|
Oh Snapple! posted:I mean that stuff might technically be on Jones' website but as a dude living here, he's not running on it. His self-focused media is largely focused on loving guns, loving business, and loving Jesus. One of his radio ads I hear fairly often has a small bit about "a right to see a doctor when you're sick" but that's super loving vague and, again, a small portion of that particular ad that is dominated by the other things I mentioned. I can't remember hearing poo poo about the minimum wage. I’d argue that’s a fundamental failure of campaign strategy and representative of the dumbshit “run to the right and be quiet about ‘identity politics’” strategy people were claiming would work wonders in R districts and failed miserably for Ossof. I don’t see any reason to believe he doesn’t believe in his platform, so much as his campaign is convinced his platform is toxic to Alamabians. Which is a bizarre and stupid idea and him running away from the platform on “I’m a real good old boy too, see!” is remarkably dumb. This is what I meant by institutional badness driving the politics. They aren’t going to run on their good platforms if the lifetime campaign guys all think the platform is bunk and will never fly. How are candidates running for the first time supposed to know otherwise?
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
^^^My general points is that while I believe Jones believes those things, he is absolutely not running on them. And it's gonna gently caress him over imo. Still voting for him and encouraging others to do so within my sphere of influence but I fully believe his campaign went in a terrible direction by choosing to run on something different than what he started with. Like Jones might have initially planned on running on those things but the Moore story very blatantly sent the campaign scurrying to make him as inoffensive to long-time republicans as possible in an effort to appear as Respectable Republican sort of figure. The ad I mentioned even has poo poo about loving deficits for crying out loud. Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Dec 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:^^^My general points is that while I believe Jones believes those things, he is absolutely not running on them. And it's gonna gently caress him over imo. Still voting for him and encouraging others to do so within my sphere of influence but I fully believe his campaign went in a terrible direction by choosing to run on something different than what he started with. I agree with this, I’m just saying that I don’t think the fault lies squarely with Jones here. If he really does have the Ossof team or parts of it advising him then he is getting bad advice and there’s a broader problem with long term Democratic campaign operatives not believing in progressive platforms or that they can win elections. We need an entire new generation of campaign managers and analysts to enter the field and gain experience who understand progressive politics, believe they can win, and will try to sell them. The current old guard is fundamentally failing to sell the message they want in conservative areas and it’s costing candidates who probably would’ve succeeded with better platforms and messaging.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
The 2018 Dem strategy will be to field candidates who are pedophiles because they're totally learning the wrong lessons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:We need an entire new generation of campaign managers and analysts to enter the field and gain experience who understand progressive politics, believe they can win, and will try to sell them. The current old guard is fundamentally failing to sell the message they want in conservative areas and it’s costing candidates who probably would’ve succeeded with better platforms and messaging. Possibly related, the DSA guy in Virginia who just did his own thing and won vs an incumbent whose previous victory was with 58.7% of the vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Ornedan posted:Possibly related, the DSA guy in Virginia who just did his own thing and won vs an incumbent whose previous victory was with 58.7% of the vote. I was going to bring up VA, this is good but the problem is that it’s a lower level race. The higher the race you get into - the House, Senate, etc. - the more complex things become and the more candidates need to lean on experienced campaign advisors to help them get by, especially for new blood running against incumbents. Progressive candidates can’t help us if they get quashed by incompetent campaign teams and advice, is my point. The entire thing is institutional, not just a matter of what candidates are running.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I agree with this, but I’d also like to point out that Jones is running on universal public healthcare and raising the minimum wage. In Alabama. Yeah, the problem is that campaign strategy is heavily influenced by the loving grifters who have kept failing upwards for far too long, and until all this dead wood is cleared out, dem wins will remain entirely up to whether the GOP has its poo poo together or not. Needless to say, this isn't a good position to be in. The problem with this, of course, is the people who are so in the tank for team D that they percieve even a mere attempt to advocate for reform as some kind of personal insult.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Argas posted:The 2018 Dem strategy will be to field candidates who are pedophiles because they're totally learning the wrong lessons. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yea, this is the fundamental problem behind every argument about how the 2016 Dem platform was the most leftist platform in history. If you ignore the platform when you're running, no one's going to hear the message. Excuse me but it was clearly written on the webs- Where do I sign up to phone bank for Jones? (I can't actually do this but maybe other goons can)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
