Ytlaya posted:

The people attacking the Democrats from the left in this thread, even if they sometimes say something dumb, are still far better than people like you. You claim to want the Democrats to move to the left, but I don't think I've ever seen you say a single thing condemning the Democrats in a context that wasn't trying to prove that you're totally left-wing despite the vast majority of your posts in this context being attacks on leftists. If the Democratic Party was entirely made up of people like you and Ogmius, we would never see positive change.

Like, in the context of this discussion I actually agree that people should still vote for Northram, but I can't understand the mindset that would lead to someone's main response being irritation towards the people condemning him (or rather I can understand it, but the results don't paint a pretty picture of the people in question). A reasonable person would think "if a lot of people are responding this way, clearly the Democrats/Democratic politicians should change their approach to make people more enthusiastic towards voting for them." This is also the more pragmatic choice* - when significant numbers of people think or act a certain way, you can't change their behavior on any sort of scale through making an argument about why they're wrong; you have to change the conditions that lead to their actions. But, for some reason, your main response is just irritation towards these people, rather than irritation towards the politicians who acted in a way that made people less enthusiastic, if not outright disgusted, towards them. I wonder why this might be?

* This is the part that really gets me; you claim to care about results, but what you're doing won't accomplish anything at all. The only solution to lower voter enthusiasm is to change the behavior of politicians. You're not going to get unenthusiastic voters to go to the polls by making an argument about why it's more logical to vote for the lesser evil (even if that's an argument I agree with). I mean, seriously, take a moment and think about things logically instead of acting on your bizarre knee-jerk distaste for the left.

Potato Salad posted:

I'm hanging up my hat, ladies and gentlegoons. My eyes are finally open. Poster Ytlaya on the internet doesn't think a socialist canvassing for progressives is pure enough. I'm beat, utterly.

Potato Salad posted:

someone help me, I'm starting to develop Stockholm syndrome

Potato Salad posted:

Absolutely loving sick, the sabotage the left can inflict on the left.

Potato Salad posted:

Tell me the last time you knocked on a door with a conspicuously large us flag and pickup truck out front, 95% certain you already know the encounter will be chilly to hostile if someone is home, but you do it anyway because every chance for a progressive vote in local primaries and people as left as is available in special elections is another chance to see true justice for those deprived human rights atm.

Tell me that, and you can loving question me as peers. I'm so loving furious with you right now that I'm nearly frothing.

Ytlaya posted:

You need to understand that, for people who aren't privileged under the status quo (which coincidentally happens to account for the majority of liberals who complain about leftists), making the Democrats do important good things is a very high priority. As things are now, status quo Democrats could control every branch of government for 100 years and we'd still live in a lovely, inequitable society. If you're suffering under the status quo (or actually care about people who are), changing the Democrats should be a top priority.

Potato Salad posted:

Inescapable Duck posted:

You can rail at the posters in here all you want, it's only one vote each. The point is a lot of people aren't going to see the point in putting in the increasingly difficult effort to get to the ballot box to vote for the lesser evil. The Democrats are determined to commit political suicide and take most of the country with them.

Boon posted:

I do get that. I also understand that the inequality isn't uniform and the Democrats are a party where each vies to make they're priority THE priority.

But that's neither here nor there because it's ultimately all in the service of good. What irritates me is the idea that you move the party left through the threat of a general election loss. That's a theory, sure, but the practical reality of that is it's incredibly damaging to the very same people you want to help. It's akin to saying that the Dems should let the GOP gut the ACA so that we can get UHC. It's not a clear or even likely successful strategy. The general is not how the GOP moved right, they moved right through the primary process. If you want a VA specific example of that you need to look no further than the staggering primary of Eric Cantor.

WampaLord posted:

Yelling at people in this thread is a real loving waste of your time.

Nevvy Z posted:

I'm sure it's really easy for you to say that as a guy with no skin in the game at all. Now I remember why you're the worst!

Can we vote for Northham if he recants?

