|
I don't know how useful it actually is asking people whether they want the Democrats to move vaguely "more left". When you poll Americans and especially Democrats on individual policies far to the left of Democratic leadership like Medicare for All, free college, ending the War on Drugs, ending the wars in the Middle East, breaking up too-big-to-fail banks, $15 minimum wage, etc they're very popular, also add in that the most popular politician in America is a social democrat. If those same people say they don't want the Democrats to move left that's more an indication that they're not making the link between the policies they want and the left-right axis. You see this all the time, elections are covered like a team sport, the media hypes mostly irrelevant bullshit, and there's this myth of bipartisanship that ignores ideological conflict and insists that if both parties just sat down and worked together they'd come to good commonsense solutions. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Nov 5, 2017 |
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
I think the important question is what do "left" and "right" mean to Democratic voters, and do they have working ideological understanding of the difference between democratic socialism, social democracy, neoliberal policy, etc. If nearly half of black respondents think that leftists are a problem for the Democratic party, as per that poll, then what do they perceive to be leftism?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Times had a good religion piece: Are Christians Supposed to Be Communists? https://nyti.ms/2iZ6n9U Discussed is basically what sent me leftward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DrewFrogger/status/855392431570898944
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I think the important question is what do "left" and "right" mean to Democratic voters, and do they have working ideological understanding of the difference between democratic socialism, social democracy, neoliberal policy, etc. If nearly half of black respondents think that leftists are a problem for the Democratic party, as per that poll, then what do they perceive to be leftism? It's tempting to think that if we just explained it right everyone would jump aboard, and doing a better job of selling leftist policy is helpful for building support, but I don't think not understanding leftism explains the entirety of that gap. Some of it may well be the cultural conservatism of the more heavily churched segments of the black Democratic base, and some may be a general suspicion of populist messages in general. Either way, it's something any candidate explicitly aligned with the left of the party will need to deal with moving forward. Nice Twitter rando burn I guess?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Quorum posted:It's tempting to think that if we just explained it right everyone would jump aboard, and doing a better job of selling leftist policy is helpful for building support, but I don't think not understanding leftism explains the entirety of that gap. Some of it may well be the cultural conservatism of the more heavily churched segments of the black Democratic base, and some may be a general suspicion of populist messages in general. Either way, it's something any candidate explicitly aligned with the left of the party will need to deal with moving forward. Oh I agree, I just think it's an important question to ask. I'm not sure if I buy the "black people are more socially conservative than white people" canard, not as a group anyway. My suspicion is that it represents the same generational divide we saw in the primary, where predominantly older black people above the age of 30 are ambivalent towards leftism while those in younger demos are more receptive. Understanding why and how to appeal to those groups is a core issue going forward for American leftists who plan to run for office above the local level, because older black people disproportionately vote in primaries in most places.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Bernie's bird friend making another appearance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:, where predominantly older black people above the age of 30 are ambivalent towards leftism while those in younger demos are more receptive. A lot of the older ones are Christian realists, because of how that's related to the civil rights movement. And Christian realism's relationship to socialism is tied up with WWII and the cold war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
While Hillary was taking donations from Saudi Arabia, Bernie was learning the mysteries of the druids.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Nice Twitter rando burn I guess? That wasn’t actually intended for this thread but I’m going to let it stay anyway. In actual, legitimately surprising news, apparently the Sprint/T-Mobile merger is no longer happening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Oh I agree, I just think it's an important question to ask. I'm not sure if I buy the "black people are more socially conservative than white people" canard, not as a group anyway. My suspicion is that it represents the same generational divide we saw in the primary, where predominantly older black people above the age of 30 are ambivalent towards leftism while those in younger demos are more receptive. Understanding why and how to appeal to those groups is a core issue going forward for American leftists who plan to run for office above the local level, because older black people disproportionately vote in primaries in most places. I think you're right about the age divide mattering a lot. And it's a problem especially because it means candidates are going to have to find a way to win those older regular primary voters over. Appealing primarily to The Youth is a good way to get social media buzz, but we've seen repeatedly that it gets you little more than that if there aren't enough youth votes to win you a primary-- and there rarely are. They're not unwinnable, and I don't think they're even necessarily hostile to leftist reforms and ideas. I just think you need different things to win them over, just saying the right stuff and smiling real good doesn't always work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:A lot of the older ones are Christian realists, because of how that's related to the civil rights movement. And Christian realism's relationship to socialism is tied up with WWII and the cold war. I still firmly believe we can appeal to these people, but leftism in America has to make it clear that we are better than our forefathers, and that our leftism will not come at the expense of POC like the New Deal did. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Conservative Dems were always more hostile to civil rights than the left were and there's one running a racist campaign in Virginia right now, so that's an odd thing to say.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Conservative Dems were always more hostile to civil rights than the left were and there's one running a racist campaign in Virginia right now, so that's an odd thing to say. If you cannot understand the concerns some people have about leftism, you will never convince them otherwise. "You're dumb and wrong to be skeptical" is far less convincing than "here is why you should trust me."