A good piece on how the Dems have ceded the issue of sexual harassment in Congress:quote:While Pelosi and Lofgren are correct that every American, including a member of Congress, has a right to due process, they also fail to appreciate how tone-deaf their responses sound. After all, these aren’t just regular Americans in a regular job. They are public servants. They should want Americans to expect that a member of Congress will be held to a higher standard than a famous journalist or a Hollywood movie mogul.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I agree with this, but I’d also like to point out that Jones is running on universal public healthcare and raising the minimum wage. In Alabama. The problem with this logic (or at least what seems to be your logic here) is that it assumes that being a red state implies that the Democrats in that state are also conservative. I don't think that necessarily follows, because it relies on the assumption that there's some uniform pull to the right across everyone of all ideologies in the state, rather than there just being more right-wingers. Basically what I'm saying is that I don't think it's logical to assume that Democrats will be less receptive to ideas like this in a red state. There may be fewer Democrats than Republicans, but that doesn't mean the Democrats who exist are also more right-wing (or at least that they're uniformly more right-wing; i.e. they might be more conservative in some areas but not in others). I think it's important to be skeptical about a lot of things that are currently treated as political "common sense." Even in situations where you have polls indicating public opinion, you can't ignore the fact that public opinion on political issues is largely responsive to what people hear from politicians and the media. If a politician starts vocally and publicly endorsing policy more to the left, it will naturally cause those ideas to become at least somewhat more mainstream in the eyes of their constituents as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The problem with this logic (or at least what seems to be your logic here) is that it assumes that being a red state implies that the Democrats in that state are also conservative. I don't think that necessarily follows, because it relies on the assumption that there's some uniform pull to the right across everyone of all ideologies in the state, rather than there just being more right-wingers. Implicitly running as a Dem in a red state means you have to get Republicans to vote for you in at least small numbers, or create a scenario where Republicans don’t turn out but Democrats do. It’s been my experience personally that Democrats in red states are actually more conservative, but it tends to track more with age and race (and to a lesser degree gender) as well as location. My point was more so that Jones has a good platform and seems to be a fairly decent guy considering his background, but he’s not running on the good poo poo because his campaign advisors are playing into colorblind appeals to “moderates” and trying to go on about how much the other guy sucks. It’s Ossof all over again, in that Ossof should’ve been able to win that district and failed because they chose the most vapid, pointless strategies to run on. More broadly I’m agreeing with you, the problem is that we need new candidates but if their campaign staff are all old blood operating on old assumptions it’s still not going to work out if the candidates are good, because we can’t expect all new candidates to be naturals at understanding the system. We need to get progressives into the institutional side of things to support progressive candidates through state-wide and national level elections.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:We need to get progressives into the institutional side of things I think this part is a total pipe dream. These think tanks and campaign managers are never going to accept progressives into their ranks, because truly progressive politics threaten their livelihoods. We need to be building new institutions, new ways of campaigning that don't rely on access to these awful institutions. Burn the old poo poo down, don't try to fix it from within, it's far too rotten at this point. It's all a loving grifting machine. That socialist kid who won in VA explicitly told the Dem campaign people to gently caress off and he won anyway. I think you're putting way too much faith in these institutions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I think this part is a total pipe dream. These think tanks and campaign managers are never going to accept progressives into their ranks, because truly progressive politics threaten their livelihoods. I mean, that is also good. I don’t think it will be sufficient on its own though. DSA is great and other orgs like it are great but they aren’t growing fast enough or succeeding broadly enough to change things in a sufficiently short amount of time. You don’t personally have to want to work with the current system but at least some of us have to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:A good piece on how the Dems have ceded the issue of sexual harassment in Congress: I'm not sure you can claim they've ceded the issue when the opponent whom they'd have ceded it too is currently in the process of electing a child molester and the President is on record for sexual harassment without consequence. E: I mean, the conclusion to the article on the GOP facing its own reckoning moment is disproven by the introduction of the very same article. So... I don't know. Boon fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Dec 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Boon posted:I'm not sure you can claim they've ceded the issue when the opponent whom they'd have ceded it too is currently in the process of electing a child molester and the President is on record for sexual harassment without consequence. They haven’t ceded the issue but they’re working very hard to ensure they don’t have the moral high ground. Their responses have felt like they were ad libbed from defenses of Bill 20 years ago and everyone my age (20-25) is going to be greatly turned off by their rhetoric. They seem to be trying to turn it around, which is good, but it’s another issue where it feels like they haven’t kept up with the times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Boon posted:I'm not sure you can claim they've ceded the issue when the opponent whom they'd have ceded it too is currently in the process of electing a child molester and the President is on record for sexual harassment without consequence. We're supposed to be better than the GOP not just "less bad." Even if what Franken/Conyers did is less bad than what Trump/Moore did, it's still loving bad! Why is this so hard?