|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Kilroy posted:the dnc is what happens when a bunch of sleezeball lawyers take advice from poo poo-tier c-levels at mediocre companies, for three decades I guess turnabout is fair play.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
just loving use slurs if that's gonna be your rhetoric. Have the courage of your apparent convictions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:
The magic of identity politics, with which the comfortable can kaleidoscope the world into a self serving delusion that sees the destitute as degenerate villains and themselves as enlightened heroes with no pressing desire to do anything that could help anyone. Moral cleanliness is next to Godliness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think the main issue with that article is that it seems to be assuming that people on the left encouraging the Democrats to focus more on poorer/working-class voters are wanting to do so at the expense of minorities. I was mouthing off about this in the Trump thread actually. Its kind of insane how far culturally the democrats have jumped in short time, yet somehow the scantest of left wing economic measures is considered a bridge too far. I was being annoying about it, and I am glad the Democrats are embracing human rights, but it really shows how much of a sham phrases like political capital are. Ytlaya posted:It sounds like you might be heavily overstating how friendly more educated/higher-paying employers like the tech industry are. The labor relationships are different in some of the ways you describe, but neither industry group really has the interests of working class Americans in mind. I'm definitely over simplifying it, perhaps to the point of it meaning nothing. However, I still think the idea of a whole described a generalized economic view that distinctly differentiates the two areas power bases. Pedro De Heredia posted:There's a very real strain of left-liberalism that seemed to genuinely believe that 'white men were over' and Hillary Clinton was going to win a landslide due to support from minority voters and women. I don't think those people existed, at least that much. Like that stuff about feminism right before that lovely Ghostbusters remake came out. It was just a marketing ploy Sony slapped together after the disastrous trailer to get people to talk about it, but the quality of the movie it self was obvious, and if you examined it, in and of itself sexist to have taken a movie about eccentric academics and witty dialogue, and casting women in a dumb lower brow loud, stupid slapstick comedy. The election followed a similar cynical ploy. Clinton's entire career was antagonistic to all the people the DNC made an advertising campaign over her suddenly being the folk hero of, and it destroyed any enthusiasm outside of people who became property owners under the previous Clinton administration. This is the new face of the democratic party, bland corporate constructs stomping on the vulnerable by someone in HR. That the vulnerable are disproportionately represented by the various identities being used as an excuse for this moral abomination is a cynical joke. Middle class liberals are some of the worst human beings imaginable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/341936-progressives-dems-at-risk-of-perennial-election-defeat Wonder why they don't mention the policies that would appeal to them as voters. It might not be what the neoliberal hill likes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Wonder why they don't mention the policies that would appeal to them as voters. It might not be what the neoliberal hill likes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
I think this year has taken democratic cynicism to another level. I was as likely to bash bernie or busters as anyone, even though I had no illusions that democrats were leftists in any way. I started listening to the pod save America crew, so when they launched pod save the People I started listening to it. One episode Deray and Britanny were talking about DeVos and some stupid poo poo she said about HBCUs. After that, they both expressed some longing for the days of Obama. If there is one thing that Obama was a disaster for, was HBCUs. Obama hosed HBCUs more than any other president in recent history, and would have done more if he hadn't received push back. Had they not said anything I probably wouldn't even notice, but their longing and praise for Obama over HBCUs made me pause. Then I went and read how big they were into charter schools. Add to that that Corey Booker and other likely 2020 candidates did a similar thing and it made me realize that they were just upset with DeVos over tone, not substance. If DeVos is one of the worst people in Trump's cabinet (and she is), democrats should have more than a tone argument to use against her. But of course, a good chunk of the democratic establishment is solidly with her on policy (and is worse than her on things like HBCUs). And then the last straw was the overwhelming reaction of the Obama crowd against Corbyn's performance in the UK. Certainly there is no "we want to be progressive but have to be pragmatic" argument to be made in terms of strongly coming out against Corbyn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:
There's a brand of person, usually found in most bureaucracies and mid-sized movements/corporations and above, that feel far better having absolute control over a shitshow than having a 20% stake in a resounding success. Identifying these people and getting them out of the way is a big factor in keeping anything big vital and moving forward. A political party, a software developer, a sports team. Doesn't matter. When more of the faction's resources are spent propping up its top layer than achieving its goals, it is walking dead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:There's a brand of person, usually found in most bureaucracies and mid-sized movements/corporations and above, that feel far better having absolute control over a shitshow than having a 20% stake in a resounding success. I think you maybe under estimating the gravity of the situation. I think we're seriously headed towards the breakdown of society. The biggest thing about the Scalise shooting was how little anybody cared. Violence is rapidly becoming