|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, Labour went up 9.6%, by any count, Corbyn exceeded all expectations. Also keep in mind that the Conservatives called the election themselves, they were that sure of their big win (and all the media with them as well).
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/887646747413159936 keith needs help fighting the plutocracy guys
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Condiv posted:https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/887646747413159936 Looked through the comments and nobody's mentioned Marx yet smh
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Yeah, it's centrist democrats who both demand purity and who make class versus race a thing. I donated to Ossof. I know plenty of leftists that did. And then on the night of the election Maggie Haberman wrote that the biggest concern by mainstream democrats was that an Ossoff loss would empower the party's left. Not "a concern," but the biggest concern. And then before anyone could have an idea that the Corbyn approach could work here, mainstream democrats went out of their way to attack Corbyn. And then you have the whole DNC fiasco. Similarly, I doubt anyone will find a single left wing writer or activist who is economically left but against fighting for minority rights. You do have the opposite, a bunch of centrist democrats, mostly hand selected by Obama, who are only left on minority rights and are quite comfortable with right wing economic and educational policy (Booker, McKesson, Packnett, Kasim Reed in Atlanta, Kevin Johnson before it came out that he was a sexual predator), and who generally only serve as cover for policies that hurt minorities the most
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
^Three Strikes, redoing welfare, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Yeah, it's centrist democrats who both demand purity and who make class versus race a thing. This. It would even be somewhat excuseable if their concern for minority welfare was genuine and informed strong action. But no; it's increasingly clear that they go that route because it is easy and has no political cost. Just wear a ribbon on your lapel, tweet a few catchphrases and feel-good stuff now and again, and boom, you've 'reached' a lot of people while just pissing off the usual cranks that would never have voted for you anyway. Now, talk about higher wages, affirmative action, gerrymandering, war on drugs, single payer and such and you are kicking a lot of hornet's nests, disturbing structures that keep a lot of people who are nominally on your side powerful/rich. "Alright, I'm for trans bathroom rights because my nephew is bi, I guess, but I'm not paying anyone 15 bucks an hour! We're all entrepreneur's in this family!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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 leftism I'm saying Corbyn and Ossoff (or Quist, or Thompson, or Parnell) did similarly well, sorry about your reading problems. All of them produced big swings in the right direction but failed to win a majority or plurality. Cerebral Bore posted: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. This is a really weak apology for mistakenly asserting that leftist candidates with shoestring budgets came close to winning, because that didn't happen. In democrats are terrible news: https://mobile.twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/887683209596735489 Those fools think Americans care if their congressman is the agent of a foreign power. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Oh wow people do not like crooks. Thats a real hot take you got there jc.
Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm saying Corbyn and Ossoff... did similarly well,  Wow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:This is a really weak apology for mistakenly asserting that leftist candidates with shoestring budgets came close to winning, because that didn't happen. It's not an apology, it's just an observation that your dumbshit worldview rests on having multiple definitions of everything from the political left to the very concept of success that you mix and match in a weird, half-year-long attempt to save your pride, and hence one would require a little bit more than your say-so to accept any claim that you make pertaining to what did and did not happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Helsing posted:
It makes me  when people pretend Jc makes rational well thought posts
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm saying Corbyn and Ossoff (or Quist, or Thompson, or Parnell) did similarly well, sorry about your reading problems. All of them produced big swings in the right direction but failed to win a majority or plurality. Ossof produced a small swing in the wrong direction though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Ossof produced a small swing in the wrong direction though. Small enough that the goddamn democrats are shifting further right. What really is the difference between democrats and (most) republicans? Identity politics? Edit: I say most because identity politics are creeping in on the right from the 4chan contingent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm saying Corbyn and Ossoff (or Quist, or Thompson, or Parnell) did similarly well That's a very misleading claim on your part, though. Ossoff had an outsized level of support from the Democratic Party, organizations like Kos, and donors. The others didn't, and in fact Corbyn was consistently kneecapped by powerful members of his party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm saying Corbyn and Ossoff (or Quist, or Thompson, or Parnell) did similarly well, sorry about your reading problems. All of them produced big swings in the right direction but failed to win a majority or plurality. Dude you're the dumb gently caress who thinks Russia alone can win back the gerrymandered House.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm saying Corbyn and Ossoff (or Quist, or Thompson, or Parnell) did similarly well, sorry about your reading problems. All of them produced big swings in the right direction but failed to win a majority or plurality. Dems running against the GOP is bad now????????
