|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Black people grabbing a microphone is such a powerful violent force that they can single-handedly bring down an entire political campaign, but also it's a totally ineffective waste of time, and thus 
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
Vital Signs, owning the looney left: how could a protest have an effect, when you yourself claim it did not have a different effect??
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
It's funny to watch the doublethink in action. The protest must be dismissed as totally impotent with no effect on the national conversation or future campaigns, in order to make it an ideological acceptable target of attack that doesn't discredit direct action nor the interlocuter's supposed agreement with the aims of criminal justice reform. But it also has to be an absurdly powerful, critical game-changing event, the sole root to which we can trace every aspect of the failure of our political campaign, a candidacy-ending Dolchstoß, in order to justify bitching about it online forever and ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
The protest did nothing to help black lives. & The protest gave justification for centrist Dems to concern troll about how Sanders was bad for minorities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Your second point contradicts your first.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
It's the incredible defensiveness & hypocrisy that's grating more than anything - rather than admitting that perhaps it was ill-conceived or mistake, every effort must be made to ignore the fairly obvious flaws of both the people who did it, and the end result. Of what value is getting more blm people, onto a campaign that you've entirely undermined in the process of making that happen? The number of op-eds slamming Bernie after that one event was incredible - suggesting it that had no effect is incredulous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Your second point contradicts your first.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Your second point contradicts your first. It does not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of events was that the dumb "Sanders is bad at race issues" narrative was already a thing before this happened. If anything, him being gracious and ceding the floor to them would have helped his image in this area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Do you think it helps black lives when Hannity concern trolls about Hillary's slaves?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
I’m the identity politics that Democrats can’t get rid of. Bernie wasn’t on Abuela’s level of addressing minorities after having had slaves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of events was that the dumb "Sanders is bad at race issues" narrative was already a thing before this happened. If anything, him being gracious and ceding the floor to them would have helped his image in this area. The incident didn't create the narrative, but the media class used it to cement the myth of the racist Bernie Bro in the minds of their dipshit readers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's funny to watch the doublethink in action. The argument is that the protesters were unsuccessful in having the intended outcome, while bringing about the unintended consequence of damaging Bernie's campaign in the process. One can argue with that premise, or question how much damage it really caused to Sanders' campaign (I think folks here might be overblowing it a bit), but there's really no doublethink at work there. Sometimes protests and demonstrations don't have the effects that the protesters wanted, and sometimes they have effects that aren't what the protesters wanted. Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Okay, you're going to have to walk us through how 'centrists concern trolling sanders' is good for minorities. You're asserting that one protest was so powerful that because of it, no future Democractic campaign will ever be able to survive without a strong criminal justice plank and someone from BLM on the campaign staff, but that this shift in the attitude of the Democratic party is not good for black lives (or all lives, since police brutality is not just a black issue) Even if it's 100% true that a single protest destroyed a whole campaign (  ), what is the purpose of bitching about it forever now.The only way to make a future campaign invulnerable to the machinations of, um uh, any two random black ladies, is to get out in front of it with an aggressive pursuit of criminal justice as a component of economic justice, which is not only what we should be doing, but a necessary component of freeing Americans from the domination of capital anyway. There's no argument for not doing that in the future, the 2016 campaign is in the past, the only reason I can see for not doing it is a neurotic obsession with some lady and a stubborn desire to fulfill your own prophecy that nothing can ever come of this. Majorian posted:The argument is that the protesters were unsuccessful in having the intended outcome, while bringing about the unintended consequence of damaging Bernie's campaign in the process. One can argue with that premise, or question how much damage it really caused to Sanders' campaign (I think folks here might be overblowing it a bit), but there's really no doublethink at work there. Sometimes protests and demonstrations don't have the effects that the protesters wanted, and sometimes they have effects that aren't what the protesters wanted. Okay, but that if that claimed outcome is true, then you can't stop analyzing the effect there. BLM demonstrating it's powerful enough to make or break campaigns single-handedly is by definition huge and it's absurd to assume that such a demonstration will have zero effect on the future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Do you think it helps black lives when Hannity concern trolls about Hillary's slaves? Yes, I think it's a good thing to get Republicans on record against prison slavery, then you hit them with a list of governors that use slave labor and ask them to agree to end it. No I don't agree with "don't ask for more attention to police brutality or Hillary will concern-troll leftists" just like I don't agree with "don't criticize prison slavery or Hannity will concern-troll Democrats"