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Quorum posted:If you cannot understand the concerns some people have about leftism, you will never convince them otherwise. "You're dumb and wrong to be skeptical" is far less convincing than "here is why you should trust me." What are you talking about. The radical left in America at least in the New Deal era and after, in other words within all living memory, were on the side of civil rights (and of course demonized as Communists by the political establishment in both parties). MLK, Jessie Jackson, these guys were far to the left on economic issues as they should be because social justice and economic justice go hand in hand. It always has been the moderate Dems willing to throw minorities under the bus in a heartbeat, something they're still doing now (and which you've been defending in Virginia lol as long as racism wins elections it's fine to you) Your comment is odd because you're not disputing any of these facts, just whining that my pointing them out makes you feel dumb and wrong, maybe there's a hint in there for you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
That makes a lot of sense considering that Bernie Is a United States Senator and former presidential candidate and Perez is basically a fundraiser who also appoints a few minor party officials.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59f7cabbe4b04494283378fd
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
They dont make have any money and dont win elections, so the wealthy donor relationship doesnt seem to be a productive one for either party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:They dont make have any money and dont win elections, so the wealthy donor relationship doesnt seem to be a productive one for either party. It's lucrative for the politicians in blue districts who rake in the donations, party with the rich and powerful, and get rewarded with sinecures after a political career of service to wealthy interests or end up as worthless consultants sapping away funds that should be going to election campaigns. Although those benefits may drop off now that they've grifted themselves completely out of the ability to wield national power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
If you think the major donors to the democratic party did not see a significant return on investment over the past 8 years, you've not been paying attention.
comedyblissoption fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Nov 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
"The left" (this is a bad term) has a problem with older black voters not because of economic policy, but because of the history of race in this country. Older black voters tend to be highly pragmatic in politics. They are a reliable voting block for establishment Democrats because the Democratic establishment has spent decades putting in the groundwork listening to black advocacy organizations, giving them a seat at the table in the halls of power, and delivering measurable results to them. Young anti-establishment leftists are largely oblivious to this, and tend to react badly when it comes up. I'd post more about this but breaks over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I still firmly believe we can appeal to these people, but leftism in America has to make it clear that we are better than our forefathers, and that our leftism will not come at the expense of POC like the New Deal did. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ You resolve that fundamental irony, in the right language, and you'll get them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:You resolve that fundamental irony, in the right language, and you'll get them. I mean, I still stand by my opinion that the future of American leftism is minority candidates running on progressive left-wing platforms in the mold of Jesse Jackson. Minority voters are right to be skeptical of straight white men, and it's on us to show that we are better than our conservative peers for them. Edit: and it's true that leftists in American history were often at the forefront of civil rights struggles, and many civil rights icons were leftists. But it's also true that many of the cornerstones of American left-wing policy, such as unions or the New Deal, are rightly perceived as having been primarily geared towards the advancement of white, male power. Ignoring all that, whether or not leftism actually is more sexist or racist than centrism (it isn't) doesn't matter if we are successfully painted as such. Perception > reality. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Nov 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:You resolve that fundamental irony, in the right language, and you'll get them. as long as you dont also tell them their taxes will go up
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
sd6 posted:This isnt a typical loss. Their candidate lost to a complete retard who honestly didn't expect to win, and whose campaign spent half as much money. Also of importance is the fact that Americans generally feel far worse about the country post-Great Recession than they did in 2000. So there's far greater concern about the direction of the country among a greater portion of the population than there was in 2000, and people feel like the results of a bad election result (and you don't get much worse than Donald Trump) are more dire. edit: You particularly see a lot more energy among young people (who compromise most of the people on these forums) because they feel like the future is hopeless unless politicians make some drastic changes. There wasn't the same sense of urgency (at least among nearly as many people) in 2000.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:
The New Deal deliberately excluded the radical left though because it was a capitalist retrenchment to defeat socialism and of course it used racism as a tool to accomplish this, just as moderate Dems are running racist campaigns now in order to make it possible to win general elections while excluding the left. The only thing we need to do is tell the truth and be willing to permit ideas other than capitalism within the national discourse, which is exactly what the establishment is fighting to prevent by running racebaiting smear campaigns against civil rights activists like Bernie or Keith Ellison and then turning around and blowing on the racist foghorns in the general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
