|
reignonyourparade posted:If a conservative that wanted minimum wage of 0 saw their opponent move to cut it by 65%, they'd probably go "gently caress you, you have to PAY people for the privilege of working for them" just to better distinguish themselves from the other side. The primary campaign strategy of conservatives is calling their opponent a leftist radical, if they're almost identical the conservative needs to actively make space between them so that they can call their opponent a leftist radical. and then the democrat in this scenario would buckle down to zero because of bipartisanship and 
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
We have to vote for a zero wage or the Republican will win
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah okay? now trump is president and the whole country has moved to the right and odds are the next democratic platform is going to have to fight to get minimum wage back to 7.25. Instead of the next election being a minimum wage of 12 and someone being able to campaign in the primaries on 17. People don't just randomly change their political views; and there's no reason to think that the country (and non-Republicans in general) has moved in a direction where it would be less willing to entertain the idea of a $15+ minimum wage (given enthusiastic support from the Democratic Party/media). They change their views in response to what they see and hear from the politicians and media, which is why it's very important for Democratic politicians and pundits/media to vocally support this stuff. Both Democratic and Republican voters generally just support whatever ideas they feel "a Democrat/Republican is supposed to support." And that is why it's important to put as much pressure as possible on politicians and to show our displeasure towards attempts to support an inferior option (like $12/hr). I made this point before, but there hasn't ever been a time historically when the people pushing against the feasibility of positive change were in the right. Even if if weren't feasible in the near future (which definitely doesn't seem to be the case with respect to $15/hr minimum wage), it would still make sense for individual voters to actively push for it. I can't think of any reason that isn't malicious for trying to push a "it's just not possible" narrative. Owlofcreamcheese posted:And what have you gotten us exactly? Where is this savior that is supposed to show up if we just keep our hands pure and let conservatives win every election forever? Calm down. The leftists aren't making the Democrats lose elections. If you really cared about Democrats winning elections, you'd be aiming your displeasure at them, not the left. They're the ones who have control over how enthusiastic voters are for them. If they supported more directly helpful and populist policy and advertised that, it would improve their chances dramatically. Owlofcreamcheese posted:If you also vote in local elections and not just presidential elections (and primaries if that is feasible for you) then you are on my list of cool and good people that are doing it exactly right and if I have continued to argue with you it's only because I constantly forget who anyone is. The really important question you need to ask yourself is why random leftists not voting (which doesn't seem to be a bigger problem with leftists than any other political demographic) concerns you more than the actions of the Democratic Party that also reduce their chances of winning (and a hell of a lot more than the actions of leftists, I might add). From a sheer pragmatic perspective, it makes more sense to put pressure on the party to change its behavior in a way that encourages more people to vote. One might even think that a genuine concern for Democrats winning isn't what's motivating you! OwlFancier posted:Radicalism engages people, moderation does not. Even Obama ran on a platform of radical rhetoric even if his performance was shite. Since people often try to argue against the idea of Obama's rhetoric was radical, I think it's important to explain that from the perspective of a voter who isn't particularly engaged/experienced (in the sense of having paid attention to politics for a long time prior) he just strongly gave that impression. I was a relatively politically ignorant 22/23 year old when Obama first ran in 2008, and I remember strongly getting the general impression that he would do things differently. Sure, you can go back and find his speeches and they mostly don't sound particularly radical, but a combination of factors just gave that impression to voters (the fact he was running as a black man against Hillary, who was more or less the avatar of the mainstream, certainly helped him give this impression). In fact, my experience with Obama is a big reason why it can be a little frustrating seeing the reaction of (often younger) people on these forums to current politics. Their reactions are often completely reasonable for someone who doesn't have any political history to draw from; obviously people are going to find the immense distrust others have towards the Democrats strange if they don't have the same history of disappointment. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Feb 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
