo poo about sub-HENRY issues.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:23

Megaman's Jockstrap: Jul 16, 2000; What a horrible thread to have a post.

Skex posted:

She's literally one of the founding members of the Progressive Caucus you nitwits so if you claim to be a leftist while calling for her to be replaced you are just doing the DLC and Blue dog's dirty work.

That isn't true. It was started by six members and Pelosi wasn't one of them.

I'll let everyone have three guesses as to who the convener and first chairman was. There's also one senate member in it currently...guess who it is?

Anyway, Pelosi joined shortly afterwards. Good on her for joining...but that was 26 years ago. Times, and beliefs, change. This idea that politicians occupy one fixed position over their careers is bunk.

Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Jun 23, 2017

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:28

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

That isn't true. It was started by six members and Pelosi wasn't one of them.

I'll let everyone have three guesses as to who the convener and first chairman was. There's also one senate member in it currently...guess who it is?

Anyway, Pelosi joined shortly afterwards. Good on her for joining...but that was 26 years ago. Times, and beliefs, change. This idea that politicians occupy one fixed position over their careers is bunk.

burmie sangers

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:31

apropos to nothing: Sep 5, 2003

Josef bugman posted:

Got a quick question for everyone, but how did the "Third way" come to dominate after Reagen? I don't mean in a political "across all parties" kind of way, but what allowed them to gain such control over the democratic party and its apparatus?

The reality is that the kind of "third way" politics you're talking about started prior to Reagan. For anyone who has not read it, David Harvey's "A Brief History of Neoliberalism" is what I would say is the most important work dealing with how the politics of the liberal establishment have systematically eroded the labor movement and the militant socialist and social democratic forces that helped create it. You can read it for free online here: http://sok.bz/content/3-clanky/6-2012/20120314-david-harvey-strucne-dejiny-neoliberalismu/abriefhistoryneoliberalism.pdf

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:34

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

D.N. Nation posted:

Nancy Pelosi won't successfully destroy capitalism, and is also vilified by Republicans, so we must replace her with someone that 1) will not be vilified by Republicans; and 2) will successfully destroy capitalism. Yes, these two can absolutely live in harmony because thingy

You're projecting again, buddy.

Skex posted:

That was a good read and a good description of American politics.

I think the thing that a lot of people don't get is that fundamentally the difference between our "two party" system and the multi-party coalition systems used by other democracies is that the coalitions are formed prior to the election. So Democrats build their coalition from a broad selection of "liberal" factions and the Republican's from the "conservative" factions.

This is also why 3rd parties generally fail to make progress in the United States. Yes there are structural impediments however a lot of it is that they are trying to play a game while not understanding the rules.

The CPC is the actual effective version of the green party. It came into existence because people finally stopped trying to do politics the wrong way. It was also helped a lot by technology that made it easier to coordinate , organize and finance. Unfortunately it lost a lot of steam after Obama's election and has yet to quite get back on it's feet.

In my opinion if you really want to affect political change and shift the Democratic party to the left and thus affect real change you should focus your energy on expanding and growing that faction and the best way to do that is get active in local politics. Go to your local caucuses and become delegates find and support candidates who represent your views and goals and help them work to pull the party to the left.

I think a lot of what went wrong after '08 was that it was such a slap in the face to achieve the level of victory that was gained only to be betrayed and dismissed by our purported allies who were more interested in reaching across the aisle to the Republicans in an effort to appear bipartisan than reach out to the progressives who provided most of the passion and energy that earned the victory.

The problem is that the left really has only one card to play as long as the DLC and Blue dogs continue to shut them out and that's to deny them support.

Oh and what is wrong with people with this whole "Replace Pelosi" nonsense. She's literally one of the founding members of the Progressive Caucus you nitwits so if you claim to be a leftist while calling for her to be replaced you are just doing the DLC and Blue dog's dirty work.

You get real close only to stumble on the finishing line.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:37

Brony Car: May 22, 2014; by Cyrano4747

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Anyway, Pelosi joined shortly afterwards. Good on her for joining...but that was 26 years ago. Times, and beliefs, change. This idea that politicians occupy one fixed position over their careers is bunk.

I get what you're saying, but what happens when a politician gets a position where he or she inevitably has to compromise in order to get something passed?

If there's someone better than Pelosi, then let's go for him or her, but I wouldn't put the fact that she's a political survivor as an innate negative. Are you sure any other member of the Progressive Caucus wouldn't have gone down the same path if they had become Speaker of the House or a minority leader?

