|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Avirosb posted:So basically, nothing matters. Primarying off the rotten apples is possible, but probably not if the party continues acting in as shameless a partisan manner (ironic, yes) as it has been against non-insiders. As long as the Dem leadership pretends that the party is a private club that can play fast and loose with its own rules, as well as continue trading favors, rather than a public institution with accountability to its base, progress within party structure is hard, and outside of it it is prohibited by the electoral system.
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/DWStweets/status/884899643976544257
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
you dont have to self-incriminate, debbie, we know
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
An extremely powerful self own.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Condiv posted:that's why leftists need to support the DSA and stop pouring support into the democratic party. DSA approved candidates yes, kamala harrises, no As far as I know the DSA does not run candidates and is not a political party. Sometimes they endorse candidates. My younger brother is a delegate-at-large, though, so I'm sure I'll hear about how their convention goes in August.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:As far as I know the DSA does not run candidates and is not a political party. Sometimes they endorse candidates. My younger brother is a delegate-at-large, though, so I'm sure I'll hear about how their convention goes in August. they are entryist, and i fully expect they will start running candidates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Condiv posted:they are entryist, and i fully expect they will start running candidates. I believe there is a faction within the DSA that wants to become a political party and run candidates but I wouldn't pin my hopes on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:I believe there is a faction within the DSA that wants to become a political party and run candidates but I wouldn't pin my hopes on it. i mean run candidates as democrats
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Cross-post-ish from the Russia thread:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trump-russia-russiagate-magnitsky-affair-linked-again-w492290 posted:... In case anyone still thinks the speaking fees have no effect on what policy the recipients advocate for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
I'm not in with the DSA but I thought the plan was to act as a parallel party that mostly endorses and supports progressive democrats while primarying the centrists / do-nothings
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:I was going to include the caveat "in their current form" but I figured it was a given. They'd need to become an entirely different party to get lefts-of-Reagan to vote for them. So did you completely miss that several Dem candidates got within striking distance in deep red districts earlier this year by running on leftist policy and operating on shoestring budgets? Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Jul 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
It's impossible to win an election without millions in donor cash which is why Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton faced off for the Presidential election in 2016 and we're now in the third bush era
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Can't the Dems have Blue Dogs for the conservative-leaning areas and non-Blue Dogs for the progressive areas? Run behind a platform of change general enough so that no one's a hypocrite for running as a Democrat? Did all the "50 state strategy" thinkng get junked once Dean stepped down from the DNC Chair position in 2009? When did everything become purely either/or?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Can't the Dems have Blue Dogs for the conservative-leaning areas and non-Blue Dogs for the progressive areas? Run behind a platform of change general enough so that no one's a hypocrite for running as a Democrat? The DNC is a conservative organization that literally does not want to change anything. It's not about either/or it's about serving the donors that pay the salaries of the DNC leadership. The reason the DNC doesn't want to move left has literally nothing to do with winning or losing elections and everything to do with maintaining low taxes on billionaires. Opposing neoliberal economic theory will lead to the DNC essentially pariahing you regardless of the electoral implications. Which is why the DNC chose to back a losing horse. Because to the Democrats, Trump winning was better than Bernie winning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Can't the Dems have Blue Dogs for the conservative-leaning areas and non-Blue Dogs for the progressive areas? This would be great, but look at someone like Diane Feinstein. CA is the bluest state in the union and yet she's one of the most conservative Dem Senators, so this idea isn't working out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:...have you ever been in a ghetto? Since I'm going to school for social work and also live in shitville Alabama, I've seen poverty. But the majority of people are ok enough that they won't agitate and the others are too beaten down to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Considering the democrats are losing anyway, why not risk a third party? It's not like the current leadership will ever permit change thanks to its donor base. We're looking at republican dominance no matter what happens. But at least with a third party the dems could position themselves as Rockefeller republicans and eventually split the right wing voters instead of the left wing ones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Considering the democrats are losing anyway, why not risk a third party? It's not like the current leadership will ever permit change thanks to its donor base. Welcome to the voting for third party candidates club, where you get to watch 95% of the electorate sign up to have another middle eastern genocidist billionaire bailout machine candidate because "at least they aren't the other one". At least you can sleep at night. But i mean, there's no long term success. The Democrats won't split any vote, they'd just join the GOP. Hell most of the Democrats are GOP members in everything but name as it is. the idea that we're dealing with two distinct parties and they aren't both just bought and paid by the same billionaires to pursue the exact same policy is a fiction. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jul 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
It's a much better idea to try to overtake the Dems, unless we get to the point where the GOP has collapsed completely and a leftist third party is actually polling well (like, above 30% at least). Otherwise the spoiler effect is going to ensure GOP dominance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