The most prominent democrat figureheads have completely drained the DNC of funding with consultants and lost an election against the least popular candidate ever, but it's more important to melt down at people questioning Lesser Evil-ism. That is how we shall win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Since people often try to argue against the idea of Obama's rhetoric was radical, I think it's important to explain that from the perspective of a voter who isn't particularly engaged/experienced (in the sense of having paid attention to politics for a long time prior) he just strongly gave that impression. I was a relatively politically ignorant 22/23 year old when Obama first ran in 2008, and I remember strongly getting the general impression that he would do things differently. Sure, you can go back and find his speeches and they mostly don't sound particularly radical, but a combination of factors just gave that impression to voters (the fact he was running as a black man against Hillary, who was more or less the avatar of the mainstream, certainly helped him give this impression). I mean coming from Bush he's a handsome, vocally charismatic black man whose slogan was about the empowerment of people to effect change and win victories over the establishment. That's remarkably radical sounding and looking for someone who wasn't particularly so politically. He looked like a change, he sounded like a change, and he told people that we could have a change. Trump did much the same in a rather nastier way. Hillary... what? What even was her platform anyway other than "well we've had a democrat for eight years and he's pretty alright also I've been a politician for ages I'm clearly much better than this outsider who sounds angry all the time and slings blame around for the problems in our society, really we don't have many problems and everything's pretty alright so don't vote for him vote for me!" It really is a shame that he pissed away the votes he got because I doubt there'll be another politician as good at campaigning as he was for some time. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Feb 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
Has there been an acknowledgement that oocc was wrong about NY minwage or any convincing argument advanced against fight for fifteen at any point in the last week
BENGHAZI 2 fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Feb 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
What does your heart tell you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 09:25
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:What does your heart tell you? I like to dream of a day when he marginally improves as a poster,
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2018 10:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/yashar/status/968242634526547968 support the lesser of two evils unless she speaks out against a serial sexual offender
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
It sure sucks that the purity tests from the center are always about supporting lovely stuff like sexual harassers, bad medical plans, or the drug war. The whole "purity test" stuff is just more projection.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 13:46
|
|
|
Radish posted:It sure sucks that the purity tests from the center are always about supporting lovely stuff like sexual harassers, bad medical plans, or the drug war. The whole "purity test" stuff is just more projection. What is a purity test from the center?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
Support specific people over ideology because it is seen as politically advantageous. I'm not sure if this is a gotcha about the correct definition of the term "purity" but it's pretty clear that right wing Democrats are using Al Frankin as a single issue in which to stop supporting a Democratic candidate which is what the left is accused of doing via obsession with purity on certain issues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 14:44
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:What is a purity test from the center? I think what Radish is getting at is that the center will criticize the left for being too fixated on ideological purity, while the center will often value party loyalty and partisanship over actual principles and even winning. I do think the "centrist" Democrats will often get stuck up about how they're pragmatic winners, but then they make seniority-based decisions that are not meritocratic at all (e.g., the upward trajectories of Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Schultz) that often are even more self-sabotaging than what the left is advocating for because it makes the Democrats look like hypocrites and keeps many voters it needs (and can otherwise count on to support all their policies) at home. Stand for something good instead of making yourself more Republican and insisting that will get you more than 1 or 2 reversal waves over the next couple of decades. After my time lurking in this subform, I have come around to the idea that Democrats really need to get over the left being inconvenient and noisy. Some ideas might be too far ahead of their time, but you still have to differentiate yourself in an authentic and meaningful way even if "centrist" America is not ready to accept some policy concepts yet. Most voters are searching more for authenticity and caring about their local problems and the party should concentrate on how to be responsive and authentic on a local/state level and build up from there instead of chasing after some marketer's imaginary composite "Panera voter." Plus, GOP voters seem immune to defecting and being relatively moderate or even conservative on some positions does not get them to stay home. The Democrats and the left need to build up their apparatus so that the GOP does not get a free pass on messaging all the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