There's a luxury in being a firebrand.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:42

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

It would be nice if Pelosi was replaced with someone more left-wing, but the focus on her specifically seems a little weird. She seems to be bad in the same ways as nearly all other congressional Democrats, so I can't help but feel the disproportionate focus is at least partially related to an ingrained negative impression due to years of Republican smearing. This isn't to say that most of the criticism of her is necessarily wrong; it's just disproportionate.

As a related note, I've heard people mention how she is good at whipping. Is this a view that is actually justified by her history, or is it similar to the "Hillary is the most qualified candidate ever!" stuff? Is Pelosi's performance as house minority whip superior to previous whips? I can't help but be a little skeptical about "common knowledge" things like this.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:46

Megaman's Jockstrap: Jul 16, 2000; What a horrible thread to have a post.

Brony Car posted:

I get what you're saying, but what happens when a politician gets a position where he or she inevitably has to compromise in order to get something passed?

I would like someone to point out a time where someone compromised to get some leftist legislation passed. This is an honest request, I really do want to know if this happened.

Here's what Third Way people got passed 1992 - 2016 that was right-wing:
"Super-predator" law enforcement stuff
"End welfare as we know it" stuff
Repeal of Glass-Steagal (aka finance industry wet dream, direct cause of the 2008 meltdown)
NAFTA
Obamacare, which is right-wing legislation that is a give-away to private insurance companies
Iraq War
Drone strikes
Patriot Act spy stuff
Torture forgiveness
Telecom forgiveness

...and, I want to point out, Obama would have gutted Social Security if he could have.

Ok now here's the left legislation:

A carbon tax????? Is that right?

Honestly, the country would be in better shape without that kind of "compromise" IMO

Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jun 23, 2017

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:48

RedSpider: May 12, 2017

apropos to nothing posted:

The reality is that the kind of "third way" politics you're talking about started prior to Reagan. For anyone who has not read it, David Harvey's "A Brief History of Neoliberalism" is what I would say is the most important work dealing with how the politics of the liberal establishment have systematically eroded the labor movement and the militant socialist and social democratic forces that helped create it. You can read it for free online here: http://sok.bz/content/3-clanky/6-2012/20120314-david-harvey-strucne-dejiny-neoliberalismu/abriefhistoryneoliberalism.pdf

This is required reading if you want to understand and ultimately undermine centrists and corporate democrats. I recommend his 17 Contradictions and the End of Capitalism as well. It's essentially a sequel.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:50

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Ytlaya posted:

It would be nice if Pelosi was replaced with someone more left-wing, but the focus on her specifically seems a little weird. She seems to be bad in the same ways as nearly all other congressional Democrats, so I can't help but feel the disproportionate focus is at least partially related to an ingrained negative impression due to years of Republican smearing. This isn't to say that most of the criticism of her is necessarily wrong; it's just disproportionate.

Focusing on Democrats that are bad and also hold party leadership positions seems very reasonable to me.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:50

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

Brony Car posted:

I get what you're saying, but what happens when a politician gets a position where he or she inevitably has to compromise in order to get something passed?

If there's someone better than Pelosi, then let's go for him or her, but I wouldn't put the fact that she's a political survivor as an innate negative. Are you sure any other member of the Progressive Caucus wouldn't have gone down the same path if they had become Speaker of the House or a minority leader?

There's a luxury in being a firebrand.

This all would be much more convincing if the status quo actually was good and not a loving disaster.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:55

Megaman's Jockstrap: Jul 16, 2000; What a horrible thread to have a post.

Hold on, I got an example of someone compromising on leftist legislation: in the 1930s FDR wanted to the maximum income to be around 340k per year (in today's dollars). Everything above that would be taxed at 100%. The GOP compromised, and set the top tax rate to 91%.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 21:57

Skex: Feb 22, 2012; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

That isn't true. It was started by six members and Pelosi wasn't one of them.

I'll let everyone have three guesses as to who the convener and first chairman was.

Anyway, Pelosi joined shortly afterwards. Good on her...but was 26 years ago. Times, and beliefs, change. This idea that politicians occupy one fixed position over their careers is bunk.

Why? You do know that there are advantages to actual experience and expertise in important jobs right? Do you want a doctor who just got out of medical performing brain surgery on you? Or would you prefer one who spent time working under an experienced surgeon? Or perhaps you'd prefer one who has performed hundreds of successful surgeries.

