|
twodot posted:Byrd as an individual person was at least much less terrible at the end of his life than the middle, I don't think the real complaint isn't that Byrd was personally terrible and spent ~44 years of his Senate career being an outspoken racist, the real complaint is that the Democratic Party spent ~44 years not only including an outspoken racist in their party, but also put him in positions of authority within the party. The Democratic Party should not be putting voters in a position where they have to choose between someone that has a history like Byrd's and a Republican. Yeah I agree with that.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:48 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:You're ascribing malice where there was none. I wasn't trying to "pull one over" with an obviously bad poll, I actually BELIEVED the professional polling firm, heaven loving forbid I do that. lol you're such a loving child
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/927596682178715653 Hans Fiene is a Lutheran pastor in Illinois and the creator of Lutheran Satire, a series of comical videos intended to teach the Lutheran faith.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, here's the thing. I think there's value in having a left flank that is well-organized but separate from the main party apparatus, but I would also argue that it's important to have a strong left-flank within the party. The problem is that not nearly as many people are enthusiastic about being the latter than the former. I dunno, I think there's plenty of excitement for having a strong left-flank within the party. That's what the whole Bernie movement is about, his not technically being a Dem notwithstanding. Oxxidation posted:lol you're such a loving child Glass houses bro.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:30
|
|
WampaLord posted:You're ascribing malice where there was none. I wasn't trying to "pull one over" with an obviously bad poll, I actually BELIEVED the professional polling firm, heaven loving forbid I do that. That wasn't my larger point. It was that your first response to someone saying "but that poll doesn't say what you think it says" shouldn't be to kneejerk start attacking people for being clinton loyalists. Before you start calling people centrist shills, take a second and check if they're right, because if they are then whoops. Being wrong isn't a big deal, everyone's wrong a lot of times. You should be striving to be correct, not right. The entire point of discussing this stuff is in order to fix our own preconceived notions and biases, and usually that involves some scuffing of the ego. Ask any white people who went posting in negrotown with even the best of intentions. If you wanna post in the trump thread about this stuff then go ahead. It's digging your heels in when you're wrong, and there are easily verifiable, factual reasons that you're wrong, that won't fly.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:That wasn't my larger point. It was that your first response to someone saying "but that poll doesn't say what you think it says" shouldn't be to kneejerk start attacking people for being clinton loyalists. Before you start calling people centrist shills, take a second and check if they're right, because if they are then whoops. I didn't call anyone a "centrist shill." Again, all I did was post a loving poll. I'm fine with being wrong, but being called an idiot and a bitch repeatedly isn't exactly fun. Oxxidation posted:lol you're such a loving child gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Grammarchist posted:his incumbency advantage kept a valuable senate seat out of GOP hands for a good long while.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:I looked this up, and this seems objectively incorrect. The other West Virginian Senator was a Democrat for Byrd's entire career, and when he died, he was replaced by an appointed Democrat. The person who was elected to finish Byrd's term was also a Democrat, and won his reelection. Color me informed, thanks for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
twodot posted:I looked this up, and this seems objectively incorrect. The other West Virginian Senator was a Democrat for Byrd's entire career, and when he died, he was replaced by an appointed Democrat. The person who was elected to finish Byrd's term was also a Democrat, and won his reelection. A lot of people vote based on how their parents voted, and having a long-standing, well-liked Democratic senator as a model for the state and for other Dems to run and say "you guys liked him, well I'm gonna serve you guys like he did" is likely helpful in some capacity. It seems like the kind of thing worth studying in depth to find out about though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:lol you're such a loving child I have never seen you post where you didn't come off as a drooling idiot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
long-time lurker Perfect Patoto with a brutal shanking out of nowhere!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yup. California really hosed itself with that stupid prop. Prop 98 doesn’t apply because the funding was going to be in a trust fund separate from the general fund which is how everyone gets around 98 being dumb as poo poo. The author of the article basically knows an absolute bare minimum of how California works
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/927596682178715653 The Federalist is a poo poo magazine, but frankly, how is this trash? I mean I the whole Idea of Christianity is that you should die serving God. Oh lol. Oxxidation as is always projecting. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Nov 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Withdrawing participation is dumb. Teaparty types vote in every goddamn time they can. Witholding a vote for purity or idealism serves neither.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