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay, but that if that claimed outcome is true, then you can't stop analyzing the effect there. BLM demonstrating it's powerful enough to make or break campaigns single-handedly is by definition huge and it's absurd to assume that such a demonstration will have zero effect on the future. True, and anyone who thinks that did all that much damage to Bernie's campaign is being silly IMO. The main factors that sank Bernie's campaign were that he didn't plan on running a serious challenge against Clinton before he got into the race, he didn't have as experienced a staff, and he didn't have a war chest as big as Clinton's. Next time around, left-wing challengers will hopefully have learned from this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
Still even without all that he got nearly 50% 0f the Democratic vote, making up a 60 point deficit using only small contributions against basically the entire Democratic party Neo-Liberal machine. Plus there's was some not insignificant behind the scenes shenanigans in certain areas, as well as with the media. There really is a hunger for an alternative politics, especially one that's saying it's going to overturn the status quo apple cart. Even if it turns out to be just lies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Speaking of centrist concern-trolling, my recollection of the campaign is that they made much much more hay out of Clinton doing better with the Southern black vote, in the vein of B5's arguments itt, I hardly saw "Bernie hates BLM" at all mainly because Bernie enthusiastically embraced them after that incident and bringing it up also drew attention to Hillary's um, embarassing problems in that area. Clinton just overwhelmingly won the over-40 vote among all races, whereas Bernie won the under-40 vote among all races, and dishonest people started yelling about the fact that old black voters outnumbered young black voters in order to claim Bernie is The Real Racist. That gave them cover to redirect all economic questions to "if Bernie isn't a big ol racist why am I winning black voters". It was serviceable as a cynical deflection, but that argument probably isn't what took down Bernie. Clinton had a lot of name recognition with the olds, Bernie started late, ran a protest campaign that unexpectedly took off but relied on lower turnout voters who were also less likely to be registered and less likely to be eligible to vote in primaries (because of absurd state Democratic Party rules that we need to fix before 2020), was handicapped by an undemocratic superdelegate system that created the impression among voters that Bernie could never win, etc and failed to overcome that lead despite some surprising upsets. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
^^^ This is a point I've thought about; it's not like Clinton's support was universal across all black sub-demographics. Of course, this isn't discounting the fact that the Clintons are viewed favorably by a large portion of black Americans, but the impression Clinton supporters tried to give wasn't really accurate either. One thing I was curious about, but couldn't find statistics for, is how the age distribution of black voters compares with white voters. Like, is the portion of black voters (in the primary at least) above 40 (or whatever) greater or less than the portion of white voters over that age? Etc. Majorian posted:True, and anyone who thinks that did all that much damage to Bernie's campaign is being silly IMO. The main factors that sank Bernie's campaign were that he didn't plan on running a serious challenge against Clinton before he got into the race, he didn't have as experienced a staff, and he didn't have a war chest as big as Clinton's. Next time around, left-wing challengers will hopefully have learned from this. I think that the single biggest factor was probably Clinton's name recognition and the favorable views older Americans (or at least anyone old enough to have been 30+ during the 90's) have of her husband. Old people still vote disproportionately more than the young, so this would make a very big difference. On the upside, this means that the Democratic voting base will probably continue moving to the left as older Democrats die off and younger Democrats come of voting age. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:Still even without all that he got nearly 50% 0f the Democratic vote, making up a 60 point deficit using only small contributions against basically the entire Democratic party Neo-Liberal machine. Plus there's was some not insignificant behind the scenes shenanigans in certain areas, as well as with the media. Indeed. Suffice it to say, I'm optimistic about the left's chances at taking control of the party between now and 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think that the single biggest factor was probably Clinton's name recognition and the favorable views older Americans (or at least anyone old enough to have been 30+ during the 90's) have of her husband. Old people still vote disproportionately more than the young, so this would make a very big difference. On the upside, this means that the Democratic voting base will probably continue moving to the left as older Democrats die off and younger Democrats come of voting age. The most surprising of which for alot of people was his massive Michigan upset, which should really have set off alarm bells all over the place for the establishment Dems, but no let's just ignore campaigning there and in the rest of the rust belt. Additionally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrOKWIsR5L0 Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You're asserting that one protest was so powerful that because of it, no future Democractic campaign will ever be able to survive without a strong criminal justice plank and someone from BLM on the campaign staff, but that this shift in the attitude of the Democratic party is not good for black lives (or all lives, since police brutality is not just a black issue)
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I made no such assertion, in fact Clinton was in the pocket of the prison-industrial complex yet faced on such concern trolling - because, being closer to the center of power, she was able to brush away BLM with ease. Bernie wasn't, because he isn't. To call what happened 'direct action' is absurd, in light of it carrying no risk and posing no threat to the dominant centers of power in US society, including those than benefit of the exploitation of black america. It is amazing that the Clintons are still earning such huge dividends from Bill playing the saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:The most surprising of which for alot of people was his massive Michigan upset, which should really have set off alarm bells all over the place for the establishment Dems, but no let's just ignore campaigning there and in the rest of the rust belt. I still can hardly believe it. "Whoa we lost the blue wall to some guy no one but nerds had ever heard of until last year and all the polls failed to predict turnout, I guess our platform is really unpopular there hey maybe if we ignore them the midwest will just forget a presidential election is even happening and we can just cast a single vote in each state to win them all"
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
The entire issue isn't so much these two people that did it, it has nothing to do with them existing. It has everything to do with the situation we're in right now, that excuses their nakedly self interested behavior, including smokescreens from people like yourself, who do everything possible to downplay the problems here. You're not doing it to be malicious - to the contrary, you're doing what you're doing because you think it'll help in the long run - but that desire is being exploited by people as a cover for their lovely behavior. They know that as long as they give the right 'words', use the right self-serving rhetoric in just the right order, they can get enough people on their side to defend whatever they do, even if it benefits no one but themselves. This is why it, as an issue, keeps coming up - because I've never seen an admission by anyone like yourself that, maybe, just maybe, it wasn't such a great idea - it's always, do-or-die, we must defend these former tea party agitators to the bitter end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I still can hardly believe it. It is much more believable when you consider the logical conclusion of Hillary's campaign strategy: for every one left voter we lose, we gain two conservative voters. Based on this, losing Michigan was, bizarrely enough, a sign of strength and proof of upcoming success in the general election. When it came time to revisit that state for the real deal, Hillary could rightly expect to have on day one a pool of "centrist" or "independent" voter support equal to twice Bernie Sander's turnout.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
Rudatron, is your solution then to stamp out all dissenting voices?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
As if popularity ever mattered in a presidential election 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Okay but so what? Let's say you're right and I Jedi mind-meld these two randos and discover beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're secretly cynical manipulators who crashed a rally as a false flag attack to further their mustache-twisting evil conspiracy at the expense of our revolution. We can't give Doctor Spock's Psyker powers to everyone in America so no fake-activist can ever dupe them again. We can't set up force fields to ensure no one ever ambushes a candidate with a question and a camera ever again. It seems to me that the only thing we can do to reasonably prevent this is to involve BLM or some other criminal justice reform organization in our campaign from the beginning, which as leftists fighting the power of capital and its footsoldiers in the carceral state, is what we should be doing anyway. I mean what's the alternative: bitch about BLM for ever and ever and give more ammunition to the concern-troll arguments that we're all white brocialists? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Rudatron, is your solution then to stamp out all dissenting voices? It's the hyper-defensiveness that's the issue, combined with the usual habit of taking the least-charitable interpretation of what someone's saying - something your reply here is also guilty of. How, exactly, did you make the jump from what I said, to what you're suggesting I'm saying here? Don't you think that fact that you made that jump so naturally is rather telling?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