It honestly gets back to the problems of "less of two evil voting" and why it is poisonous. Calling out Frankin was the right thing to do not because it was advantageous and would get Republicans to expel their own sexual predators, but because it was hard and it was inherently moral to stand up for his victims. When you see everything as a "which is the least poo poo candidate I can support" decision you lose perspective that these people should be held to a standard and you can't say you support women and use that in messaging and then not support them when it might be bad for you. Even if you want to see this as a cold political calculus, people aren't going to respect the "less evil" party if they can't even get that part right and are as evil as their adversaries when it comes to a sexual harasser as long as he is useful. The long term benefits to being actually good are you build support from voters and then you do more good things instead of just hoping things are poo poo enough that you win by default. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
OOCC, the point is that centrist messaging loses elections. We don't want the Republicans. We want Democrats who do good things, so we're yelling at them and threatening them with the only power we have: votes. We're not fighting about GOP vs Dems, we're fighting about "Democrats who do good things and win" and "spineless Democrats who needlessly cave on everything." Why would you fight for the latter? It loses elections. You can yell all you want, but people hate voting for candidates who say better things aren't possible. And they won't. So maybe we should give them a reason to vote, instead of yelling at them. As Atrios constantly talks about, it's the Democratic machine's job to win elections, and they seem to be awful at it. Maybe they should try reading a poll and doing something popular, like a $15 minimum wage. http://www.eschatonblog.com/2018/02/gotta-give-people-something-to-be.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
It's weird to me, because I can think of very good reasons to engage in lesser of two evils strategies. Like you think the candidate definitely isn't perfect, and isn't even the best candidate on the ballot, but you think the alternative is sufficiently bad that you're accepting entrenching the status quo as a worthwhile compromise. That's a great strategy, there's nothing wrong with it. What I don't understand is people who employ that strategy arguing against other strategies. One of two things is possible 1) You need my vote, in which case, you're not going to shift my strategy, because I know you need my vote, and what you need to do is convince politicians to adopt views that will get me to vote for them or 2) You don't need my vote, so why are you wasting your breath trying to run up the score?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
Radish posted:It honestly gets back to the problems of "less of two evil voting" and why it is poisonous. Calling out Frankin was the right thing to do not because it was advantageous and would get Republicans to expel their own sexual predators, but because it was hard and it was inherently moral to stand up for his victims. When you see everything as a "which is the least poo poo candidate I can support" decision you lose perspective that these people should be held to a standard and you can't say you support women and use that in messaging and then not support them when it might be bad for you. Even if you want to see this as a cold political calculus, people aren't going to respect the "less evil" party if they can't even get that part right and are as evil as their adversaries when it comes to a sexual harasser as long as he is useful. The notion that you must simultaneously: A) vote lesser of two evils B) lose perspective that these people should be held to a standard ...is a false dichotomy. I offer a more accurate philosophy behind Franken's pressured resignation: "Vote the lesser of two evils, still hold these guys accountable."
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I offer a more accurate philosophy behind Franken's pressured resignation: "Vote the lesser of two evils, still hold these guys accountable." Not doing that second part is the centrist purity test, btw.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
I personally vote for the lesser of two evils as do many leftists I know, but the idea that asking the entire country to do that is dangerous and foolish and has mostly resulted in losses. Requiring that people must vote for the lesser of two evils has been internalized in a lot of people within the Democratic party which is what results in this sort of privileged attitude that their own members should not be held accountable because what option do the voters have? The issue people are trying to get at is that the philosophy doesn't build long term faith in the party and while may hold off certain election temporarily is a loser in the long run. Individually you can vote lesser evil all you like, but it's the party's responsibility to not be evil. Pressuring Franken to resign was a good thing to do and the people who are angry about it don't get that being consistent and principled is better than short term gains. People mostly aren't rejecting the idea of individuals voting based on game theory since many of us do it, it's the party itself that needs to actually win support from voters not just be the "not Republican" level they pull every four years. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
