|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
WampaLord posted:But the entire point of this is to demand better from our officials not to go "Well they support my one pet issue, who gives a gently caress if they're terrible about other stuff that I don't care about." It's more complicated than that. A better example would be Bernie's zionism. There are issues we can and should compromise on if it means we end up with a superior alternative. What those issues are is up for debate, but no candidate is going to be perfect. Like I'll keep "demanding betting" but nobody gives a poo poo about what I think and I already live in a very "left" part of the United States and am forced to compromise with almost every single person I vote for.
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's more complicated than that. There are issues we can and should compromise on if it means we end up with a superior alternative. What those issues are is up for debate, but no candidate is going to be perfect. Removing the dumb bit, this is basically the centrist argument that you've railed against. "Pick the most electable person, regardless of what they believe."
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Edit: Double Post
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Removing the dumb bit, this is basically the centrist argument that you've railed against. "Pick the most electable person, regardless of what they believe." No, like I said, there are litmus tests worth having. They just don't include "a coherent policy on addressing climate change in the 21st century" for me personally. And if they do for you, I would have thought twice about voting for Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:No, like I said, there are litmus tests worth having. They just don't include "a coherent policy on addressing climate change in the 21st century" for me personally. And if they do for you, I would have thought twice about voting for Clinton. Who should I have voted for instead? Trump? Reminder, I live in a battleground state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Who should I have voted for instead? Trump? Whoever you want to, I'm not judging you for voting Clinton. I'm just saying don't judge me for not having climate change as litmus test for my voting if you don't as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Unbelievably Fat Man posted:Interrogative: Quist shrank the margin by 10 and Ossoff shrank it by 19, compared to the 2016 house election. My goal was not to compare these results. I don't have any idea who the leftist candidates who ran campaigns on a shoestring and came close to winning were. Quist had a lot of Bernie money, and the candidates in Nebraska, SC, and Georgia were as leftist as Hillary Clinton. All of them improved the margins compared to the last election.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:as leftist as Hillary Clinton. This is a nonsense phrase, for she was not leftist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Great, and if we can find local candidates who want to run campaigns like that in conservative districts, that'd be wonderful. If we can't, we shouldn't throw away human candidates who fail to live up to that standard. Well figuring in the past special elections we had a couple people run exactly in that line of thinking and do way better than expected I would say its worth a chance. I mean if you run another Ossoff you will likely lose anyways -- why not take a chance?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted: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. Once again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rMVNC5l4IM That may have well as been a commercial for his phone: that man was not going to do anything that would justify the nuisance change would involve for reformers or reactionary. SSJ_naruto_2003 posted: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. SSJ_naruto_2003 posted: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. Cerebral Bore posted:The only people unduly insistent on ideological purity tests are the centrists, the problem is that the test they're applying is that a candidate may not threaten the ruling class in any significant way. Typo posted:She was down in vote share with AA because you can't match turnout for the first African American president WampaLord posted:Wow, that's sort of insulting towards black people, isn't it? You think they wouldn't vote as much for a white president who actually cared about their issues? That Obama understands the human toll of the drug war and laughed off legalization despite being an executive power is when he outed himself as a vacuous narcissist. NewForumSoftware posted:also it's entirely irrelevant because as far as I know there are no climate denying lefties
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This is a nonsense phrase, for she was not leftist. Then neither were Ossoff, Thompson, or Parnell. That's my point. Quist ran a more leftist campaign but it wasn't on a shoestring, he had the Bernie fundraising machine behind him. They all had similar results.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Then neither were Ossoff, Thompson, or Parnell. That's my point. Quist ran a more leftist campaign but it wasn't on a shoestring, he had the Bernie fundraising machine behind him. They all had similar results. You can't just say "he had the Bernie fundraising machine" as an excuse for why the DNC chose to completely loving ignore him and provide no monetary support of their own. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-democrats-battle-for-montana-w482375 quote:Despite capturing the hearts and minds of the Democratic grassroots, Quist is getting no love from the national party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You can't just say "he had the Bernie fundraising machine" as an excuse for why the DNC chose to completely loving ignore him and provide no monetary support of their own. I can because the claim was that he ran his campaign on a shoestring, which he did not--he raised over 5 million--far more than the candidates in Nebraska and SC, and he did worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
The DNC was scared off by Gianfort's alpha nature. They knew they'd get bodyslammed and cowardly ran away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I can because the claim was that he ran his campaign on a shoestring, which he did not--he raised over 5 million--far more than the candidates in Nebraska and SC, and he did worse. Well turns out money doesn't win elections, might as well go ahead and tell those donors to gently caress right off and implement some policies that get you votes and not just donor money. One election is anecdotal data, don't try to draw such specific conclusions from it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
