|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Ken Jennings is the greatest living human being, friends: https://twitter.com/KenJennings/status/905195058793611264
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Why are you assuming it has to be a binary thing? Perhaps the Democrats can reduce their dependence on large corporate contributions over time, and in the meantime channel the money that they have towards candidates who actually stand a chance of winning? I think the DNC without corporate funding is going to be about as successful as the people in this thread at figuring out why they aren't being given all the power to run the country. Do you think the DNC can hold majorities without corporate backing? If they start bucking the donors then get ready to lose even more seats. Corporate money deosn't give a shitabout people. they care about profit. 90% of them would gladly back the fascist GOP if they got a tax cut. The problem is that you can't succeed in a general election without corporate money. So the plan to purge all of the corporate donors is a self defeating strategy. You have to keep the ones willing to stay on the social issues, and then pick up the people on the left that aren't 100% anti corporate in order to pull in a majority. Its called a coalition, and it is how you form a winning majority. Just telling the donors to gently caress off will leave you with a regional party that never holds national offices. I think the DNC shouldn't focus on corporate money, but they do need to keep as much of it as possible when shifting to a more progressive platform, and candidates willing to push it. We need to see if those small donors are going to buck the DNC, or try and rebuild it with better principles. I have a strong feeling all the berie donors aren't going to be interested in donating to the DNC either... Heck Yes! Loam! fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Sep 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I think the DC without corporate funding is going to be about as successful as the people in this thread at figuring out why they aren't being given all the power to run the country. Welllll, but sucking the big corporate donors' collective dongers also turned the Democrats into a powerless minority party. It's almost as if...there's room for a viable strategy somewhere in between these two extremes. One in which the Democrats...I dunno, taper off their dependence on corporate dollars without completely cutting themselves off in one fell swoop? I know, I know, crazy talk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Why are you assuming it has to be a binary thing? Perhaps the Democrats can reduce their dependence on large corporate contributions over time, and in the meantime channel the money that they have towards candidates who actually stand a chance of winning? What loving normal American has ever given money to the party
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
I mean the Lannisters got the money and the support of the Iron Bank and so on, but they don't have dragons and they don't have the Stark kids on their side. I think I'd rather have the Starks and dragons than a bunch of gold. I guess we gotta wait till next year to find out which is more important 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Welllll, but sucking the big corporate donors' collective dongers also turned the Democrats into a powerless minority party. It's almost as if...there's room for a viable strategy somewhere in between these two extremes. One in which the Democrats...I dunno, taper off their dependence on corporate dollars without completely cutting themselves off in one fell swoop? Oh no, I agree, but I think it is going to be a slower walk than many here would want. It will need to be done over a few election cycles, and will not be something that is attainable by 2020. It is going to take some crazy good intentions on the part of the DNC to win people's trust, and I think we all know that it is too easy to rely on corporate cash. Any sign of DNC backing away from moving left is going to cause even more upheaval in the party. Lets just say I am not hopeful that things will go smoothly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Oh no, I agree, but I think it is going to be a slower walk than many here would want. It will need to be done over a few election cycles, and will not be something that is attainable by 2020. It is going to take some crazy good intentions on the part of the DNC to win people's trust, and I think we all know that it is too easy to rely on corporate cash. Any sign of DNC backing away from moving left is going to cause even more upheaval in the party. But consistent movement in the right direction will be rewarded, I guarantee you. That's the thing that ambitious up-and-coming Democrats need to realize: if they move left, and represent the left-Dem agenda, the left-Dems will vote for them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:What loving normal American has ever given money to the party Considerably more people will, if the Democrats make a big thing of, "We're weaning ourselves off of corporate bux, but we need your small donations to help us win elections!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But consistent movement in the right direction will be rewarded, I guarantee you. That's the thing that ambitious up-and-coming Democrats need to realize: if they move left, and represent the left-Dem agenda, the left-Dems will vote for them. I haven't seen that in reality, but I hope you are right. if they make an actual move left and then they don't get the votes, I think we all know what will happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Let me ask again, how the gently caress do people still seriously argue pragmatism vs progressiveness in a scenario where progressive policies are substantially more popular than centrist pragmatist ones?