Pelosi has close to 30 years experience as a legislator, that's valuable. This idea that a being a legislator isn't an actual loving skill and doesn't benefit from experience is what is bunk.

She's a great choice if for no other reason than she's got one of the most reliably Blue seats in the Union. She represents San Francisco there aren't many safer seats in existence and that's actually a pretty loving big deal in it's own right. Plus is this how you think you gain influence and support for the cause? By betraying and jettisoning those who have been stalwart and effective supporters? Yeah that sounds super effective.

I could understand calling for the head of an ineffective blue dog but this is just silly.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 22:00

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

How about you answer Ytlaya's question and explain how exactly Pelosi is this exceptionally talented leader that you can't afford to lose? Because your entire argument kinda rests on the assumption that this actually is the case.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 22:06

Yadoppsi: May 10, 2009

Ytlaya posted:

As a related note, I've heard people mention how she is good at whipping. Is this a view that is actually justified by her history, or is it similar to the "Hillary is the most qualified candidate ever!" stuff? Is Pelosi's performance as house minority whip superior to previous whips? I can't help but be a little skeptical about "common knowledge" things like this.

I've gotten this from the healthcare thread so do your own research, but the prime example was when Dem representatives were wavering under Repub attacks in the original ACA fight, she would dig up old classmates or childhood friends with health problems and have them call the congressmen in question to badger them on why they weren't going to vote yes.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 22:13

Megaman's Jockstrap: Jul 16, 2000; What a horrible thread to have a post.

Skex posted:

Why? You do know that there are advantages to actual experience and expertise in important jobs right? Do you want a doctor who just got out of medical performing brain surgery on you? Or would you prefer one who spent time working under an experienced surgeon? Or perhaps you'd prefer one who has performed hundreds of successful surgeries.

Pelosi has close to 30 years experience as a legislator, that's valuable. This idea that a being a legislator isn't an actual loving skill and doesn't benefit from experience is what is bunk.

She's a great choice if for no other reason than she's got one of the most reliably Blue seats in the Union. She represents San Francisco there aren't many safer seats in existence and that's actually a pretty loving big deal in it's own right. Plus is this how you think you gain influence and support for the cause? By betraying and jettisoning those who have been stalwart and effective supporters? Yeah that sounds super effective.

Gosh, there's a lot to unpack here. Let's first start by recapping the argument:

You: Nancy Pelosi was a founding member of the Progressive Caucus! How could you poo poo on her?
Me: Uh, she was not a founding member...I mean she came aboard pretty quickly but she wasn't a founding member. Also that was over a quarter century ago, I think maybe her beliefs might have changed since then? This isn't really relevant to today?
You: Look at this guy, everybody! He hates experience!!!

Here's my take: she's a bad choice because one of the most reliably blue seats in the union is host to a neoliberal corporate Democrat who isn't actually socialist, and she uses her huge amount of legislative experience (that you champion) to very effectively block and sideline leftist legislation.

Now, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong. So you go ahead and tell me by what metric Nancy Pelosi is a stalwart and effective supporter.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 22:14

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

Yadoppsi posted:

I've gotten this from the healthcare thread so do your own research, but the prime example was when Dem representatives were wavering under Repub attacks in the original ACA fight, she would dig up old classmates or childhood friends with health problems and have them call the congressmen in question to badger them on why they weren't going to vote yes.

You know, it seems to me that the capacity to utilize emotional blackmail to put pressure on people doesn't really require much in the way of talent and could be accomplished by anybody possessing a basic ruthless streak and sufficient congressional aides to do the legwork. So I'm not exactly super convinced yet.

EDIT: Like, the Johnson Treatment this ain't.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 22:20

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

Ytlaya posted:

It would be nice if Pelosi was replaced with someone more left-wing, but the focus on her specifically seems a little weird. She seems to be bad in the same ways as nearly all other congressional Democrats, so I can't help but feel the disproportionate focus is at least partially related to an ingrained negative impression due to years of Republican smearing. This isn't to say that most of the criticism of her is necessarily wrong; it's just disproportionate.

As a related note, I've heard people mention how she is good at whipping. Is this a view that is actually justified by her history, or is it similar to the "Hillary is the most qualified candidate ever!" stuff? Is Pelosi's performance as house minority whip superior to previous whips? I can't help but be a little skeptical about "common knowledge" things like this.

