|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I can't help but see the Manchin debate as premature in the absence of an actual potential "leftier" candidate who could win the west Virginia general election. There's a lady running against him in the primary, I dunno where she stands on the issues but she's positioning herself as the outsider progressive relative to Manchin so, there already is someone running against him. Whether or not you think that she can't win is another matter, but I see no specific reason why she should be disqualified off-hand.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Mm yes, well you'd better tell Senator Ed Market (D-MA) it will be news to him. This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
I don't see what the point of pretending all this nuance matters when it's much easier to group them into "Supported the invasion of Iraq" (showing their true level of integrity), and "Did not support the invasion of Iraq".
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:There's a lady running against him in the primary, I dunno where she stands on the issues but she's positioning herself as the outsider progressive relative to Manchin so, there already is someone running against him. Ok, I'm on my phone and can't look her up, bit it seems like we should focus the debate on her in particular vs Manchin and not hypothetical generalized candidates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ok, I'm on my phone and can't look her up, bit it seems like we should focus the debate on her in particular vs Manchin and not hypothetical generalized candidates. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/joe-manchin-bernie-sanders-primary-challenge-west-virginia-senate-2018/525918/ quote:Joe Manchin, the Senate’s most conservative and Donald Trump-friendly Democrat, is facing a primary challenger. Paula Swearengin, a coal miner’s daughter and environmental activist, plans to run for the senator’s West Virginia seat in the 2018 Democratic primary election. Edit: actually, honestly, this is the most important part of the article. quote:One video uploaded to YouTube shows Swearengin asking, “Who’s going to clean up the mess when coal’s gone?” and saying: “Fracking is not acceptable either.” Her website states: “The question we face today is: What are we going to do when the coal is gone? And make no mistake it’s going. No one has given us an answer that doesn’t require the sacrifice of our health and our environment. I believe our future is in building a 21st-century, clean economy.” She's probably doomed tbh, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't try. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ok, I'm on my phone and can't look her up, bit it seems like we should focus the debate on her in particular vs Manchin and not hypothetical generalized candidates. Reminder: The original conversation wasn't even about Manchin, it was about Ogmius getting pissing people were criticizing the dozen Dems who are trying to get rid of bank regulations and pointing out this isn't even good from a bad-dem point of view since most people aren't big bank fans. It became about Manchin in particular because that's who he focused on (and not any of the other names being brought up) as part of his attempt to defend "no we have to support him because only he can win there" but we really don't need to talk about his primary opinion - this is all getting increasingly irrelevant to the original topic. I mean we can talk about her anyway if you want, but it's probably good to understand that we'd be starting a new effectively unrelated conversation at that point, and it shouldn't be surprising she hadn't come up yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:sure, the state's been solid blue for generations, but now that a republican-in-all-but-name is their senator, it would be ~difficult~ to get a proper dem out of them. better to just be content with Lieberman 2.0, eh? Keith Judd got 41% of the vote in the Democratic Primary in 2012. It’s disingenuous to suggest that West Virginia is just like any other state, when there is a sizable chunk of the population who decided they would rather have a “Dark Priest” who was currently serving time than a black man. 1 in 5 West Virginians who voted in the Democratic Primary in 2008 cites race as an important factor in deciding their vote. The states voters have a strong divergent opinions on a number of issues, including most prominently on energy and the environment. That’s not to say that the Democrats couldn’t run a candidate with a leftward economic message, but there are hurdles to creating a message for West Virginia Democrats and bringing them into the wider coalition. Also, a PPP poll taken in May of 2016 found that Sanders would lose in a head-to-head with Trump 35% to 56%. Lightning Knight posted:Run on a platform of increased road access, direct economic stimulus, hiring more workers for public works projects and the building of new infrastructure like clean energy, responsible conservation of nature reserves while preserving access to hunting for individuals, and higher-quality healthcare and better wages, subsidized childcare, etc. Focus on things that they will like, and try and sidestep questions about LGBT people or racial minorities as best you can. Yeah, I agree with all of that. But there’s the tension because in order to do that, you have to either sidestep the issue of coal or have a really frank discussion about it, and neither of those things come easy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Just running everywhere isn't as sexy as some "data-driven" mostrosity of a model that's supposed to deliver a super-efficient victory that lets you feel smart by association, and boy howdy does a certain type of liberal love the thought of that. I agree that there are a lot of grifters in the campaign apparatus, and that people don’t always use voter data in effective way and don’t stop to analyze what they’re doing, but questioning the whole concept of voter data is obscuritanism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I agree that there are a lot of grifters in the campaign apparatus, and that people don’t always use voter data in effective way and don’t stop to analyze what they’re doing, but questioning the whole concept of voter data is obscuritanism. They didn't question the whole concept of voter data.