normalized, and Trump is a big enough pile of garbage to start indulging it. Once that line is crossed, that its not the unthinkable but just something that happens, even from the highest visible powers, not obscure mishaps. He joked with Putin about journalists disrespecting him, I seriously think he'll start killing journalists by the end of the year. I don't think Bernie or bust was ridiculous considering the significant agenda difference. The current leadership of the DNC is based in Clinton era agenda. Trump beating Clinton and dismantling the party is probably the only possible avenue of reform. I wouldn't vote for Trump, and I'd vote for Clinton if I was in a swing state because I'm not going to drink bleach to spite others, but fundamentally the democratic establishment is not left wing, has no interest in leftwing policy, and is actively against them. The Republicans future is in suppressing voter turn out, but the democrats desperately need to be reformed because they're quickly becoming the safety release for sane portions of the GOP, and without an agenda that energizes the left part of the base, there is no way to get leftwing policy enacted. Bernie straight up should have won, and the fact that a socialist with 5% recognition went the distance with essentially the literal owner of the party off small donations is the only hope that something can be done. Obama was a conjob to diffuse populist outrage. Not the worst ever, but effectively a scam. Sanders is the worst thing that ever happened to the democratic party, he actively pulled the political lexicon to the left of Reagan for the first time LBJ. We're in a new era. Obama wouldn't work now because the rules of discourse have fundamentally changed, and no candidate is going to get that kind of support without actually specifying policy positions that his post Bush not-blithering-idiot campaign would be enough for now. The party leadership has only gotten older and more out of touch with the base, while the Republican party apparatus has further radicalized. Either the DNC goes left and actually gets voters engaged, or the GOP does exactly what a unhinged reactionary white nationalist movement can be expected to do. I keep saying it because its so fundamentally true and forgetting the is the biggest danger. Fascists get into power when liberals suppress socialists. If the democrats don't offer a meaningful alternative to the increasingly radicalized white nationalist party thats increasingly hostile to democracy itself, whats going to happen isn't going to shock anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:There's a brand of person, usually found in most bureaucracies and mid-sized movements/corporations and above, that feel far better having absolute control over a shitshow than having a 20% stake in a resounding success. Don't forget all the top level people being former CEOs used to (very) short term results, and no clue or willingness to support long term plans if they'll start slow or have any problems during their tenure (when they won't get immediate credit). Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
If the only person to ever lose to Hillary Clinton is the best hope, we're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If the only person to ever lose to Hillary Clinton is the best hope, we're hosed. Don't sell Rick Lazio short!
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:
Whether it's factual or not, it's the connotation it has in politics thanks to decades of populist misuse, is it not? There certainly is an issue with genuine leftists trying to naively use the same phrases that have been coopted by the right, and have had their meaning twisted. I think progressives would do themselves a favor emphasizing more clearly that when they say working class, they do not continue the use of that term by Conservatives etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:As I've mentioned before, I believe this is because, to a person who is already comfortable and economically secure in the status quo, their top concern on an emotional level is going to be the possibility of things becoming worse. Even if they rationally realize that the status quo is bad for many people, emotionally that isn't really driving them. I think one of the biggest causes of the current split in the party is a disconnect between more well-off Democrats (which also includes Democratic leadership/politicians), who are primarily concerned with avoiding making things worse, and a large portion of the poorer voter base, who are so unhappy with the status quo that the idea of things becoming worse isn't their primary concern. This disconnect has always existed to some extent, but the percent of people truly unhappy with the status quo wasn't high enough to be electorally relevant until more recently. Pretty much. I was reading an interview with Christopher Nolan and his thoughts parallel what you are talking about with well-off Democrats. quote:In today’s world, anarchy scares me the most. Both the Joker in The Dark Knight and Bane in The Dark Knight Rises tap into things that are very powerful to me in terms of the breakdown of society. With Bane, it’s the fear of demagoguery and where that can lead. The Dark Knight Rises is far more extreme in that regard than I think anybody realized while watching it. In the first two Batman films, we’d had the threat of the breakdown of society, the threat of things going horribly wrong. With The Dark Knight Rises, we wanted to make a film in which we said, “Okay, let’s actually go there,” so we thought about people in Manhattan being dragged out of their Park Avenue homes. I think this type of belief isn't a disconnect between two sections of the democrats. It's a disconnect between people like Nolan in their dream factory and the reality people not blessed to be in the top 1% have to deal with. There's no thought or acknowledgement of the people currently suffering. Things are going great and the only wounds we have are self-inflected Also see Dick Suckerberg's tour across America. It's not FDR driving around the state in his fancy new automobile to campaign and connect to the average person. It's a carefully planned PR tour where he gets to do a bunch of touristy poo poo. They're incapable of leaving the bubble they live in. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Whether it's factual or not, it's the connotation it has in politics thanks to decades of populist misuse, is it not? no it is not. quote:I think progressives would do themselves a favor emphasizing more clearly that when they say working class, they do not continue the use of that term by Conservatives etc. out of absolutely miserable curiosity, what terminology would you prefer?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