Cerebral Bore posted:

Well maybe you should stop, then?

WampaLord posted:

Yelling at people in this thread is a real loving waste of your time.

Condiv posted:

no-one's saying to ignore the primary process boon. but as long as bad dems that use/will use their elected power to work against us exist, we shouldn't give them further power by re-electing/electing them

Condiv posted:

also, i already said "vote for northam if he recants" earlier

Boon posted:

I do get that. I also understand that the inequality isn't uniform and the Democrats are a party where each vies to make they're priority THE priority.

But that's neither here nor there because it's ultimately all in the service of good. What irritates me is the idea that you move the party left through the threat of a general election loss. That's a theory, sure, but the practical reality of that is it's incredibly damaging to the very same people you want to help. It's akin to saying that the Dems should let the GOP gut the ACA so that we can get UHC. It's not a clear or even likely successful strategy. The general is not how the GOP moved right, they moved right through the primary process. If you want a VA specific example of that you need to look no further than the staggering primary of Eric Cantor.

Nevvy Z posted:

Missed that. I wonder if everyone else agrees.

Boon posted:

You misunderstand me I think. I'm not saying anyone is ignoring the primary process, what I'm saying is that the general is not the time to shift the party, the primary is.

Nevvy Z posted:

Accellerationism is the worst take because you have no control over how pols read the tea leaves of your protest votes only whether the kind of lovely it incredibly lovely one wins.

Nevvy Z posted:

Accellerationism is the worst take because you have no control over how pols read the tea leaves of your protest votes only whether the kind of lovely or incredibly lovely one wins.

Boon posted:

You misunderstand me I think. I'm not saying anyone is ignoring the primary process, what I'm saying is that the general is not the time to shift the party, the primary is.

If you can't shift the party in the primary, taking your ball and going home is more damaging than staying involved.

Potato Salad posted:

My dope-ler radar is picking up waaaaaaay to much nose in this thread to work correctly, so if this post was sarcastic, I apologise.

Condiv posted:

a damaged dem party is easier to take over than a healthy dem party is. it's easier for the healthy dem party to stonewall us too

NewForumSoftware posted:

Says who?


That's why you vote for the third party that represents you best. I'm sure Tom Perez can figure out why people vote for Gloria La Riva instead of Hillary Clinton.

twodot posted:

Give me a billion dollars to spend on leftist candidates and we'll start to use strategies that the far-right has demonstrated are effective when you have a billion dollars backing your candidates.

Boon posted:

I do get that. I also understand that the inequality isn't uniform and the Democrats are a party where each vies to make they're priority THE priority.

But that's neither here nor there because it's ultimately all in the service of good. What irritates me is the idea that you move the party left through the threat of a general election loss. That's a theory, sure, but the practical reality of that is it's incredibly damaging to the very same people you want to help. It's akin to saying that the Dems should let the GOP gut the ACA so that we can get UHC. It's not a clear or even likely successful strategy. The general is not how the GOP moved right, they moved right through the primary process. If you want a VA specific example of that you need to look no further than the staggering primary of Eric Cantor.

Potato Salad posted:

I do think internet argument is important, and I do think Obama supporters essentially flushing McCain/Palin then Romney/Ryan supporters largely out of mainstream acceptability online contributed in a small way to the turnout of young people and success of the Dems up and down the ticket those years, however much of a progressively-lukewarm dronehappy gently caress Obama turned out to be.

Solkanar512 posted:

And what the gently caress is Gloria doing with that vote? Are you enjoying a 5-4 conservative SCOTUS?

Trabisnikof posted:

lol in the face of Hillary's using the weakened finances of the DNC to take over control, this is the argument you make.

twodot posted:

Meanwhile, people are arguing that we need to vote for their Republican-lite Democrats, because, simultaneously, our votes are necessary for them to win and also our candidates can't get elected (because they voted against them in the primary).

Solkanar512 posted:

And what the gently caress is Gloria doing with that vote? Are you enjoying a 5-4 conservative SCOTUS?