I think it's largely based on the assumption that she is the person most responsible for Democratic electoral strategy fuckups, when she really isn't. It still might be a good time for her to step down and allow some new thinking to take center stage, but left-Dems should definitely be focusing their blame on bad strategists like Brian Fallon, and incompetent DCCC members.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 22:29

mila kunis: Jun 10, 2011

Brony Car posted:

There's a luxury in being a firebrand.

There's even more luxury in being a worthless establishment courtier raking in donor money and sinecure jobs while your base's living standards deteriorate.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 22:31

Megaman's Jockstrap: Jul 16, 2000; What a horrible thread to have a post.

BTW I don't care if Pelosi stays or goes in the leadership position this year. We need radical change across the whole party and that's not gonna come until the 2018 midterms. Hopefully it will be a moot point because Pelosi will have lost to a real socialist. Stay hungry.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 22:31

Neurolimal: Nov 3, 2012

Majorian posted:

I think it's largely based on the assumption that she is the person most responsible for Democratic electoral strategy fuckups, when she really isn't. It still might be a good time for her to step down and allow some new thinking to take center stage, but left-Dems should definitely be focusing their blame on bad strategists like Brian Fallon, and incompetent DCCC members.

Pretty much this. Bill Clinton (and by extension Obama and Hillary) popularized using surrogates to field unpopular opinions, opposition, party lines, mudslinging etc., I wouldn't be surprised if being the only remaining democrat leader with any sort of governing power has come with the cost of saying what the backroom is thinking.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 22:33

TROIKA CURES GREEK: Jun 30, 2015; by R. Guyovich

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Politely disagree, we had that presentation-level perfection in Obama and it didn't really work out. I walked away from that with the attitude that policy needs to be above all but YMMV of course. Policy makes people say "well this guy seems like a spud but the Democrats stand for me so I'll give him a chance." It's more universal.

Why didn't Obama work out? He did work out! It's that the mess he was left with combined with an incredible level of obstructionism by the republicans limited what he could accomplish. Adjust a few screws and the outcome could very well have been a public option for example, on that one we really just got incredibly loving unlucky. And the skill of the republicans shouldn't be discounted either, they were very very good at obstructing.

On the central theme:

Basically no-one votes based on detailed analysis of policy proposals, or even a cursory glance for that matter. I think this is one of the reason wonks are terrible at predictions, they simply don't understand on any level how the average person thinks about politics and what motivates them to vote. People here spend hours a day thinking about this poo poo. The average person doesn't even spend hours a week. They might engage in "political discussions" or read facebook posts about politics, but the actual research based poo poo where you dig up studies (that even educated persons have no chance of critically evaluating) look up citations on articles, that poo poo-- almost no one does.

Even when people claim to vote based on policy x and y it turns out to almost always be a lie. Or not even a lie- most people don't actually understand what is actually motivating them. It's almost always that the primary driver is team-sport type effects,, snappy marketing, and things like that. The color of the campaign logo probably has a bigger effect size than having well thought out policy positions.

How many republicans who for decades hated Russia or claimed to support free trade suddenly changed their tune once Trump was elected? How many democrats went red in the face criticizing Bush's surveillance state and drone warfare only to magically care a lot less about those things when Obama was in office. The vast, vast majority.

This is why it's completely laughable that this threads central thesis is that Hillary or Ossof lost for being not left enough. Ossof is particularly funny considering 1) safe red seats are not safe red only because the majic socialist wasn't run and 2) Hillary beat Sanders in the district. No, it really has nothing to do with how pure leftist someone is, not in the slightest bit. It's like when the republicans always said how romney lost because he wasn't a true conservative. Complete and utter horseshit, yet it's popular with the far ___ of both sides. All one has to do is look at Obama's success in campaigning, which had utterly nothing to do with policy. Some whites, probably enough to flip the election due to location, who would assuredly be labeled as racists here voted for him and then didn't vote for Hillary. Why?

You want to know why a lot of people voted Handel? Because their parents voted R. Because their friends do. All this utterly nutty extrapolation of how these special elections signified this or that regarding how left/right a candidate needs to be is just wonks misunderstanding on a fundamental level why people vote. The point of this isn't to say 'told everyone so' but I have to imagine this is why I thought Trump would win the primary from nearly day 1 or why I thought the general election was going to be very close, despite people like majorian calling me a retard because I thought Trump could have a chance. Or even stuff like the email scandal, the constant refrain and consensus here was that nobody cares, nobody cares, nobody cares. It turns out through analysis that her email scandal was an enormous weight on the campaign, and I'm seeing a lot to suggest it could very well have been the number one negative thing that was still in her control (arguably Russia, WIkileaks, Comey had great impacts but were external to the campaign).