The idea that all, or even a majority, of poor whites are all closet neo-nazis, that can only ever be appealed to with racism, is probably one the the greatest con jobs of corporate centrists ever. It's just another way to shut people up about bringing in real, material justice, to all the poor in society. It doesn't represented the actual lived experience of PoC, it's just the specific neuroses of a particular kind of upwardly-mobile minority liberal, hand-picked to be 'community leaders', without ever having to have the actually get voted or chosen by the people they're supposed to represent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:no it is not. Not any different terminology necessarily, but a stronger push against the appropriation of leftist terms by right wing populists, which should be in the interest of the left for self-evident reasons, especially since you can see yourself that even supposed allies, the liberals, are happy to use any loaded history of political terms as an ammo against progressives. rudatron posted:The idea that all, or even a majority, of poor whites are all closet neo-nazis, that can only ever be appealed to with racism, is probably one the the greatest con jobs of corporate centrists ever. It's just another way to shut people up about bringing in real, material justice, to all the poor in society. That's not at all what I've been suggesting, and I don't think other posters did either. It is about actively redrawing the discourse for a new generation instead of allowing the putrid stench of Conservative and other legacy to linger. I trust most people understand "working class" in a neutral way, but at the same time it seems undeniable to me that many people will see it as a dogwhistle for legitimate reasons, and it is for their benefit that progressives should be more deliberate and instructive in using the term.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If the only person to ever lose to Hillary Clinton is the best hope, we're hosed. If the only person ever to lose to Gerald Ford is Republicans' best hope 1980, they're hosed forever
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
A lot of people care about the Scalise shooting, the media just mostly buried it. Sneakster posted:I think you maybe under estimating the gravity of the situation. I think we're seriously headed towards the breakdown of society. The biggest thing about the Scalise shooting was how little anybody cared. Violence is rapidly becoming normalized, and Trump is a big enough pile of garbage to start indulging it. Once that line is crossed, that its not the unthinkable but just something that happens, even from the highest visible powers, not obscure mishaps. He joked with Putin about journalists disrespecting him, I seriously think he'll start killing journalists by the end of the year. Guy who supported the faithless elector campaign: These people are hostile to democracy! lol okay buddy
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 09:55
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Pretty much. I was reading an interview with Christopher Nolan and his thoughts parallel what you are talking about with well-off Democrats. What's really striking about that Nolan interview is that even though he's trying to show he understands the plight faced by society he still apparently thinks America went through two generations without "knowing war". That shows an incredible disconnect between the experiences of a wealthy Hollywood producer and the average person in flyover country who almost inevitably has relatives serving in the war on terror and familial memories of Vietnam. Apparently one of the most influential purveyors of fantasy violence literally forgot about all the real world violence that working class Americans are called on to both inflict and endure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 10:12
|
|
|
I legit though Dark Knight Rises was a terrible loving movie, but I had trouble putting my finger on why until reading that Nolan interview. The mind set of the man is just completely in another place. I watched the masses rise up against the elites in that film and thought, "Wait, is this meant to be a bad thing? This is just what happens when you have an underclass rise up when they've had enoguh." It was darkly humourous watching a banker sent out onto the ice, and that I was meant to feel sorry for him after having experienced 2008 and almost being made homeless by it was laughable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 10:20
|
|
|
The sinister intent when Catwoman and her friend have this little exchange spoke volumes: Catwoman - "This was someone's house"  "Now it's everyone's house!"Oh my god, the redistribution of wealth! THE HORROR!  Also, Bane became the hero of the movie when he said "Then why are you here?" to the Wall Street guy who said "There's no money for you to steal here!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 10:24
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:I legit though Dark Knight Rises was a terrible loving movie, but I had trouble putting my finger on why until reading that Nolan interview. The mind set of the man is just completely in another place. I watched the masses rise up against the elites in that film and thought, "Wait, is this meant to be a bad thing? This is just what happens when you have an underclass rise up when they've had enoguh." Bane is the good guy. He realises the system must be anhilated. I really am surprised/leftypol/ isn't having more fun with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:A lot of people care about the Scalise shooting Liberal maniacs! You see this is what they were talking about on Fox... my premiums are going to up HOW MUCH? Oh Christ, couldn't that guy have done it sooner? How the hell am I going to afford my mortgage with tripling premiums. rudatron posted:The idea that all, or even a majority, of