People who vote and participate are the ones that change organizations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:The Federalist is a poo poo magazine, but frankly, how is this trash? I mean I the whole Idea of Christianity is that you should die serving God. That's...a bit of an oversimplification. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:The Federalist is a poo poo magazine, but frankly, how is this trash? I mean I the whole Idea of Christianity is that you should die serving God. It's trash because you can excuse basically anything using that logic. "I didn't screw up as a doctor, God needed another angle and slipped the forceps inside the patient while I was closing." Or the McArdle version: "Sure the building had no fire escapes or security, but when it sparked into a blaze it was just the hopes and wishes of the tenants to reach heaven reaching a critical mass and translating them toward Heaven!" It would just be creepy if it was honest and applied to everything, but I doubt you'll see this guy using the same rhetoric next tie some ISIS-high dope runs over a crowd of pedestrians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Withdrawing participation is dumb. Teaparty types vote in every goddamn time they can. I agree with this, but I think it can't be stressed enough that the larger problem here is the Democrats doing little to appeal to their base, not those who withdraw participation. Both are problems, but at this point, the ball is in the Democrats' court. (with the exception of the races that are at hand, of course)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Withdrawing participation is dumb. Teaparty types vote in every goddamn time they can. How you can use the words Tea Party and then claim purity or idealism requirements don't bring change is beyond me. The Tea Party, if nothing else, proved that you can in fact move the party if you simply primary the ones you don't like and refuse to vote for the bad ones. Now, this may have been made easier by having a bunch of corporate donations, but it's certainly not impossible for the left. The whole "not voting for conservative dems = refusing to work within the democratic party" is a really telling attempt at making your own reality. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Nov 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:How you can use the words Tea Party and then claim purity or idealism requirements don't bring change is beyond me. The Tea Party didn’t refuse to vote R in the general, they just relentlessly primaried everyone. They’re arguably still bad role models partly because they’re astroturf hacks who only succeeded because of Koch money and partly because the party they built is completely incapable of governing and now lives in fear of primary attacks from the right to the point that they can’t even make a deal with the opposition. These are arguably good things for us but demonstrate the downsides of the Tea Party model.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:The Federalist is a poo poo magazine, but frankly, how is this trash? I mean I the whole Idea of Christianity is that you should die serving God. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
The Tea Party is a bad example because they were funded heavily by big donors who simply don’t exist on the left.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The Tea Party didn’t refuse to vote R in the general, they just relentlessly primaried everyone. Wait so is it arguably good or bad to create a leftist Tea Party? The "threat" of having a Democratic government incapable of compromising with the GOP is actually my fantasy so /shrug. InnercityGriot posted:The Tea Party is a bad example because they were funded heavily by big donors who simply don’t exist on the left. I mean Bernie raised $240 million, how much money do we need?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Wait so is it arguably good or bad to create a leftist Tea Party? The "threat" of having a Democratic government incapable of compromising with the GOP is actually my fantasy so /shrug. I meant it was arguably good that the Republicans are incapable of governing. Democrats not compromising with Republicans is good but a Democratic Party that can’t govern with a full majority due to infighting would not be good. There are lessons to learn from the Tea Party but I wouldn’t say they’re good role models on pure strategic grounds. The power of primaries is a noteworthy thing, however.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
The tea party had big donors behind them AND they had a message that resonated with their voters, big government is loving us with taxes, please stop. Also the GOP has a better primary system than the Dems, lol remember their 2016 shitshow where they were insulting each other's wives and comparing dick sizes? At least their populist got picked by the voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Point being an "outside" group on the fringe managed to push their party to the more extreme end by primary anyone who didn't hold their views, which ALSO included refusing to compromise with the more liberal portions of the GOP platform. This is literally exactly what the left needs to do. No, we don't have massive corporate donors, but we have a much more compelling vision for the future and quite frankly, a much more disenfranchised base.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:So, translation for the average person: was elected on a populist wave promising UHC through moderate bipartisanship, then was unable to deliver because moderate bipartisanship involves getting rightwing democrats Are you defending Obamacare as Universal Health Care, as Obama did and does? Hieronymous Alloy posted:Nah, Campaign Obama made a lot of promises that were starkly left wing and that he failed to deliver. I think it makes more sense to look at all the promises, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ I don't see a left wing dream basket going down that list, I see incremental solutions often based around tax credits and public private partnerships. I see centrist promises like raising the minimum wage to 9.50 and cap and trade.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