And honestly, I've been there- my posts here 10 years ago would have been indistinguishable from the hard left bernie people today. Hell, I still agree with most Bernie positions (and voted for him in the primary), I just don't think most of the arguments made recently in this thread post Georgia are very good because I don't think Ossof lost for not being left enough. Or that there's this huge group of people that would vote, but only if the magically socialist is ran. It reminds me exactly how the far right think, that any loss is due to impurity and not because of the loads of other factors that are more important.

At any rate this podcast was very good and I agreed with most the points made: http://seriouspod.com/sio52-democrats-happy-special-elections/ I think some of the details are a bit shaky (I think he overestimated the degree of swing in Georgia) but overall the thesis is sound. Yes, at the end of the day a near win is still a loss, but that's totally not the whole story.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 23:43

TROIKA CURES GREEK: Jun 30, 2015; by R. Guyovich

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Gosh, there's a lot to unpack here. Let's first start by recapping the argument:

You: Nancy Pelosi was a founding member of the Progressive Caucus! How could you poo poo on her?
Me: Uh, she was not a founding member...I mean she came aboard pretty quickly but she wasn't a founding member. Also that was over a quarter century ago, I think maybe her beliefs might have changed since then? This isn't really relevant to today?
You: Look at this guy, everybody! He hates experience!!!

Here's my take: she's a bad choice because one of the most reliably blue seats in the union is host to a neoliberal corporate Democrat who isn't actually socialist, and she uses her huge amount of legislative experience (that you champion) to very effectively block and sideline leftist legislation.

Now, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong. So you go ahead and tell me by what metric Nancy Pelosi is a stalwart and effective supporter.

Of course she isn't a socialist, there are no socialists of any note anywhere near the national stage. Bernie Sanders is not a socialist: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/upshot/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-capitalist.html

So when she said the thing about capitalism it really shouldn't be a big shock. Bernie is a capitalist. There are no socialist economies that are anywhere near the top of the indexes concerning quality of life, development index or anything like that. The nordic model is still very much rooted in capitalism. I remember that up until very recently here the overwhelming consensus was that Venezuela was a shining example of the success possible through socialism but that's seemed to have changed recently for some reason.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 23:54

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

Why didn't Obama work out? He did work out! It's that the mess he was left with combined with an incredible level of obstructionism by the republicans limited what he could accomplish. Adjust a few screws and the outcome could very well have been a public option for example, on that one we really just got incredibly loving unlucky. And the skill of the republicans shouldn't be discounted either, they were very very good at obstructing.

On the central theme:

Basically no-one votes based on detailed analysis of policy proposals, or even a cursory glance for that matter. I think this is one of the reason wonks are terrible at predictions, they simply don't understand on any level how the average person thinks about politics and what motivates them to vote. People here spend hours a day thinking about this poo poo. The average person doesn't even spend hours a week. They might engage in "political discussions" or read facebook posts about politics, but the actual research based poo poo where you dig up studies (that even educated persons have no chance of critically evaluating) look up citations on articles, that poo poo-- almost no one does.

Even when people claim to vote based on policy x and y it turns out to almost always be a lie. Or not even a lie- most people don't actually understand what is actually motivating them. It's almost always that the primary driver is team-sport type effects,, snappy marketing, and things like that. The color of the campaign logo probably has a bigger effect size than having well thought out policy positions.

How many republicans who for decades hated Russia or claimed to support free trade suddenly changed their tune once Trump was elected? How many democrats went red in the face criticizing Bush's surveillance state and drone warfare only to magically care a lot less about those things when Obama was in office. The vast, vast majority.

This is why it's completely laughable that this threads central thesis is that Hillary or Ossof lost for being not left enough. Ossof is particularly funny considering 1) safe red seats are not safe red only because the majic socialist wasn't run and 2) Hillary beat Sanders in the district. No, it really has nothing to do with how pure leftist someone is, not in the slightest bit. It's like when the republicans always said how romney lost because he wasn't a true conservative. Complete and utter horseshit, yet it's popular with the far ___ of both sides. All one has to do is look at Obama's success in campaigning, which had utterly nothing to do with policy. Some whites, probably enough to flip the election due to location, who would assuredly be labeled as racists here voted for him and then didn't vote for Hillary. Why?