poor whites are all closet neo-nazis, that can only ever be appealed to with racism, is probably one the the greatest con jobs of corporate centrists ever. It's just another way to shut people up about bringing in real, material justice, to all the poor in society. Did you know the aryan brotherhood and the black guerilla family are racist? Thats very problematic. The punch line is the absurdity of pointing out the moral failing of racism in prison, a place filled with violence, desperation, and exploitation, where obeying tribalistic norms is a matter of not being killed. Look at the Trump thread, its literally full of middle class liberals blaming the poor for how the upper-middle class voted. Middle class liberals have much more in common with racist Trump supporters than they want to admit. You know what you call white people who don't have enough money to live in middle class all-white neighborhoods? White trash, and middle class liberals hate them as much as racist Trump supporters hate non-whites. The fundamental moral contradiction is middle class liberals use race as a cipher for class, and racist Trump supporters use class as a cipher for race. Middle class liberals *are* the good whites as opposed to degenerate white trash, and racist Trump supporters mostly only hate the *bad* non-whites who live a lot closer to the *bad* whites. The target for both is the poor, and they contort their hatred of them through various logical leaps, even when its pointed out that they're factually wrong, it doesn't matter. Trump supporters see non-whites the same way liberals see the poor, because poverty is still considered a moral failing to both. Middle class white liberals distance themselves from identifying with poor people, and how close they themselves are to either being part of the damned poor, or the vile aristocracy instills a dual material and moral terror. They flee this through complete intellectual dishonesty, this is the only way to maintain self-respect in a capitalist system. The moral contradiction of amassing capital while being concerned about poverty is irreconcilable. Because of this, middle class liberals want to pretend class doesn't exist to clear their conscious any kind of wrong doing or feeling like collaborators. It is because of these things, the poor and the middle class have inherently antagonistic interests, because the middle class want to protect the crumbs they've been given more than risking reform. Pointing out that class war is an inescapable primary conflict and the only kind reform can actually fix at the material level is likely to get accusations of racism. I would however support a black nationalist movement dedicated to class war up to and including violence against white property owners though. I think they'll start voting Republican before supporting that though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 10:38
|
|
|
I do find it strange that the more comfortable the poster in the income sense the more likely they are to defend that status quo and the legacy of corporate dems using social causes to justify abominable poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 10:53
|
|
|
Grognan posted:I do find it strange that the more comfortable the poster in the income sense the more likely they are to defend that status quo and the legacy of corporate dems using social causes to justify abominable poo poo. I don't find it strange at all. They're doing what's in their best interest; maintain the status quo, but try to make themselves look good for doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 11:00
|
|
|
Granted, another narrative that seems to be going around is the empty argument that since Trump voters (ie almost all Republicans) on average had higher incomes...class or economics had nothing to do with what was happening. When you look at the general breakdown of income, Trump did 16 percent better than Romney among the poorest voters ( under 30k income), the end result was 53% versus 41%. That should be something pretty scary to most Democrats. The question though is how did Trump do so comparatively well among the working class? (The answer is mostly talking about trade and being very vague about his other positions. We now how it actually went). Moreover, if the strategy of the Democrats is going to be going after wealthy suburbs, how is this going to get them the rust belt back? Sure there are still wealthy suburban Republicans in the Rust Belt but they are almost certainly outnumbered by pissed off poor people (specifically people pissed off about trade) who will either turn on the Democrats or simply don't show up. This is likely going to be only compounded by voter suppression. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 11:13
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Moreover, if the strategy of the Democrats is going to be going after wealthy suburbs, how is this going to get them the rust belt back? Sure there are still wealthy suburban Republicans in the Rust belt but they are almost certainly outnumbered by pissed off poor people (specifically people pissed off about trade) who either turn on the Democrats or simply don't show up. This is likely going to be only compounded by voter suppression. Here's my prediction for how that's gonna go:  Followed by this: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 12:03
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Oh come on, "working class" is politicalspeak for "poor white people" and you know it. What a perfect encapsulation of how loving stupid the political conversation has gotten in the past half decade. While that attitude and belief may be true now, it certainly wasn't correct 5 years ago, which is why Obama's coalition actually won and Hillary's "who needs white people, anyway" idiocy blew up in everyone's face. The belief that you can't win over working whites without being, like totally racist, is not only bigoted, it's flat out destroyed by even a cursory look at the evidence. Obama managed somehow!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
Like no loving joke, if you went in a time machine back to 2008 and said that talking about the working class was code for poor white people ... you would have been thought to be literally insane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
It probably wasn't, back then...