It’s almost like populism is meant to allow people to project what they want onto it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I didn't call anyone a "centrist shill." You keep doubling and tripling down on what a victim you were and how you got yelled out by the mean Trump thread (who are a bunch of dumb idiots anyway AM I RIGHT GUYS??) And again, you did not "just post a loving poll", you came in with an obnoxious post about how everyone was dumb for not discussing this poll, then you were lovely to some people who disagreed that a single poll was all that important. You'll probably just work this into your martyr narrative somehow but maybe this will stop other people from believing your nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I mean Bernie raised $240 million, how much money do we need? I think a big reason why the Tea Party was as successful as it was came from having Fox News and talk radio and even local television commentators tell a lot of voters exactly what they wanted to hear about how the world was going and what the solutions were. It was not just a group of politicians coming out of nowhere with a message that spontaneously spread like wildfire. You had a whole media apparatus with billions of dollars spent by Murdoch and the Sinclair Broadcast Group repeating the same bits of folky wisdom, stereotypes, soundbites and supposedly rebellious "political incorrectness" so that voters would be open to the message the Tea Party candidates were giving. They're overhearing it at work on the radio. They're hearing the messaging when they're watching local news. They're reading it in the newspapers. They're hearing it during Sunday services. I don't think most American voters like believing that they're "into politics" or otherwise very political. They believe they're just trying to make it day-by-day and they're the reasonable, creamy middle between crazy extremes. The appeal of most conservatism, including the Tea Party, is that most people think they're just applying common sense to running a government instead of over-complicating or over-politicizing everything the way that liberals are. You had billions of donor dollars feeding commercials and editorials and news coverage over the years that has basically shaped the beliefs of many states in our country. And that's also ignoring the megachurches in our nation and how they can misuse their tax-exempt dollars too. So... I'm thinking we need at least 4 more Soros-style villains 10 years to get some sexy news sites and channels and indoctrinate some real party-style discipline in the left. A lot of the Right's messaging and voting consistency comes from sources that aren't overtly political and the left had not replicated that at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Are you defending Obamacare as Universal Health Care, as Obama did and does? Sure, but my point is that the more populist and left-wing promises were exactly the ones he failed to deliver. Sure if you were a hypothetical "moderate centrist" you got more of what you wanted, but "moderate centrists" don't exist in significant numbers and more importantly [i]aren't angry[i]. His failure was that he came into office on a popular wave and failed to deliver -- and that failure was part of the reason for the OWS movement and, later, Trump's election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Sure, but my point is that the more populist and left-wing promises were exactly the ones he failed to deliver. Sure if you were a hypothetical "moderate centrist" you got more of what you wanted, but "moderate centrists" don't exist in significant numbers and more importantly [i]aren't angry[i]. His failure was that he came into office on a popular wave and failed to deliver -- and that failure was part of the reason for the OWS movement and, later, Trump's election. The vast majority of his promises were designed to appeal to moderates. He failed to deliver many of them, like a 9.50 minimum wage and cap and trade. He called himself post-partisan and promised to staff his administration with republicans. The populism he rode to victory was based on those appeals to common sense bipartisan compromises.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I didn't call anyone a "centrist shill." Oh, are you new to SA? I thought you'd been posting here a while. My dude, all anyone was saying was that there are more variables to consider for the 2018 midterm than the numbers from the 2014 midterm. Some posters just did it in a lovely way. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The vast majority of his promises were designed to appeal to moderates. He failed to deliver many of them, like a 9.50 minimum wage and cap and trade. He called himself post-partisan and promised to staff his administration with republicans. The populism he rode to victory was based on those appeals to common sense bipartisan compromises. That's overthinking it I think. Most people didn't listen to any specific thing he said. They were just angry due to the economic crisis and Obama was a clean break with the establishment in a really obvious way (black dude). Four years later, incumbency advantage. Eight years later, problems still not fixed, still angry, let's get a clean break with the establishment again, ok, TRUMP. Basically, "gently caress those guys, i want something different" has been the guiding principle of all American presidential elections since Clinton
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
I understand why someone might think not voting is a good idea ("politicians will try to appeal to X group if they vote less" sounds reasonable on paper), but in practice politicians just seem to ignore people who don't vote (see the way young people are treated in elections; politicians just choose to emphasize their interests less because they see them as less reliable voters). I can't really deny the fact that voting definitely seems to be the objectively better option, even if it's unpleasant voting for someone you dislike. And contrary to what NFS said, there is a pretty big difference between Republicans and Democrats. Most Democrats don't go out of their way to dramatically decrease taxes on the rich, for example. Democrats are generally a status quo party that is occasionally willing to make things worse or a little better depending upon the circumstances.NewForumSoftware posted:Wait so is it arguably good or bad to create a leftist Tea Party? The "threat" of having a Democratic government incapable of compromising with the GOP is actually my fantasy so /shrug. It's basically impossible to create a leftist Tea Party, since the left will never have the support of wealthy interests that the Tea Party had. And as someone else mentioned, I don't believe the Tea Party refused to vote for mainstream Republicans in the general election; they just primaried them. LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:That wasn't my larger point. It was that your first response to someone saying "but that poll doesn't say what you think it says" shouldn't be to kneejerk start attacking people for being clinton loyalists. Before you start calling people centrist shills, take a second and check if they're right, because if they are then whoops. Being wrong isn't a big deal, everyone's wrong a lot of times. You should be striving to be correct, not right. The entire point of discussing this stuff is in order to fix our own preconceived notions and biases, and usually that involves some scuffing of the ego. Ask any white people who went posting in negrotown with even the best of intentions. Yeah, WampaLord is basically doing the same thing here as JeffersonClay does when I point out some data he provided doesn't prove what he claims it's proving. Merely providing data doesn't somehow add points to your argument unless it actually supports it. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Nov 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I understand that the policies/agencies we will get at the end of the day will be objectively worse than those of the Democrats. That's not what I mean by more evil and I said as much in the rest of my post, but it does make for quite a zinger to just snip out the part you don't like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I understand why someone might think not voting is a good idea ("politicians will try to appeal to X group if they vote less" sounds reasonable on paper), but in practice politicians just seem to ignore people who don't vote (see the way young people are treated in elections; politicians just choose to emphasize their interests less because they see them as less reliable voters). I can't really deny the fact that voting definitely seems to be the objectively better option, even if it's unpleasant voting for someone you dislike. And contrary to what NFS said, there is a pretty big difference between Republicans and Democrats. Most Democrats don't go out of their way to dramatically decrease taxes on the rich, for example. Democrats are generally a status quo party that is occasionally willing to make things worse or a little better depending upon the circumstances. dems don't try to appeal to anyone but republicans and their donors though, so voting for them doesn't seem to get you a seat at the table edit: in fact, they just use your vote to justify their rightward lurch
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I understand why someone might think not voting is a good idea ("politicians will try to appeal to X group if they vote less" sounds reasonable on paper), but in practice politicians just seem to ignore people who don't vote (see the way young people are treated in elections; politicians just choose to emphasize their interests less because they see them as less reliable voters). I can't really deny the fact that voting definitely seems to be the objectively better option, even if it's unpleasant voting for someone you dislike. And contrary to what NFS said, there is a pretty big difference between Republicans and Democrats. Most Democrats don't go out of their way to dramatically decrease taxes on the rich, for example. Democrats are generally a status quo party that is occasionally willing to make things worse or a little better depending upon the circumstances. The real problem is there's dozens of reasons people don't vote and they have no way of knowing which one you chose when you didn't vote, the best way to send a message is to vote the direction you want the party to go to in the primary which I think worked somewhat last election because despite his disadvantages Bernie did quite better then most people accepted so the party had to adopt or at least pay lip service to his policies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's overthinking it I think. Most people didn't listen to any specific thing he said. They were just angry due to the economic crisis and Obama was a clean break with the establishment in a really obvious way (black dude). Four years later, incumbency advantage. Eight years later, problems still not fixed, still angry, let's get a clean break with the establishment again, ok, TRUMP. This is mostly true, but in 2010 when the Democrats lost Congress in a massive wave election it had a whole lot more to do with how sweeping Obamacare was than with how it lacked a public option. It had a whole lot more to do with Dodd-Frank regulating businesses than people protesting a lack of banker blood in the streets. It had more to do with big stimulus bills and the failed cap and trade attempt than it did with Obama appointing Republicans in the executive department. Obama lost Congress over the changes he made, not over lack of change. Similarly, after Bill Clinton ran as the most central centrist to ever triangulate, the 1994 Republican wave was built on how he immediately signed bills to raise taxes and pass worker protections, while pushing (and failing) toward UHC and allowing gay people to openly serve in the military. All that stuff was good. The stuff that was tried and failed would have been even better. But there seems to be a trend that no matter how much it polls well with voters to move policy left, when Democrats do it they consistently get punished in measurable ways. I don't think that meant either Clinton or Obama should have moved right after such punishments, but I can understand getting gunshy too. The question is, what keeps that from happening next time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:48 |
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:You keep doubling and tripling down on what a victim you were and how you got yelled out by the mean Trump thread (who are a bunch of dumb idiots anyway AM I RIGHT GUYS??) No, literally all I did was post a poll and the thread quickly moved to dismiss me as being a total idiot who didn't know what he was talking about, then some stats geeks came along and tried to show that the poll was done poorly, and then many pages later Chris Hayes tweets about the same exact poll and no one called him an idiot and a bitch for daring to think it to be important and the thread discussed it like normal: Mr Interweb posted:Am I reading this tweet wrong? Doesn't this seem like a GOOD thing? And to be honest, gently caress that thread, they were all bitching about feeling like dupes for getting taken by dumb tweets about koi ponds but then they're right back to waiting for the next Tweetstorm to hit. Ytlaya posted:
But the data DOES support my argument, even if it's not overwhelming evidence, it's still something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2017 22:27
|
|