Politics is about using right sounding words. Communication is about using right sounding words. There is nothing inherently wrong about trying to hijack a public even for one's own cause, the only thing that can be said is that perhaps they picked the least appropriate candidate to disrupt, but then again, had they done the same stunt at a major Hillary rally, they would have been shot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
History has shown that the modern, liberal politician needs to do three things to sweep the black vote:
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:How, exactly, did you make the jump from what I said, to what you're suggesting I'm saying here? Don't you think that fact that you made that jump so naturally is rather telling? You keep accusing people of being self-interested scam artists. If that isn't an uncharitable interpretation, then I don't know what is. Your argument stems from a gut feeling about what those activists are trying to do, not from any objective analysis of their action, with an attitude like that, it is indeed very easy to stamp out all dissent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
That's not what I'm suggesting brosef, they don't have to be actively evil to be selfish, but here's the real joke here: I already gave my answer to that question! I specifically put the locus of the problem as stemming from the lack of structure of blm, and the incentives on internal actors and supporters, that both encourages and allows this sort of stuff to occur. So long as blm is a 'brand' with no barrier to entry, no directing strategic administration & no accountability, yet provides a pool of people who are gonna feel compelled to defend it (for noble reasons), you're always going to get grifters who are gonna exploit that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
Safety Pin Box was both a self serving scam and loving hilarious and good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Politics is about using right sounding words. Communication is about using right sounding words. There is nothing inherently wrong about trying to hijack a public even for one's own cause, the only thing that can be said is that perhaps they picked the least appropriate candidate to disrupt, but then again, had they done the same stunt at a major Hillary rally, they would have been shot. Actually they did which makes the persecution complex even funnier. rudatron posted:That's not what I'm suggesting brosef, they don't have to be actively evil to be selfish, but here's the real joke here: I already gave my answer to that question! "Hoping black people police themselves into being nice and polite" is a bad plan imo. Seems much smarter to me to take the wind out of the sails of any would-be impolite disruptor by making criminal justice the important plank that it should be for the good of the poor anyway, then there will be no reason to crash any events, and if some greedy malcontent does the campaign has a great answer for the cameras. That way it won't matter whether the BLM central committee successfully Jedi mindmelds all black people to ensure no one ever interrupts Sanders again, and purges all secret Tea Partier false flag actors to Canada or whatever else it takes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
If your campaign can be derailed by one protest group, nobody missed anything important anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
It wasn't just 'one-protest group', it was one protest, combined with the army of centrists lanyards that it gave an incredibly useful narrative device to. It's not as if Sanders was even hostile to criminal justice reform pre-protest, he's the one with the least complicity in the whole system, but the one who got the most poo poo for it. It was 100% bullshit. It's really shocking just how much no one wants to acknowledge it, that you guys would rather throw it down the memory hole. It actually stems from their behavior both during and post-protest, including the afore mentioned safety pin box scam. This is the catch - the reason sanders was crashed was not because he was actually that bad on criminal justice issues - he was already the best of the 3, prior to the event. The reason he was crashed is because it gave the people doing it publicity, and they knew they'd get covered for it. That's it. Talking about 'taking the wind out of the sails' is 100% bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It's the incredible defensiveness & hypocrisy that's grating more than anything - rather than admitting that perhaps it was ill-conceived or mistake, every effort must be made to ignore the fairly obvious flaws of both the people who did it, and the end result. those op-eds were gonna attack bernie over something anyway. that's not what cost bernie the primary, dems rigging the primary is. hth
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 08:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
rudatron posted:It wasn't just 'one-protest group', it was one protest, combined with the army of centrists lanyards that it gave an incredibly useful narrative device to. It's not as if Sanders was even hostile to criminal justice reform pre-protest, he's the one with the least complicity in the whole system, but the one who got the most poo poo for it. It was 100% bullshit. Anything could've been twisted against Bernie Sanders, tbh, and he wasn't the only politician whose events were crashed so it's not like he was being singled out. The media just decided to pay attention to the event in his case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 08:54
|
|