You want to know why a lot of people voted Handel? Because their parents voted R. Because their friends do. All this utterly nutty extrapolation of how these special elections signified this or that regarding how left/right a candidate needs to be is just wonks misunderstanding on a fundamental level why people vote. The point of this isn't to say 'told everyone so' but I have to imagine this is why I thought Trump would win the primary from nearly day 1 or why I thought the general election was going to be very close, despite people like majorian calling me a retard because I thought Trump could have a chance. Or even stuff like the email scandal, the constant refrain and consensus here was that nobody cares, nobody cares, nobody cares. It turns out through analysis that her email scandal was an enormous weight on the campaign, and I'm seeing a lot to suggest it could very well have been the number one negative thing that was still in her control (arguably Russia, WIkileaks, Comey had great impacts but were external to the campaign).

And honestly, I've been there- my posts here 10 years ago would have been indistinguishable from the hard left bernie people today. Hell, I still agree with most Bernie positions (and voted for him in the primary), I just don't think most of the arguments made recently in this thread post Georgia are very good because I don't think Ossof lost for not being left enough. Or that there's this huge group of people that would vote, but only if the magically socialist is ran. It reminds me exactly how the far right think, that any loss is due to impurity and not because of the loads of other factors that are more important.

At any rate this podcast was very good and I agreed with most the points made: http://seriouspod.com/sio52-democrats-happy-special-elections/ I think some of the details are a bit shaky (I think he overestimated the degree of swing in Georgia) but overall the thesis is sound. Yes, at the end of the day a near win is still a loss, but that's totally not the whole story.

how much money did ossoff blow to pull in less votes than a phantom democrat? every other special election outperformed ossoff's "gains", without needing millions. if those candidates had actually been supported we might've won a bunch of special elections. instead the dems blew all their money on a loser cause he was a thirdway anti-leftist dem like them. oops!

# ? Jun 23, 2017 23:54

Megaman's Jockstrap: Jul 16, 2000; What a horrible thread to have a post.

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

Why didn't Obama work out? He did work out! It's that the mess he was left with combined with an incredible level of obstructionism by the republicans limited what he could accomplish.

Off the top of my head, the two most prominent things that Obama could not accomplish due to Republican malfeasance was a) his grand bargain to cut Social Security, and b) his free trade proposal, the TPP

Those are both right-wing legislation.

Now I'm absolutely willing to cop to being a leftist, and not liking Obama's policies, so that has certainly colored my perception. So, specifically, what were the Obama pieces of left-wing legislation that were blocked by Republicans?

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

The nordic model is still very much rooted in capitalism.

When I say "socialist" I mean, of course, a European-style mainstream socialist - the kind that favors a strong safety net, nationalization of key industries, etc. Not the total eradication of capitalism.

Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Jun 23, 2017

# ? Jun 23, 2017 23:55

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

I don't disagree with Bernie, in fact I am just like him/ You know except when I constantly poo poo on him and his backers. Ossof was perfect and the fact that his campaign was a big wet fart of nothing that consisted of him having an ad where he promised to be a generic republican was brilliant. Because nothing gets people off to support a guy if they knew he will in no way be different then his opponent, except that he doesn't outright hate gays. Oh and you see because I am going to be very limited in my definition Bernie is really a capitalist.

Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Jun 24, 2017

# ? Jun 23, 2017 23:57

Megaman's Jockstrap: Jul 16, 2000; What a horrible thread to have a post.

Oh yeah, the bad avatar confused me. This is the guy who can't read a chart and said that Bernie Sanders had non-existent support. Whoops.

# ? Jun 23, 2017 23:58

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

A Big Dumb Post

Helpfully filled with 0 solutions or things for the left to focus on, just more doom and gloom. No thanks.

# ? Jun 24, 2017 00:02

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

just laffin my rear end off that any "gains" ossoff saw in this race compared to last election were his vote share being increased by depressed republican turnout. ossoff was such a lemon of a candidate it took millions of dollars of ads to make him get only a little less votes than a non-existant candidate who never campaigned, no-one ever saw, and who had absolutely no policy positions at all. Dems threw millions at this race only for more people to end up voting for the name "Rodney Stooksbury" than ossoff and third wayers think they did good.

# ? Jun 24, 2017 00:05

CAPS LOCK BROKEN: Feb 1, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

Dude should've run an offensive campaign against the GOP instead of talking about how he couldn't wait to go to washington to cut "wasteful spending." Why vote for the diet republican when you can get the real one at the same price?