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:We're supposed to be better than the GOP not just "less bad." Well, to be pedantic, less bad is better, literally. But, yes, that's great and I agree. You're interpreting more into my statement than what I stated - which is that the Dems haven't ceded the issue. Lightning Knight posted:but it’s another issue where it feels like they haven’t kept up with the times. Well, them and just about every other element of society, yes. I agree that our leaders should be held to a higher standard which they have not met. But if you're trying to do some ad hoc false equivalency on this issue, I'm calling bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Before you write off Jones from the Emerson and JMC polls you really should look at their methodology and cross tabs which are both really bad and probably not predictive of the upcoming election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Boon posted:I'm not sure you can claim they've ceded the issue when the opponent whom they'd have ceded it too is currently in the process of electing a child molester and the President is on record for sexual harassment without consequence. As the story pointed out, Congressional Dems had the opportunity to carve out stark difference for themselves in the way they handled assault & harassment claims. Instead, their dicking around with secret tribunals & secret payouts has led to whataboutism that has likely helped Moore in the Alabama senate race and discouraged other harassment/assault victims from coming forth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:As the story pointed out, Congressional Dems had the opportunity to carve out stark difference for themselves in the way they handled assault & harassment claims. As I said in my above edit, if anyone is trying to draw a false equivalency between the Dems and the GOP on this, I'm going to throw a flag. It's not even close, and to try and draw that comparison is insane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
So why is your whataboutism relevant here, and why should we give a poo poo about it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
What? I'ts not clear to me that you understand whataboutism. But to get to your actual complaint, to hold ourselves to a higher standard and not just throw out inaccurate claims.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Boon posted:Well, them and just about every other element of society, yes. I don’t think that the situations are equal, but I don’t think that our party has done as well as it could or should have done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Agreed
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Boon posted:What? I'ts not clear to me that you understand whataboutism. Whataboutism is when people point out that the dems have been pretty lovely at handling sex pests in their own ranks, and then you burst into the thread and start getting all huffy because what about them sleazebag republicans? Boon posted:But to get to your actual complaint, to hold ourselves to a higher standard and not just throw out inaccurate claims. So what you're saying is we should hold ourselves to high standards when comparing the Democrats and the GOP, unlike the Democrats who apparently don't need to hold themselves to very high standards when dealing with sexual assault because the GOP are worse?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Whataboutism is when people point out that the dems have been pretty lovely at handling sex pests in their own ranks, and then you burst into the thread and start getting all huffy because what about them sleazebag republicans? that's not what whataboutism is
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Implicitly running as a Dem in a red state means you have to get Republicans to vote for you in at least small numbers, or create a scenario where Republicans don’t turn out but Democrats do. It’s been my experience personally that Democrats in red states are actually more conservative, but it tends to track more with age and race (and to a lesser degree gender) as well as location. You forgot a third scenario where you increase dem turnout. Especially in the youth and minority areas. They are fickle voting blocks for a variety of reasons so it's not a slam dunk. But when Republicans run on turning out the Republican vote and Dems run on converting Republican voters (an uphill battle to be sure) absent crazy situations like a global financial meltdown, it's setting itself up for Republican victory. If we assume that all voters are conservative then you've already ceded a lot of winnable elections to Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Implicitly running as a Dem in a red state means you have to get Republicans to vote for you in at least small numbers, or create a scenario where Republicans don’t turn out but Democrats do. It’s been my experience personally that Democrats in red states are actually more conservative, but it tends to track more with age and race (and to a lesser degree gender) as well as location. Yeah, though I also find it questionable that the sort of potential Republican voter who is also a potential Democratic voter is actually centrist in any meaningful sense that translates to them rejecting left-wing policies (and that's ignoring the fact that someone being turned off by progressive social policy might not be turned off by progressive economic policy and vice versa). A lot of ideas rest on the assumptions that both 1. people are distributed relatively evenly across the political spectrum, as opposed to clustered at the ends and 2. the "political spectrum" even makes much sense, in light of the fact that there isn't necessarily a connection between "wanting universal healthcare" and "being against LGBT rights" (assuming you're talking about swing voters, who by