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Run on a platform of increased road access, direct economic stimulus, hiring more workers for public works projects and the building of new infrastructure like clean energy, responsible conservation of nature reserves while preserving access to hunting for individuals, and higher-quality healthcare and better wages, subsidized childcare, etc. Focus on things that they will like, and try and sidestep questions about LGBT people or racial minorities as best you can. That sounds like Hillary Clinton to me. That’s like every reasonable Democrat centrist message from the past 20 years. Sadly, I think you lose everyone at “clean energy.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Keith Judd got 41% of the vote in the Democratic Primary in 2012. It’s disingenuous to suggest that West Virginia is just like any other state, when there is a sizable chunk of the population who decided they would rather have a “Dark Priest” who was currently serving time than a black man. 1 in 5 West Virginians who voted in the Democratic Primary in 2008 cites race as an important factor in deciding their vote. The states voters have a strong divergent opinions on a number of issues, including most prominently on energy and the environment. There's a big difference between saying a "good dem" in our eyes can't win in W. Virginia, and saying a Dem that is better for the Dems than Manchin can't win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I agree that there are a lot of grifters in the campaign apparatus, and that people don’t always use voter data in effective way and don’t stop to analyze what they’re doing, but questioning the whole concept of voter data is obscuritanism. You say a year after the Dems ran a campaign based on ignoring actual data in favour of what their computer model told them was real. WampaLord posted:They didn't question the whole concept of voter data. Also this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:They didn't question the whole concept of voter data. fond memories of Cefte's takedown of OwlOfCreamCheese, lost to the mists of forums lore; the moment someone questions the High Priests, thinks instead of merely marvels at the wonders they have chiseled from the Science Mines, they are to be denounced as blasphemers against science itself. data has value. the utter loving morons who decided "if the model and what we're seeing on the ground do not coincide, ignore what they are seeing on the ground: we like the model better" was a good way to run a campaign? that by passing information through a set of Robby Mook's assumptions writ in sacred Code, and passed through the holy Stepwise Selection Algorithm, the assumptions ceased to be something pulled from a grifter's rear end and became Science? they have negative value. and should be treated as such.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Some of yall must be posting from Earth Prime because I haven't seen a mainstream Democrat in this dimension support jobs programs or public works projects in my lifetime. I've only read about it in books.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:There's a big difference between saying a "good dem" in our eyes can't win in W. Virginia, and saying a Dem that is better for the Dems than Manchin can't win. Hey, I agree. I criticized Manchin a few pages ago. But there are challenges, and if you’re going to run a campaign you need to recognize that instead of handwaving them. Cerebral Bore posted:You say a year after the Dems ran a campaign based on ignoring actual data in favour of what their computer model told them was real. Should the Democratic Party be modeling voter behaviors and preferences?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Should the Democratic Party be modeling voter behaviors and preferences? Not unless they find some people who aren't too dumb to understand what the models actually mean first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Should the Democratic Party be modeling voter behaviors and preferences? Running a data-driven system to model voter preferences and target key races is good, not trying to force the issue in places that aren't favorable to you or otherwise try and mold voter preferences is not good. "poo poo this seat is +7 R" should be cause to try and shorten the gap, not give up. The problem of course is that they don't have infinite resources, but if they used their resources more efficiently than they have been they could probably pick up more seats than the last 8 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:That sounds like Hillary Clinton to me. That’s like every reasonable Democrat centrist message from the past 20 years. West Virginia voters, we discovered, don't really want to hear about clean energy. They don't want to hear that coal is the past, that it's dirty, smelly, hazardous to your health and to the environment, and just generally not business-friendly in an age where more and more businesses are trying to be so. All they want is to go back to the time when a single coal miner's job could support a family, and Trump fed them exactly the right cocktail of happy lies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Ya, I want there to be a 100 vote requirement for President Trump's judicial nominees.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:West Virginia voters, we discovered, don't really want to hear about clean energy. They don't want to hear that coal is the past, that it's dirty, smelly, hazardous to your health and to the environment, and just generally not business-friendly in an age where more and more businesses are trying to be so. if only there was some way for a left-wing candidate to propose a way for a single coal miner's job to support a family oh well. we've tried tax incentives for entrepreneurs and we're all out of ideas
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/joe-manchin-bernie-sanders-primary-challenge-west-virginia-senate-2018/525918/ she'd be less doomed if the dems weren't putting their thumbs on the scale for manchin. she's great, and we should support her. manchin is straight out terrible in many ways. he's anti-choice, his daughter is making it impossible for poor kids with allergies to survive, and he's helping pass deregulation against payday lenders and other financial fuckery. he loving confirmed sessions too, and he's been one of the most vehemently anti-lgbtq dems in the senate. all the people whining about "what about at risk groups?!" should be lining up to guillotine the fucker right now, but instead a bunch of them are saying "buuuuut we think he might win so we're going to choose the greater evil thanks..."