# ? Jun 24, 2017 00:18

Megaman's Jockstrap: Jul 16, 2000; What a horrible thread to have a post.

I hope that Dems are able to put together a manifesto that gets their legislators on the same page economically and stops this terrible practice of playing "dial-a-candidate" for each district. The Dems have tried to compete by paying millions to data guys to try to figure out how to appeal to each district's 50% + 1 surbanites, and then recruiting some dingus to pander to them. It doesn't work.

# ? Jun 24, 2017 00:22

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Man at least get a parachute account if you're going to pretend to always have been a far left hippie Bernout after literal years of compulsively posting like a deranged Lee Atwater clone.

# ? Jun 24, 2017 00:24

Feldegast42: Oct 29, 2011; COMMENCE THE RITE OF SHITPOSTING

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

Stuff

The establishment democrats do not have an actual platform or actual convictions right now. Yeah, they have a piece of paper that has a bunch of policy proposals on it that they let the Berniecrats edit a bit (and that nobody actually reads) but whenever any of these lukewarm democrats campaign its with no real conviction or message. From the polytoons thread:

D.N. Nation posted:

That might literally be the only ad Ossoff ran that mentioned Trump, and it wasn't shown at all down the stretch in the runoff. He barely mentioned him � if at all ��in the two debates. This was notable; my buddy who worked on Ossoff's campaign says that his team thought he should goose up the Trump talk a little but Ossoff chose not to.

Ossoff's ads in the runoff were centered on four ideas:

1) Karen Handel is vehemently anti-choice, hates PPUSA, is fine with women getting breast cancer; an offshoot of this is that she's fine if you can't pay for your kids' treatments due to the AHCA
2) Washington sucks, don't it? I'll make it better.
3) Jobs are good. Here are some smart locals who do the jobs. I'll help them do more jobs.
4) Let me clear the record about (GOP argument against me).

Disclosure: I live in Atlanta and watch Wheel/Jeopardy every weekday night so yeah, I was drowning in these commercials for a couple months. Most of the DC/NYC lefty chatter about the state of campaign messaging was pulled from their asses wholesale, or done via a quick peek at YouTube.

#1 is summed up as "GOP bad"! Hitting them on healthcare is definitely a good thing right now, but you also have to give a counter proposal to counter them on as well. Keep in mind that Ossoff was vocally against single payer.
#2 Is literally the oldest cliche in the book. Everybody in Washington runs against Washington. Even people that have been there for 40 years.
#3 Is the second oldest cliche in the book. Jobs good and I will get more of them! Unlike my opponent who hates jobs!
#4 Is a defensive ad, means that you are responding to an opponents narrative instead of setting your own. These are the ads that only come out when a candidate is losing and don't usually involve getting out any message or ideas.

So it sounds like Ossoff had one good thing to harp on (the AHCA being a total piece of poo poo) and the rest were vague platitudes or generic stuff you hear in a zillion other elections. Even that one thing that he was rightfully messaging on didn't come along with a counter proposal that people would get excited for (either a public option or single payer). So you are left with a piece of stale (Panera?) bread against a GOP challenger, who are always on message and always speak to what their base wants first.

Establishment democrats always speak to what their donors want first and not to their base. And that's why nobody willingly votes for them anymore. Or to sum it up:

Peven Stan posted:

Dude should've run an offensive campaign against the GOP instead of talking about how he couldn't wait to go to washington to cut "wasteful spending." Why vote for the diet republican when you can get the real one at the same price?

Feldegast42 fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jun 24, 2017

# ? Jun 24, 2017 00:30

TROIKA CURES GREEK: Jun 30, 2015; by R. Guyovich

To clarify -- what people respond to is politicians who can convincingly argue that they can make voters lives better in concrete ways by doing x,y,z. Something like free college- well it's not really a surprise that that went over big with young voters and I would say that might be Bernies version of the "wall", the number one thing that got his voters under his wing much like the wall did for Trump in the R primary. But it's not the policy itself, it's how you can sell that policy in a convincing manner. For free college it's really not hard at all to make young voters believe it would make their lives better (and I agree that it would).

Now if all Ossof did was say something like "i'm gonna get rid of waste', then yea that's bad. On its own that's not going to do anything for people- if you want to make it work you would have to do something like, 'in area x we spend y% more than we need to. If we fixed that we could redirect that money and provide z for your family." Something like that, though it still may not be the right way to go (particularly if waste isn't significant). The point though isn't to sell the policy, the point is sell the idea that you can make their lives better. Obama was the master at this and did it in even more of an ephemeral way. What was hope? Hope that your life would get better. What was making America Great Again? At the core very much the idea that a great america = jobs like it's the 60's again = a better life for you and your family.