definition aren't defining their views along partisan lines). This isn't to say that it's impossible for some of these ideas to be true; it's entirely possible that it really is necessary for a Democrat to be more conservative to win in redder states. But I think a lot of these ideas just survive through inertia and aren't necessarily true (and when it comes to something like running conservative candidates, there's a pretty big inherent cost in terms of inferior ideology/policy that it would be best to avoid by not running such a candidate in the first place). edit: To clarify further, I think a lot of our political practices are based on heavy risk aversion, with Democrats being afraid to try anything new out of fears that the results might be worse. It's entirely possible that running a more left-wing candidate could increase turnout among people who currently aren't voting, but we'll never know if they don't try that. Boon posted:What? I'ts not clear to me that you understand whataboutism. He mentioned whataboutism because it appeared that you were bringing up the sins of the GOP in response to someone mentioning the Democrats (which would be a pretty perfect example of whataboutism). I haven't seen anyone drawing an equivalence. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Dec 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
botany posted:that's not what whataboutism is Somebody being all "but what about the other guys" isn't what whataboutism is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:We're supposed to be better than the GOP not just "less bad." Because there's no way for the left to achieve any kind of meaningful advancements tackling this issue. Republicans just straight out Do Not Care about "creepy" come-ons from within their own ranks, apparently stretching as far as if the targeted person is a minor. Any Democrat under a similar microscope comes under fire from both the right and the left. And the only reason the right can do it is because they aren't virtue signaling to their own base, they know their base does not care. They're trying to dispirit yours, because they know your base cares.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Because there's no way for the left to achieve any kind of meaningful advancements tackling this issue. I dunno, it's pretty dispiriting to have your political party ignore sexual harassment within its ranks. If someone is feeling dispirited by Democrats being focused on and punished for sexual harassment, I think that's their problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Boon posted:As I said in my above edit, if anyone is trying to draw a false equivalency between the Dems and the GOP on this, I'm going to throw a flag. There's not really a "false equivalency" when it comes to Conyers. Franken, yes; Conyers, no.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Because there's no way for the left to achieve any kind of meaningful advancements tackling this issue. This poo poo being tolerated directly contributes to killing off enthusiasm among the dem base, ya dingus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I dunno, it's pretty dispiriting to have your political party ignore sexual harassment within its ranks. If someone is feeling dispirited by Democrats being focused on and punished for sexual harassment, I think that's their problem. You missed that it's the Republicans that think their own poo poo smells wonderful, while also wanting to rub your face the hardest in your own party's poo poo. This is an institutional thing that's going to vary from person to person. The party will eventually have to come to a structure of rules and consequences from within, whether that's "if a named person comes forward saying you harassed them we won't support your re-election campaign" or something else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Somebody being all "but what about the other guys" isn't what whataboutism is? US: Russia, political prisoners are bad Russia: What about your own terrible prison system? is a bit more effective than US: Russia, political prisoners are bad Russia: What about China's political prisoners?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:You missed that it's the Republicans that think their own poo poo smells wonderful, while also wanting to rub your face the hardest in your own party's poo poo. I dunno man, I think "Republicans also cynically highlighted Democratic sexual harassment, therefore we should...limit the punishment? Or something? (not sure what you're even implying should happen)" is a really strange take. Like, there's no need to take Republicans into account when deciding how to deal with this. If some Democratic politicians did a bad thing, they should be punished accordingly, and it's okay for people to condemn them for it. The fact that Republicans also talk about it doesn't somehow mean people should hold back their own criticism. Like I understand that it's frustrating to see Republicans complaining about Democrats doing something that their own politicians have done even worse, but that's completely separate from the crimes themselves and how other Democrats react to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Clinton beat Sanders in Alabama by 58 percentage points. What evidence is there that running a progressive platform would be an advantage in the deep south other than a dogmatic insistence that leftist policies will always win?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Where's your evidence that the result of an internal primary election with a self-selecting electorate doesn't perfectly validate my opinion? Checkmate, leftailures 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
We can speak of pollution in terms of the historical pollution of fascism, the historical pollution of war, the historical pollution of hunger in the world, the historical pollution of murder, the historical pollution that we people -- poor, oppressed people -- in this world all over have been subjected to for too many years. That pollution is the basis of the pollution of the nature, the world, the universe. The only solution to pollution is a people's humane revolution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 01:15
|
|