Regarding Northam's ad campaign, apparently the group behind them is the same one that ran Ossoff's campaign. https://twitter.com/abigasianman/status/926924951281651712 I still think Northam can pull it off, but regardless of the result, it's clear this organization shouldn't be contracted for another Dem candidate ever again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
Arkhams Razor posted:Regarding Northam's ad campaign, apparently the group behind them is the same one that ran Ossoff's campaign. Though they absolutely will be, over and over again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
Vocational jobs training, the last big push.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:"The left" (this is a bad term) has a problem with older black voters not because of economic policy, but because of the history of race in this country.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The New Deal deliberately excluded the radical left though because it was a capitalist retrenchment to defeat socialism and of course it used racism as a tool to accomplish this, just as moderate Dems are running racist campaigns now in order to make it possible to win general elections while excluding the left. I don’t disagree, but you know that someone who describes the New Deal as “a capitalist retrenchment to defeat socialism” is not the group I was trying to speak towards with that post.  (That it was a capitalist retrenchment to defeat socialism is absolutely true, however.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
it sucks that the modern dems loving suck and enact this tweet every time they upset the chuds, but it doesn't means that black people are wrong about what side consistently helped them in the recent past
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
speaking of getting more racist after upsetting chuds, how's northam doing
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
RottenK posted:speaking of getting more racist after upsetting chuds, how's northam doing Still well by most accounts, normal people who aren’t Extremely Online haven’t heard about leafletgate or the sanctuary city debacle. It’ll be close though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:From the same poll. You know what keeps losing elections? Technocratic over-reliance on data. Best way to refute that is with . . . data?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Still well by most accounts, normal people who aren’t Extremely Online haven’t heard about leafletgate or the sanctuary city debacle. It’ll be close though. i know about the sanctuary city bullshit and about cowardly disowning of the 100% truthful ad about what redhats are, but what was the leaflet thing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
RottenK posted:i know about the sanctuary city bullshit and about cowardly disowning of the 100% truthful ad about what redhats are, but what was the leaflet thing? Justin Fairfax is the candidate for LG and also a young black progressive, and specifically he is pro-environment and consequently anti-pipeline. One of the major unions declined to endorse him, because they want the pipelines, and asked for campaign material to distribute without him. A small percentage of the total was modified but the notion of a union refusing to endorse the more progressive black candidate and trying to cut him out of campaign literature while canvassing for the less progressive white candidate looks absolutely terrible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I don’t disagree, but you know that someone who describes the New Deal as “a capitalist retrenchment to defeat socialism” is not the group I was trying to speak towards with that post. Sure and that's why we need to teach people about the history of the left in this country and about the anticapitalist wisdom of Martin Luther King. And at the same time hammer the racist wing of the Dem party, the tough-on-crime Bill Clintons, the Hillaries who run hosed up racist campaigns like 2008, the Ralph Northams who throw minorities under the bus in order to pander to the white wing Republicans. The only argument the latter had for decades was that only they with their favoritism to the 1% and reasonable amount of racism could keep the racist Republicans out of office and that was a very convincing argument for a lot of people, especially older black primary voters. I believed it until last year, despite casting a left-wing protest vote for Bernie in the Texas primary, I was convinced Clinton had the better chance to win in the general and I worried that a Bernie nom would risk handing the country over to Trump. That turned out to be totally wrong though, and all we need to tell people is the truth: the moderate wing have always been racists who turned on minorities whenever they thought they could gain thereby, they're still doing it today, and there's no longer even a pragmatic case for supporting them anymore because in their arrogance they've turned the DNC into a bankrupt grifting operation that couldn't even win against a literal rapist and the most hated candidate ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
I’m fine with this.  Edit: but, I also understand why a lot of people are scared to accept devils they don’t know over devils they do. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Nov 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 15:46 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I’m fine with this. Oh sure. It's totally understandable. Rovian tactics work really really well; the conservative Dems were successful at painting Bernie as a racist sexist alt-left monster and deflecting from their own racist campaigns and actions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2017 09:57
|
|