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Condiv posted:she'd be less doomed if the dems weren't putting their thumbs on the scale for manchin. she's great, and we should support her. Right, but what I meant was even if she successfully primaried Manchin, she's probably still doomed. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:West Virginia voters, we discovered, don't really want to hear about clean energy. They don't want to hear that coal is the past, that it's dirty, smelly, hazardous to your health and to the environment, and just generally not business-friendly in an age where more and more businesses are trying to be so. i think u missed the part where they don't necessarily want to be coal miners, but actually want to be able to support their families. dems' capitalism 2.0 is not an answer to this, and manchin is as far from an answer to this as anyone else. give them a loving jobs program!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Right, but what I meant was even if she successfully primaried Manchin, she's probably still doomed. i doubt it we're electing further left dems than the establishment in loving oklahoma. stop giving in to this "oh too left!" narrative. it's bullshit used to keep blue dogs alive
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Not unless they find some people who aren't too dumb to understand what the models actually mean first. This is the kind of arrogant anti-intellectualism I expect to find more in GOP circles. You can say that political data is imperfect science, that there’s not enough focus on proper application, but saying that the people involved are “dumb” is preposterous. Lightning Knight posted:Running a data-driven system to model voter preferences and target key races is good, not trying to force the issue in places that aren't favorable to you or otherwise try and mold voter preferences is not good. "poo poo this seat is +7 R" should be cause to try and shorten the gap, not give up. True. It’s a tough problem, because of course there’s an inherent desire for all the money to flow into the easiest pickups or incumbents, but little money for the tougher long shot spadework that’s necessary to grow the party. It’s also so problem of candidate recruitment. Most people don’t want to run in districts where they think they’ll get beat. There’s also a dearth of people with political experience because we’ve been losing so much on the state and local level in some of these places. It starts locally with rebuilding some of these state parties.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:This is the kind of arrogant anti-intellectualism I expect to find more in GOP circles. It is not preposterous, but we can call them feckless idiots or fools if it makes you happier
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Refactoring capitalism is actually a pretty good way to describe the current Dem platform. It is not the answer but it's a useful analogy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:You've got it completely backwards. People aren't locking horns and voting D regardless if whatever policy comes out of it. People are horrified about R policy, mobilizing, and voting D. Potato Salad posted:I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're a male and white, kilroy 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:No, I don't ASSUME that, I'm FEARFUL of it. It makes me NERVOUS. If I was sure, I'd be campaigning for Joe Manchin, and I'm not. I wanna see how this plays out. I think you might have an easier time understanding the attitude of the people you're arguing with if you understand that they're also fearful of things not changing for the better. The problem is that many of you guys seem to have a complacency towards the status quo (likely because most of you are doing relatively well under it) that causes your primary concern to be "things getting worse." But for people who are already doing badly - which is a lot of people - the prospect of merely fending off Republicans for another 10-20 years is very scary. Just to be clear, as I've said a zillion times in other posts, I still think people have an obligation to vote for the Democratic candidate in any remotely contested general election, but people absolutely do not have an obligation to not even criticize Democratic politicians merely because it might marginally increase the chance a Republican might win. We've already seen from the 2016 primary how criticism from the left can have a very real impact on the policies of Democratic candidates, and silencing such criticism on the basis of "there's a non-zero chance it might improve the Republican's chances" is insane and counterproductive in the long-term. It's especially hosed up when you're trying to silence criticism of literally one of the most conservative Democratic Senators; if you won't even allow that, you may as well just say it's never acceptable to criticize sitting/incumbent Democratic politicians. Lightning Knight posted:I’m not sure I understand what you want them to do. I'm playing the PC game "Dishonored 2" and basically what needs to happen is for Chelsea Clinton to don a face mask and travel around the country murdering (or incapacitating) all the powerful bad people. It will end in an emotional scene where she confronts her parents. Ogmius815 posted:Have you considered that the WV dems should run candidates that seem like they can win in WV rather than trying to communicate abstract messages to god only knows who? You could use this same logic to argue against literally any proposal to primary a sitting Democratic candidate. Like, it's basically impossible to disprove the claim that "the incumbent is literally the optimal politician for running in their region" without already running and winning a primary to start with. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