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Oh no, I agree, but I think it is going to be a slower walk than many here would want. It will need to be done over a few election cycles, and will not be something that is attainable by 2020. It is going to take some crazy good intentions on the part of the DNC to win people's trust, and I think we all know that it is too easy to rely on corporate cash. Any sign of DNC backing away from moving left is going to cause even more upheaval in the party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:all the real poo poo happens on our irc, to which avirosb, peachfart et al are NOT invited 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Ken Jennings is the greatest living human being, friends: gently caress you. Kurt is a God damned treasure. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But consistent movement in the right direction will be rewarded, I guarantee you. That's the thing that ambitious up-and-coming Democrats need to realize: if they move left, and represent the left-Dem agenda, the left-Dems will vote for them. Probably, since the crybabbies of this thread are not representative of the democratic electorate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Nobody's crying, just saying that the Democrats are a waste. The thread does what it says on the tin
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:Nobody's crying, just saying that the Democrats are a waste. The thread does what it says on the tin he did the thing where he used a demeaning term while raging against the entire thread, this is the sort of thing that should tip you off as to the value of arguing with him, protip: it will never end
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Probably, since the crybabbies of this thread are not representative of the democratic electorate. Yes, since they are part of a -growing- trend. Liberals enjoy going on about how demographics will swing balance toward the Democratic party any day now (won't happen), and how the GOP base is too old and will start dying off fast, but there is a severely under reported current of progressives who are pissed off at the status quo and frustrated that the party still pretends to believe in the DC culture of playing nice and pretending the institutions are not rotten.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Considerably more people will, if the Democrats make a big thing of, "We're weaning ourselves off of corporate bux, but we need your small donations to help us win elections!" everyone just goes through actblue anyway
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I haven't seen that in reality, but I hope you are right. if they make an actual move left and then they don't get the votes, I think we all know what will happen. I mean, hell, look at Obama's success. He won because he espoused a populist line of rhetoric - particularly in 2012, when he successfully cast Romney as "the guy who fired your dad." That's how you get out the vote. It works even better if you follow through on your promise and enact populist policies, which Obama didn't do all that much, but that just underlines how much ground the Democrats stand to capture if they unfuck themselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:Fair enough. Do you really not understand how ridiculous this attitude is? You could say this same stuff about literally any political movement prior to the point where its success was imminent. Like, you could use the same "heh last I checked you haven't already accomplished your goal  " logic against abolitionists in the 1820s or something.Say what's really on your mind. If you disagree with the goals leftists have, by all means feel free to make that argument! But stop with this cowardly nonsense where you attack a political movement merely because it hasn't already accomplished its goals. It is transparently obvious that folks like you disagree with leftist ideology/goals but aren't comfortable addressing them directly, so you feel the need to attack from a different angle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I mean, hell, look at Obama's success. He won because he espoused a populist line of rhetoric - particularly in 2012, when he successfully cast Romney as "the guy who fired your dad." That's how you get out the vote. It works even better if you follow through on your promise and enact populist policies, which Obama didn't do all that much, but that just underlines how much ground the Democrats stand to capture if they unfuck themselves. There are a lot more Democrats who basically are "the guy who fired your dad" at the levers of power than people want to admit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Do you really not understand how ridiculous this attitude is? You could say this same stuff about literally any political movement prior to the point where its success was imminent. Like, you could use the same "heh last I checked you haven't already accomplished your goal This. It's weird how 'moderates' seem to swing between "Leftist goals are impossible to attain so we shouldn't try" and "Well, you guys haven't brought about single-payer yet, I see no reason to back you!" when they drop by here. But it's not nearly as annoying as those who peek in, spew poo poo, then go "Well, enjoy your echo chamber, losers!" when called out on their poo poo, then hiss at you if you bring up any actual leftist alternative to policy in the 'good' thread. "Go back to the bad thread! I know we are talking about DACA/Kamala/Arpaio, but I'll call you a bernout anyway!