From that perspective wasn't it completely obvious how bad "i'm with her' was? It will never stop being amazing how poorly Hillary's campaign did on things like that given the money they had. I guess that's what happens when you compare Trump/Obama, who instinctively knew the message they were going to sell, with Hillary, whose campaign never actually could figure out why they were running.

# ? Jun 24, 2017 00:30

A Shitty Reporter: Oct 29, 2012; Dinosaur Gum

While I don't feel that Pelosi needs to step down, she absolutely needs to start training a successor. She's getting old and should plan on shifting to less stressful duties at some point, if only for her own health.

# ? Jun 24, 2017 00:41

Falstaff: Apr 27, 2008; I have a kind of alacrity in sinking.

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

When I say "socialist" I mean, of course, a European-style mainstream socialist - the kind that favors a strong safety net, nationalization of key industries, etc. Not the total eradication of capitalism.

That's not socialism, and for actual socialists (like myself) the constant misuse of the term by social democrats is irritating.

# ? Jun 24, 2017 00:50

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Feldegast42 posted:

The establishment democrats do not have an actual platform or actual convictions right now. Yeah, they have a piece of paper that has a bunch of policy proposals on it that they let the Berniecrats edit a bit (and that nobody actually reads) but whenever any of these lukewarm democrats campaign its with no real conviction or message. From the polytoons thread:

#1 is summed up as "GOP bad"! Hitting them on healthcare is definitely a good thing right now, but you also have to give a counter proposal to counter them on as well. Keep in mind that Ossoff was vocally against single payer.
#2 Is literally the oldest cliche in the book. Everybody in Washington runs against Washington. Even people that have been there for 40 years.
#3 Is the second oldest cliche in the book. Jobs good and I will get more of them! Unlike my opponent who hates jobs!
#4 Is a defensive ad, means that you are responding to an opponents narrative instead of setting your own. These are the ads that only come out when a candidate is losing and don't usually involve getting out any message or ideas.

So it sounds like Ossoff had one good thing to harp on (the AHCA being a total piece of poo poo) and the rest were vague platitudes or generic stuff you hear in a zillion other elections. Even that one thing that he was rightfully messaging on didn't come along with a counter proposal that people would get excited for (either a public option or single payer). So you are left with a piece of stale (Panera?) bread against a GOP challenger, who are always on message and always speak to what their base wants first.

Establishment democrats always speak to what their donors want first and not to their base. And that's why nobody willingly votes for them anymore. Or to sum it up:

# ? Jun 24, 2017 01:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 10:04

Party Plane Jones: Jul 1, 2007; by Reene; Fun Shoe

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-fbi-investigation-for-bank-fraud-hire-lawyers/

quote:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and his wife, Jane Sanders have hired prominent defense attorneys, amid an FBI investigation into a loan Jane Sanders obtained to expand Burlington College while she was its president, CBS News confirms.

Politico Magazine first reported the Sanders had hired lawyers to defend them in the probe. Sanders top adviser Jeff Weaver told CBS News the couple has sought legal protection over federal agents' allegations from a January 2016 complaint accusing then-President of Burlington College, Ms. Sanders, of distorting donor levels in a 2010 loan application for $10 million from People's United Bank to purchase 33 acres of land for the institution.

According to Politico, prosecutors might also be looking into allegations that Sen. Sanders' office inappropriately urged the bank to approve the loan.

Burlington attorney and Sanders supporter Rich Cassidy has reportedly been hired to represent Sen. Sanders. And high-profile Washington defense attorney Larry Robbins, who counseled Libby "Scooter" Robbins, former Chief of Staff for the Vice President, is protecting Jane Sanders.

Ms. Sanders' push for the liberal arts college's costly land acquisition was cited in a press release by the college when it shut down in 2016.

Brady Toensing of Burlington, the man responsible for the claims filed to the U.S. attorney for Vermont, was a chairman for the Trump campaign in his state.

"I filed a request for an investigation in January 2016 and an investigation appears to have been started right away," he said in an email to CBS News. "It was started under President Obama, his Attorney General, and his U.S. Attorney, all of whom are Democrats."

"My only hope is for a fair, impartial, and thorough investigation," Toensing added.

# ? Jun 24, 2017 01:38

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

«‹›483 »