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Hilary's gift to history was to elevate the alt-right into national prominence while aggressively spreading the idea that any form of economic populism was tantamount to white supremacy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
Growing up in Mississippi, 30 years ago working class meant blue collar white.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Bane is the good guy. He realises the system must be anhilated. I really am surprised/leftypol/ isn't having more fun with that. Bane is the bad guy, but only because he plans to kill all the people after they retake the city. His freeing the imprisoned and imprisoning the cops is a good and necessary action.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Most coal miners are black, FYI
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Gustav posted:It probably wasn't, back then... The only people who see the words "working class" as "white working class" are bad dems. This shouldn't be a surprise, as they openly supported a slaveholder last election. peengers posted:Growing up in Mississippi, 30 years ago working class meant blue collar white. That's because Mississippi is filled head to toe with idiots
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Watching your democrats flounder about is uncannily similar to the UK Labour Party 2 years ago. Just floundering about without a message, chasing a nebulous centre and making it increasingly unlikely that people will even turn out to vote for them. When the republicans are loving about so badly with your already crap healthcare, you should probably have some actual policies beyond 'Not Trump 2: Electric Boogaloo'
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:The belief that you can't win over working whites without being, like totally racist, is not only bigoted, it's flat out destroyed by even a cursory look at the evidence. Obama managed somehow!! Don't you think Obama's balancing act was aided by his skin color? As a Democrat, I don't think he had to work nearly as hard to convince minority voters that he would be in their corner and that enabled him to go in hard on wooing as many white votes as he could with charismatic centralism. I don't think it's a total zero-sum situation and I'm sure many things can be smoothed over when you state your positions with skill and authenticity, but I feel like using Obama as an example of something that can be replicated could be a road to nowhere for many candidates (especially for those with more established track records). Biden could probably have pulled it off. Sanders, I'm not so sure about but with hindsight I think he could have gotten there. Someone like HRC with all the baggage? Not so much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
I dunno, I recall that Obama's campaign spent a tremendous amount of effort getting poor minorities out to vote. Sure they supported him but the issue there, to me, is getting people out to vote, not getting their support. Obama himself says that visiting every labour hall and veterans lodge or whatever in Iowa and every other rust belt state also made a difference, and I think the Hillary campaign intentionally abandoned those people to the Republicans because they were trying to woo college-educated suburbanites, not minority voters. The frustrating part of these discussions always comes in two parts: 1) People confuse ideology for tactics. 2) Clinton didn't just give up on a certain group of people but also intentionally targeted another group of people that (from what I've seen) strongly voted for Trump anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
Dreylad posted:I dunno, I recall that Obama's campaign spent a tremendous amount of effort getting poor minorities out to vote. Sure they supported him but the issue there, to me, is getting people out to vote, not getting their support. basically, hillary's campaign was for old people. she was not interested in pandering to "self-interested" college attending millenials, she was not interested in pandering to young black people, or young poc in general. the only group she specifically targeted (and increased her vote share with over obama) was rich old people. and that's just not a path forward.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 16:43
|
|