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:There are a lot more Democrats who basically are "the guy who fired your dad" at the levers of power than people want to admit. Yeah, and the less we can make that the case, the better. But in the meantime, it's kind of amazing that centrist Democrats don't even have the sense to, you know, lie about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:This. It's weird how 'moderates' seem to swing between "Leftist goals are impossible to attain so we shouldn't try" and "Well, you guys haven't brought about single-payer yet, I see no reason to back you!" when they drop by here. The dirty secret is that this is the actual good thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:The dirty secret is that this is the actual good thread. You are dumber than Trump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Ken Jennings is the greatest living human being, friends: For those not in the know, Kurt Eichenwald is a sentient egg that enjoys child porn, tentacle hentai, and was once almost killed by an animated .gif that triggered his epilepsy. Peter Daou, Hillaryman in Chief, and veteran of a Lebanese death squad that he's bizarrely proud of, of course is the man behind BlueNationReview and recently Verrit, and has a cultlike love of Hillary Clinton that even her own campaign team thought was excessive. Ken Jennings won a bunch of money on Jeopardy. EXTREMELY NORMAL WEBSITE, NOTHING STRANGE HERE, NO SIR
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Heaps of Sheeps posted:Peter Daou, Hillaryman in Chief, and veteran of a Lebanese death squad that he's bizarrely proud of Uh, wasn't he a child soldier?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:Uh, wasn't he a child soldier? Yes. which is why it's so odd that he's very proud of his hard work fighting terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
Do you have an example of such you could link to? Not that I don't believe you, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with describing a child soldier as "a veteran of a Lebanese death squad" without a very good reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:Do you have an example of such you could link to? Not that I don't believe you, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with describing a child soldier as "a veteran of a Lebanese death squad" without a very good reason. https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/635846205994614786
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I mean the Lannisters got the money and the support of the Iron Bank and so on, but they don't have dragons and they don't have the Stark kids on their side. I think I'd rather have the Starks and dragons than a bunch of gold. Daario is so gonna infiltrate Golden Company.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:The dirty secret is that this is the actual good thread. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Fawning over the most greedy evil and hated fucks in America to get a billion dollars in corporate is the only way Democrats will win, just ask President Hillary "I bought the presidency for a billion dollars" Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Fawning over the most greedy evil and hated fucks in America to get a billion dollars in corporate is the only way Democrats will win, just ask President Hillary "I bought the presidency for a billion dollars" Clinton. Are we being facetious now? Okay. Hillary raised a ton of money and still lost, this means that money is useless in politics and that the left can make massive inroads without funding politicians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:The dirty secret is that this is the actual good thread. This thread is the worst. It's the Britta of threads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
uspol's rotting corpse was divided across the land
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:You are dumber than Trump. Wrong!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:This thread is the worst. It's the Britta of threads. then why do you post in here yronic?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Are we being facetious now? Okay. Democratic politicians doing shameless corporate whoring isn't popular among Democratic voters, but that doesn't mean money is "useless". The only justification for selling out to Wall Street is that it allegedly wins elections, if it can't even do that then we need a new strategy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
Peachfart posted:Are we being facetious now? Okay. I don't think anyone has suggested anything of the sort - just that the importance of Big Donor Bux has been massively overstated, particularly by mainstream Democratic strategists. Gaining lots of funds for your campaign but losing key portions of your coalition is a very bad trade if you're trying to get elected. e: Tommy Christopher has a spirited defense of Verrit up on the International Journal Review, which was read on this week's episode of Chapo. He had this to say, all of two days ago: quote:With less intensity, the media has also shown a lot of interest in people who voted third-party, and the disaffected minority of “Democrats” who worship Bernie Sanders. Even the Democrats have embraced Sanders's message of “Democrats suck.” What a charmer. Party unity, everyone! Majorian fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Sep 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 07:39
|
|