The Dem Leadership's actions to date are already insuring GOP domination. They are their own spoiler candidate, because they have driven non-coastal state voters into the arms of the "Not Going To Vote" Party. Kraftwerk posted:Considering the democrats are losing anyway, why not risk a third party? It's not like the current leadership will ever permit change thanks to its donor base. We're looking at republican dominance no matter what happens. But at least with a third party the dems could position themselves as Rockefeller republicans and eventually split the right wing voters instead of the left wing ones. This is a fair point; as long as the candidates are loving reprehensible losers, you might as well vote for the one that pays the best lip service. Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jul 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Considering the democrats are losing anyway, why not risk a third party? It's not like the current leadership will ever permit change thanks to its donor base. We're looking at republican dominance no matter what happens. But at least with a third party the dems could position themselves as Rockefeller republicans and eventually split the right wing voters instead of the left wing ones. This is virtually impossible and a waste of time at the federal level. Running third party for state/local governments might be plausible under certain circumstances, but nothing (positive anyways) will be accomplished by a chunk of current Democrats splitting off and voting for a third party for president. Your idea would only begin to be plausible if a significant portion of current Republicans were willing to join either the neo-Democrats or the proposed progressive party, which definitely wouldn't happen. While gaining control over the Democratic Party is very difficult, it's at least not totally impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:So did you completely miss that several Dem candidates got within striking distance in deep red districts earlier this year by running on leftist policy and operating on shoestring budgets? Quist raised more than 5 million for his campaign, his opponent body slammed a reporter, Bernie campaigned for him hard, and he still lost by 6. Thompson in Nebraska was about as leftist as Clinton on policy and lost by 7. Parnell in S.C. opposed single payer and a $15 minimum and lost by 3. Ossoff lost by 4.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
ossoff got fewer votes than someone who literally does not exist
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
the DNC threw millions of dollars, hundreds of consultants, and their entire media apparatus behind ossof, and he couldn't beat two words next to the letter d
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
your way has been tried, jc. we have the numbers. it is less effective than literally doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:ossoff got fewer votes than someone who literally does not exist And special elections have lower turnout than presidential general elections. Ossoff was a really bad candidate but his ideology probably matched that district. If we litmus test out all pro-life, pro-gun or pro-market democratic candidate for red districts, we'll be left with a much worse pool for candidates in these red districts. Texas 23rd is the first example off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
idiots like fulchrum and JC are great because they're going to kill the democrats and it will own to watch them try to excuse themselves from ensuring 1000 years of GOP darkness
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If we litmus test out all pro-life, pro-gun or pro-market democratic candidate for red districts, we'll be left with a much worse pool for candidates in these red districts. Texas 23rd is the first example off the top of my head. do you seriously not get that trying to appeal to republicans is why you're in the mess you are? offer a loving alternative. A legitimate alternative. That is the whole point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
not only did ossof get less votes than a figment of someone's imagination, he was outperformed percentage wise by Hillary Clinton in his district there is no part of the Ossof Equation that reads anything but bitter, bitter failure. pragmatism demands a new strategy. only abject cowardice can justify throwing the party's weight behind If A White Professional Likes Spicy Mayo On A Ten Dollar Sandwich They Might Switch To Voting Dem. it failed in 2016, it failed in 2017. the thing about adapt-or-die crises is jamming your fingers in your ears does not solve the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
I saw a screencap of his twitter ad in here during the election and thought it was some kind of metal gear solid photoshop idiocy. Seeing the ad in its actual glory posted here... it's barely believable
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:do you seriously not get that trying to appeal to republicans is why you're in the mess you are? offer a loving alternative. A legitimate alternative. That is the whole point. I'm saying that in districts like TX-23rd a pro-choice, anti-gun, anti-market candidate won't win. It isn't about chasing Republicans it is about recognizing the realities of the districts involved and the realities of recruiting candidates. I'd take an ideologically impure human in the make of IronStash over an ideologically pure robot with the charisma of Ossoff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Quist raised more than 5 million for his campaign, his opponent body slammed a reporter, Bernie campaigned for him hard, and he still lost by 6 Relative to the 2016 election which one moved the electorate more?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Leftists don't have to be anti gun hth
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Leftists don't have to be anti gun hth there's a certain pro-gun dem i'm very fond of cause he gets stuff done 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm saying that in districts like TX-23rd a pro-choice, anti-gun, anti-market candidate won't win. It isn't about chasing Republicans it is about recognizing the realities of the districts involved and the realities of recruiting candidates. What about a pro-choice pro-gun anti-market candidate. quote:I'd take an ideologically impure human in the make of IronStash over an ideologically pure robot with the charisma of Ossoff. Of course you would, but most of us are more concerned with the welfare of our countrymen as opposed to our tax burden.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Leftists don't have to be anti gun hth And that's a place leftists and blue dogs could work together to reform the party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And that's a place leftists and blue dogs could work together to reform the party. Absolutely, no true leftists should be against arming the people when the capital class has armed forces protecting them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Lol at working with blue dogs. Yes let's meet up with Republicans in blue to reform the republican lite party. What the gently caress are you talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:What about a pro-choice pro-gun anti-market candidate. If you can find them and get them to run and they are humans, great! My whole point is we need to have local humans run for office and that's more important than passing every possible litmus test. quote:Of course you would, but most of us are more concerned with the welfare of our countrymen as opposed to our tax burden. Ideological purity wouldn't have made Ossoff win. Ideologically pure losers don't improve the welfare of Americans. I'd rather someone pro-life or pro-market win in Texas 23rd and have their vote on all the other issues than keep a Republican in the seat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
to be completely clear ossof was probably the right candidate to run in GA-06, you can't get much more stuffy white professional scared of the working class than that district. the tragic failure of the DNC was in deciding this soulless bowl of lukewarm oatmeal, and his "i'll do exactly what the republican will, but slightly more competently!" brand of politics was worth blowing a couple million trying to make happen, instead of any of the people trying to change the party's direction in even the slightest. this marks the eighth sequential year of this electoral strategy failing miserably. but i'm sure ninth time's the charm!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:46
|
|