If you think people are clamoring for the status quo after a self-labeled socialist beat an incumbent republican, you've got your head lodged firmly up your rear end Wherever you look, people are clamoring for change. Out of work miners want to work. Black people want to stop being murdered by police. Immigrants want a non-hellish path to citizenship. And you guys are arguing for candidates who call for more payday loans, bodycams on cops, and banning sanctuary cities as a proper response to these people It's utterly idiotic
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Faustian Bargain posted:In this scenario, don't the Democrats get to tell them to gently caress off and remove it? In his described scenario the Democrats have already captured the Senate and the Presidency. The Dems would be changing Senate rules to make it more difficult for them to seat liberal justices—potentially forcing themselves to compromise with the GOP. On the other hand, Republicans will be free to change the rules back and seat Judge Pirro as soon as they retake power. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:In his described scenario the Democrats have already captured the Senate and the Presidency. The Dems would be changing Senate rules to make it more difficult for them to seat liberal justices—potentially forcing themselves to compromise with the GOP. It's a deliberate tactic to avoid appointing anyone who might accidentally do something good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Barbe Rouge posted:It's a deliberate tactic to avoid appointing anyone who might accidentally do something good. This is probably a reach on assumptions of bad faith, Bill Clinton appointed RBG after all. I honestly think that guy is just a moron, who thinks that ~the process~ matters to people who aren't actually in Congress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
WV politics is very clubby when it comes to state leadership roles. A lot of it is who you know, who you have contacts with, and coal / natural resource companies exerting pressure where they can. If you're looking to replace Manchin you need to do so with someone who has been in that state's political circles for a while.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LOLGOP/status/930865070678167556
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
What that guy said is dumb, and I really doubt that the democrats would actually do that. If you recall, they're the ones who broke the filibuster for lower court nominees in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Some of yall must be posting from Earth Prime because I haven't seen a mainstream Democrat in this dimension support jobs programs or public works projects in my lifetime. I've only read about it in books. See p. 7 of the 2016 Democrat Party Platform about infrastructure investment, for example. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf Or 2008 (you can Ctrl+F for “rebuilding infrastructure”): http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=78283 It was even mentioned in the 1988 platform: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29609 But if you’re thinking about bringing back the WPA from the New Deal era, then I guess you’re right, but it’s not like the Democrats haven’t pushed the idea of job creation through physical infrastructure investment in recent years. In recent years, Obama got derailed in pushing it forward after losing Congress and the fallout from Obamacare. I felt highway revitalization got mentioned a lot, but it was DOA due to GOP resistance. Maybe the Dems need to say it more often and in a different way or something like that? “New roads. New bridges.” Maybe “infrastructure” is too abstract of a word.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
People need to start screaming about this and not just assume the GOP will gently caress it all up by themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
Radish posted:People need to start screaming about this and not just assume the GOP will gently caress it all up by themselves. I posted a story earlier, but Democratic leadership is worried that no one is heeding their calls to action in the same way we did for healthcare. They're hoping the Republicans are stupid enough to tie the tax cuts to healthcare cuts so they can bring out the angry masses again. :/
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:47
|
|