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Ossof produced a small swing in the wrong direction though. JC's arguments have always been predicated on the assumption that the actual politics of Democratic politicians is completely irrelevant (aside from the impact they have on electability), because they're still better than Republicans. The problem with his reasoning is that it only makes sense if you assume that 1. moving to the right (or focusing on Russia or whatever) has a bigger benefit than moving to the left, and 2. literally any benefit is worth any ideological sacrifices, as long as the Democrats remain superior to the Republicans. The issue here is that even if you grant 1 (which you shouldn't, but I don't feel like having that argument right now), the idea that any increase to electability is worth any ideological sacrifices is transparently stupid on its face. To use an analogy to illustrate the point, let's assume that "how preferable a candidate's ideology/policies are" can be express with a number ranging from 1 to 10. I think most people would agree that changing ideology from an 8 to a 4 isn't worth a 1% higher chance of winning an election. So clearly "increasing chances of winning" isn't the end-all be-all and there's some sort of trade-off involved depending upon a person's own values/ideology. You have to ask yourself both "will compromising ideologically help us" and "how much will it help, and is it worth it?" Basically, JC is operating under the assumption that the only choices are 1. run a leftist and lose or 2. run someone ideologically worse and win. He assumes that "increase in electability" somehow translates to "winning when the alternative would lose" (when it, for example, could just mean winning or losing by a slightly different margin). Under that false dilemma, his arguments would be correct. But that obviously doesn't reflect reality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's a very misleading claim on your part, though. Ossoff had an outsized level of support from the Democratic Party, organizations like Kos, and donors. The others didn't, and in fact Corbyn was consistently kneecapped by powerful members of his party. More importantly, a Congressional race is an either/or proposition, either you win or you lose, and then (baring special circumstances) there is a fixed date in the future when the contest can be fought again. Corbyn, by contrast, was leading a team that contested 631 separate races in a context where a variety of outcomes, from a majority government to a hung parliament, were possible. And these aren't minor technical differences. Anyone with even passing familiarity with the Westminster parliamentary system would immediately understand how laughable it is to compare a failed congressional election with one of the most stunning upsets in parliamentary history. Unlike Ossoff, Corbyn's electoral outcome means that there is almost certain to be a new election within the year, and the unlike Ossoff, Corbyn's electoral results have directly impacted the Conservative party's ability to govern by removing their majority.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Helsing posted:More importantly, a Congressional race is an either/or proposition, either you win or you lose, and then (baring special circumstances) there is a fixed date in the future when the contest can be fought again. Corbyn, by contrast, was leading a team that contested 631 separate races in a context where a variety of outcomes, from a majority government to a hung parliament, were possible. Indeed, the real-world positive implications of Corbyn's "loss," as JC would put it, are significantly greater than an Ossoff victory would have had.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
http://www.theroot.com/bernie-sanders-black-women-problem-1796995081 Bernie still has a problem with PoC that Hillary never did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:http://www.theroot.com/bernie-sanders-black-women-problem-1796995081 I suppose it's easier to not have a problem with people who are your slaves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:http://www.theroot.com/bernie-sanders-black-women-problem-1796995081 Reading this article it seems like the author's contention is that black women like to hear lies and bullshit and could we do more of that please, because these two juxtaposed clips are the only actual evidence she gives besides "bernie hasn't made inroads to black women; not the ones he's made inroads to, the other ones" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98sdGF3-6Dg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta_SFvgbrlY "I believe earnestly in income equality which by necessity will benefit blacks, rather than racially based reparations" --bad. no good. black people don't like this. "It feels really bad when you pay more tax on less income to recieve fewer benefits. I know this. When I'm done with this speech I'm gonna cut benefits to the bone in the next couple years" --amazing. knocks it out of the park. thank you\ Maybe he isn't "appealing to racists" he's "appealing to people who don't vote or vote 3rd party because to paraphrase the literal Democratic 2018 Platform 'have you seen all the guys?'" This is not an idea that's countenanced, the author just assumes Bernie is racist and dearly seeks The Racist Vote as given and patly works backward from there rather than building or advancing a case at all. Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:http://www.theroot.com/bernie-sanders-black-women-problem-1796995081 It is always telling that these "Bernie had a problem with women of color" texts are always about polls, never about policies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Reading this article it seems like the author's contention is that black women like to hear lies and bullshit and could we do more of that please, because these two juxtaposed clips are the only actual evidence she gives besides "bernie hasn't made inroads to black women; not the ones he's made inroads to, the other ones" it's different lies to many voters. For one, your assuming folks believe Bernie can or will do what he says, and just because you do doesn't mean all voters do. Another is, any black person hears "well we're gonna do things that benefit everyone, which will also help you" which is essentially colorblind policy and black people KNOW that will disproportionately go to people who aren't black, which is how it always works and always has worked. Bernie's racial problem has always been "I'll fix class and that will fix race" like white male leftists since time immemorial. The article is about why he doesn't connect as well with black women voters, and calling black women voters gullible isn't a great response.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Sneakster posted: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. Lol no we aren't why on earth do you think this. Also pure capita numbers decrease as population increases for basically everything (ie marginal utility applies to everything, even representatives). That's ignoring that, you know, poo poo like airplanes and the internet exist and it no longer takes weeks to communicate between Washington and Alabama. The fact of the matter is your average person doesn't even know who their representatives are, or could even name a dribble single policy position they hold. And it has nothing to do with the size, it's that the average person doesn't give a gently caress. Changing that is a billion times more important than the size. Also it doesn't even solve the problem you are laying out: that they are far too busy to be swayed by grass roots. There's no reason to believe more representatives would lead to them spending less time fundraising. I doubt even a 10x increase would produce meaningfully different results.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:It is always telling that these "Bernie had a problem with women of color" texts are always about polls, never about policies. Trump ran on a platform and continues to advocate policy that will gently caress over tons of people who voted for him. I'm not sure what your point is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:it's different lies to many voters. For one, your assuming folks believe Bernie can or will do what he says, and just because you do doesn't mean all voters do. You're talking about a bunch of stuff that may or may not happen hypothetically as if it were graven historical text. I'm talking about what happened. Nobody is calling black women gullible except the author, in subtext I don't think he's self-aware enough to realize he's activated. Which is pretty funny in a grim kind of way. Like, for a person who is criticizing Bernie for not being able to do what he says he wants to, you want him to advocate straight-up racially based reparations payments in 2017. Unless you're as weirded out by that as I am. I don't even, my dude
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:http://www.theroot.com/bernie-sanders-black-women-problem-1796995081 quote:No matter how much his backers forced Hillary Clinton’s support of the 1994 crime bill down our throats, he never could steal enough black votes from her. She went on to win the primary with more than 75 percent of their support, compared with just 23 percent going to Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Trump ran on a platform and continues to advocate policy that will gently caress over tons of people who voted for him. I'm not sure what your point is. That if that's your ideological standard then maybe we should raise it, some, and make a political movement a regular-assed human being would conceivably want to be a part of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Trump ran on a platform and continues to advocate policy that will gently caress over tons of people who voted for him. I'm not sure what your point is. The point is that it is dishonest, at the very least, to claim that Bernie Sanders doesn't care or can't win the vote of women of color because in the primary against Hillary he did worse. Especially while completely ignoring actual policy proposals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:http://www.theroot.com/bernie-sanders-black-women-problem-1796995081 I can't help but question the reasoning of an article that says something like "Perhaps he didn’t have staffers telling him that 70 percent of black women voted in 2012, beating out any other voting demographic; some voter turnout experts argue that black people overall outvoted white men and women in 2008." (The data showed that black people voted at a higher rate than non-hispanic whites, not that they outvoted them, which should be transparently obvious*.) Like, there are many valid arguments to be made regarding Sanders not doing enough to appeal to PoC, but that article's arguments are kinda dumb. *I wonder if this article was written by the same person who claimed that black women were the highest educated race-gender demographic in the country, when the data actually showed that they had the highest proportion with a higher education relative to black men (i.e. the ratio of black women with a higher education to black men with a higher education was the highest). I really hate having to debunk stuff like the above, because it seems to be said with good intentions, but it's just really wrong. edit: I checked and it's not the same person. That particular way of misreading statistics was very similar, though. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:You're talking about a bunch of stuff that may or may not happen hypothetically as if it were graven historical text. I'm talking about what happened. Nobody is calling black women gullible except the author, in subtext I don't think he's self-aware enough to realize he's activated. Which is pretty funny in a grim kind of way. I'm saying don't talk about colorblind policy in 2017, to black people. They know what that means. twodot posted:If black women win elections, and Hillary never had a problem with black women, then why did she not win the election? If there's a bunch of over 35 black women staying home or voting for Trump then obviously Democrats need to treat that as a priority, but this article is simultaneously casting this demographic as a must have for Sanders while describing them as the Democrats' most reliable voters, and also failing to explain what Clinton did wrong that caused her to lose despite better support among black voters generally. The lack of self-awareness here is just astonishing: If a reliable core of voters becomes disillusioned after being taken for granted and stays home, it's bad for the people they traditionally vote for. I'm not really sure how that's some sort of crazy stance. Like "If black women win elections, and Hillary never had a problem with black women, then why did she not win the election?" in response to an article about taking black women for granted is just LOL
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
absent restoring FDR's price and labor control boards how do you make a minimum wage hike non-colorblind
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:The point is that it is dishonest, at the very least, to claim that Bernie Sanders doesn't care or can't win the vote of women of color because in the primary against Hillary he did worse. Especially while completely ignoring actual policy proposals. Especially when you remember that an important question on the exit polls of the primary that asked how clinton/sanders voters would feel if sanders/clinton won. Black democrats voted "very satisfied" with both results. The reality is that Hillary had a head-start on the nationwide spotlight with regards to making inroads with black communities, which translated to support. The fact that Bernie managed to quickly gain ground on her base is a testament to how many black democrats outside the rich sect want what he's proposing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm saying don't talk about colorblind policy in 2017, to black people. They know what that means. Are you endorsing explicitly race-based policies then? Or are you being clumsy about the specific branding "colorblind" and don't really disagree on the merits? You're presenting pre-chewed ideological bubblegum and being weirdly cagey about what you actually think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
^^^ Race-based policies as a form of reparations is a good idea and something the government should do. Jaxyon is correct that only seeking color-blind solutions is a bad idea; it's just that using this argument to support Clinton over Sanders is particularly bizarre since it's not like Clinton was offering any form of reparations either.Raskolnikov38 posted:absent restoring FDR's price and labor control boards how do you make a minimum wage hike non-colorblind The thing is, if you want to talk about specific policy, Hillary wasn't offering anything more to black Americans than Sanders was. Sanders' mistakes were primarily related to outreach.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm saying don't talk about colorblind policy in 2017, to black people. They know what that means. The issue here is that rich democrats are taking the fact that poor american votes became depressed with the democratic candidate and going "oh yeah?!?Well, what if we took OUR BLACKS and went home too??!?How do you like THEM apples?!?" It's utter nonsense. Young black americans broke for Bernie against a candidate with extremely deep roots within southern black communities. Support only began leaving the 50/50 divide in the 40+ crowd, and even then they also voted that they would be cool with a Bernie victory. It's taking a result between two candidates and extrapolating it to extreme opinions that just don't exist in any meaningful numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Ok, I need your guys help here. There's a event downtown being held by the PSL tonight. There's this pattern that usually follow with me whenever I see an event by them. 1: Sees event by PSL that looks cool and could be fun and wonder why I don't go to more of these. 2: person that runs the events posts something on Facebook. A good example is the post in the QUILTBAG thread about how people need to shut the gently caress up about chechnya because that's a distraction by the neoliberals and not actually happening. 3: I remember "oh yeah, these people are loving nuts." And then not go. Am I being a baby? Should I go anyway? Is there an alternative to a group that make me have to side eye them now and then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Lol no we aren't why on earth do you think this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Ok, I need your guys help here. There's a event downtown being held by the PSL tonight. There's this pattern that usually follow with me whenever I see an event by them. IDK about the chechnya thing specifically as it pertains to your local but generally you want to focus and act locally rather than spend time drafting statements that homophobia in a subjugated Russian state is bad. So if you're the guy who's IRL opinions are being swayed by reading possibly leftish unrelated internet posts or clamoring for More Internationalist Stances when you don't even have a meaningful local coalition of groups to speak of, then i dunno man, get used to staying inside and losing things alone. At some point, assuming you do good and not bad, you're gonna have to talk IRL with people you call crazy on the internet and not lose your poo poo. Goondolences.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 21:00
|
|