So we're in agreement that leftist candidates who ran their campaigns on a shoestring and almost won seats in congress don't actually exist?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay talking about centrist james thompson posted:He called for a 15 dollar minimum wage at some unspecified time in the future because rural Kansas isn't the same as NYC and you can't change things overnight. I don't think he actually campaigned on 15. Similarly he supports single payer but didn't advocate any specific implementation and didn't campaign on the issue. Supporting 15 and single payer are the magic words he said to get out of state Bernie money that he put into his moderate campaign. thompson supported singlepayer ossoff never did. to JC, these are the exact same politicians
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So we're in agreement that leftist candidates who ran their campaigns on a shoestring and almost won seats in congress don't actually exist? And? Are you thus claiming it is impossible for such a person to ever exist, let alone win? This traces back to your broken worldview, where you refuse to accept we can actually achieve anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Well, volunteers are cheap too, and you'll get more of them if you have an actual charismatic candidate with real ideas that appeal to college aged kids (who are most likely to have free time to go door to door) instead of a centrist shill. gently caress, you have an example. Corbyn had hordes of people going door-to-door in the UK, and like Sanders he's a frumpy guy in a crumpled suit that can give a good speech on things people care about. That and he actually has great policies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:gently caress, you have an example. Corbyn had hordes of people going door-to-door in the UK, and like Sanders he's a frumpy guy in a crumpled suit that can give a good speech on things people care about. That and he actually has great policies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Condiv posted:thompson supported singlepayer Thompson supported single payer in a Reddit AMA and then never again, not even on his website. Even on the AMA he talked about the need to improve the system we have. He also supported a 15 dollar minimum--noting that it would never work right away and that rural Nebraska wouldn't be able to support the same wage as LA or NYC. He also promised to agitate for more free trade deals so farmers could sell their crops internationally, and to lower taxes so corporations would invest more in Nebraska. Here's a Thompson quote from my first post itt. quote:Ninety-six percent of all civil cases settle. The reason why is because once you get your evidence together, you sit down and you know your weaknesses and you know your strengths and you sit down with the other side and you negotiate out a deal.” WampaLord posted:And? Are you thus claiming it is impossible for such a person to ever exist, let alone win? This traces back to your broken worldview, where you refuse to accept we can actually achieve anything. No I was responding to this: 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?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No I was responding to this: So you're just quibbling over what "within striking distance" means?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAO6DhSy430
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:So you're just quibbling over what "within striking distance" means? No, I'm saying there weren't any leftists who ran on a shoestring budget. Quist was the only leftist, and he had money. The guys in Nebraska and SC who didn't have money weren't leftists. I agree that all of them, including Ossoff, substantially improved margins from 2017 and got close enough to consider these districts competitive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Leftists don't have to be anti gun hth Guns are good, they protect the worker from the deprivations of Capital. Also lol at the lying racist JC saying that because Qvuist was able to independently raise funds we cannot complain about the DNC giving Ossoff all the support. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
You can complain about the DNC all you want, but you can't claim Quist lost because he had no money, because he had quite a lot of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Ossoff's performance isn't really an area for debate; quite a few officials have admitted that his performance for the amount of effort put in was disappointing. Whinge about the level of leftism the other election candidates were, the bottom line is that the democrats put in all their resources into one race in an attempt to vindicate their austerity & tech approach. What they got was results on par or slightly worse/better than the shoestring campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You can complain about the DNC all you want, but you can't claim Quist lost because he had no money, because he had quite a lot of it. I just tell it as it is and counter your open lies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
I feel like all the talk about what policies we should use as a litmus test is missing a larger point. At the end of the day the real litmus tests we should use are "is this person a functional human being?" and "Is this person working for me or their donors?". If they pass both those tests then quite a lot can be forgiven. This is incredibly important because who you owe your power to has a FAR greater effect on ones behavior than individual policy positions or vague ideologies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:I feel like all the talk about what policies we should use as a litmus test is missing a larger point. At the end of the day the real litmus tests we should use are "is this person a functional human being?" and "Is this person working for me or their donors?". If they pass both those tests then quite a lot can be forgiven. This is incredibly important because who you owe your power to has a FAR greater effect on ones behavior than individual policy positions or vague ideologies. We're constitutionally supposed to have ~10x the amount of people we currently have in the house. The value of the time of a given congressmen itself is too high for grass roots organizing to matter much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
The donor issue wouldn't be much of one if, like Sanders, everyone was funded through small donations only, or there was some kind of public funding for election and the exclusion of private ones. No bundlers. No Super PACs. Then you, the average American, are the donor and anything else is once again illegal bribery.
Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
I really agree that we need to require that House seats at most be representing say four hundred thousand people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I really agree that we need to require that House seats at most be representing say four hundred thousand people. Fifty thousand, well short the actual Article I limit of thirty thousand a seat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:My arguement mostly is they actually did offer a platform of pretty good poo poo and the party at large is actually tackling the issues. Democrats are talking about climate, automation, healthcare etc. Their messengers suck. That's the issue. The problem wasn't the 2016 platform, it was no one believed it when it came out of candidates mouths. There are platforms and then there is campaigning. People only identify a candidate with one or two issues/messages. 2016 was a cluster because the message was "Trump bad" but nothing else was clearly articulated. The problem is coasting like that doesn't seem to work when it's done by the incumbent President's party. I think it probably can work for 2018 but there definitely needs to be a message for 2020 to go along with the presidential nominee. Single payer is obviously the way to go, morally and tactically. But if the plan is just for Trump to tweet his way to defeat that's an even worse plan than in 2016 because the way things are going people will just acclimate and stay home.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The only people unduly insistent on ideological purity tests are the centrists, the problem is that the test they're applying is that a candidate may not threaten the ruling class in any significant way. Yeah, exactly. It's only the centeists who get dressed up as shining world-historical figures from whom every deviation is inexcusable and insane. Clinton was EXACTLY an example of a political bloc rejecting pragmatism in favor of idealism, refusing to run the safer candidate and clinging instead to their figure of perfection - it's just the ideals being upheld were poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
The whole election process is built on idealism, not pragmatism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Quist shrank the margin by 10 and Ossoff shrank it by 19, compared to the 2016 house election. My goal was not to compare these results. I don't have any idea who the leftist candidates who ran campaigns on a shoestring and came close to winning were. Quist had a lot of Bernie money, and the candidates in Nebraska, SC, and Georgia were as leftist as Hillary Clinton. All of them improved the margins compared to the last election. If only there was consistent polling data from controlled samples that countered your desperate attempts at forming a bullshit anti-left narrative from wildly disparate data points Oh there is
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
Compare "Ossoff didn't win but he only lost by 4 and underperformed Clinton by 2 so centrism is viable" with JC's opinion on what Corbyn's +15 swing meant for the viability of leftismJeffersonClay posted:I didn't say it was a bad outcome. I said Corbyn lost. Which is what happened. He didn't lose by as much as he lost by last time, so it wasn't as bad as it could have been. (Democrats gained seats in both the senate and the house in 2016, as well, but somehow that's different). But he didn't win enough to be able to form a government. It wasn't a bad outcome for labour, but it's not evidence that tacking left will cause political parties to actually win majorities, unfortunately. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
I see JC is back to his old trick of serial redefinition of the terms used in the discussion so that he can keep pretending that you need an ever-growing amount of evidence to justify move away from the status quo even when it's an unmitigated disaster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 11:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
Yeah, Labour went up 9.6%, by any count, Corbyn exceeded all expectations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 12:18
|
|