I vote straight ticket D because it's the lesser of two evils, and I'm tired of D's losing to the nutcases who want to put me in a camp and electrocute me until I'm straight because D's think Republican ultrashittiness is a license to be corrupt and lovely themselves since voters have nowhere to go, and who think "turn out anyway or yooooooouuuu suck" is a good voter engagement strategy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Edit- following is aimed at the few who don't vote The fact that this thread exists indicates a failure of a significant fraction of the otherwise progressive posters in SA to recognize the boundary conditions of their present situation, almost to the degree of how libertaryanism fails to understand how the world works. I'm increasingly concerned by the progress of the message "You should disengage to see change." We don't gain recognition of human rights rights by ceding victories and power to reactionary ethnonationslists. a.p. dent posted:OOCC, the point is that centrist messaging loses elections. We don't want the Republicans. We want Democrats who do good things, so we're yelling at them and threatening them with the only power we have: votes. The general election primaries wrongly include static superdelegates. We nearly got a rules change on this last year, but we need more progressives to not only primary right wing Democrats but remain involved after failure to expel a bad Dem. Please don't disengage and let the party delegate gulf widen in favor of bad Dems. a.p. dent posted:We're not fighting about GOP vs Dems, we're fighting about "Democrats who do good things and win" and "spineless Democrats who needlessly cave on everything." Why would you fight for the latter? It loses elections. You can yell all you want, but people hate voting for candidates who say better things aren't possible. And they won't. So maybe we should give them a reason to vote, instead of yelling at them. I feel no need, frankly, to yell at someone who doesn't want to fight for the ticket post-primary when you're up against God Says Electrocute Gays And Deport Browns. This isn't about "owing" anyone your vote, this is about the danger to disadvantaged classes bring real and present enough for you to continue activism and voice in the follow-through. Your vote is your voice. Which represents you most? 1) GOP ethnonationalism 2) Dem centrism 3) Voicelessness I can get where voting centrist lets you feeling voiceless. I had to loving canvas for Jon Motherfucking Pissoff last year while he torched cash and proactively established that he'd happily axe half the progressive platform. Welp, we have someone who wrote a book about jailing lesbians in that seat instead, I'm happy for everyone who didn't engage and come vote I guess. Lol, just lol at "giving people a reason to vote" the reason is plain as party affiliation in most cases, on the basis that the few unions that remain are about to be killed by Neil Gorsuch. My sexual orientation is now protected information per the Civil Rights Act by ruling of US circuits 2 and 9. It would have been great for these rulings to stand long term instead of facing inevitable reversal when Ginsburg/Breyer dies or Kennedy retires. Thanks, internet "progressives." I'm just as convinced as you are that a Hillary justice would've been worse for my human rights than a Trump pick  The route to helping people lies through changing one of the parties. You're free to try to un-fear/un-Nazify the GOP if you want, but I see changing the Dems as a quicker solution that is likelier to succeed. With or without you, Gen Z seems to be dragging the overton window left, fast. a.p. dent posted:
Agreed. We are being held as virtual slaves in a supposed left-of-center versus right wing fight that plays out more like right wing versus far-right wing. I'm not willing to sit aside and allow the far right to build their wall, deport browns, and defund/destroy our few social safety nets and environmental/civil rights/consumer protection institutions. I'll weigh the damage of a bad Dem against someone who caucuses with Rand Paul and neo-Nazis and probably vote Bad Dem every time. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Not doing that second part is the centrist purity test, btw. That makes sense. ... I'm familiar with the "Oh hey, it's suddenly popular to tell Franken to resign on Twitter"  day last year; did I miss anyone relevant saying that he shouldn't resign?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Lol, just lol at "giving people a reason to vote" Pragmatism everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:That makes sense. They were going at Gillibrand about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
I liked the part of your post, VitalSigns, where you chose to delete "sexual orientation as protected class" as a reason to vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I vote straight ticket D because it's the lesser of two evils, and I'm tired of D's losing to the nutcases who want to put me in a camp and electrocute me until I'm straight because D's think Republican ultrashittiness is a license to be corrupt and lovely themselves since voters have nowhere to go, and who think "turn out anyway or yooooooouuuu suck" is a good voter engagement strategy. "turn out anyway or yooooooouuuu suck" is what's been happening and it's the framework that our collective moral choices on voting and engagement sits in The amoral reaction is to allow generations of frustration to halt progress. I'm sorry, somehow you missed the memo that America sucks
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I liked the part of your post, VitalSigns, where you chose to delete "sexual orientation as protected class" as a reason to vote. It's reason enough for me, since I am in that class. Of course, my T friends were thrown under the bus by Dems the last few times they tried to pass LGB protections and that's not cool. Unfortunately it's also not reason enough for everyone so maybe we should think about building a winning coalition rather than trying to browbeat everyone into voting on one of the few issues Dems aren't (completely) terrible on? (I know I know "lol at building a winning coalition, just lol at trying to motivate voters" maybe think pragmatically about what would win elections?)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:(I know I know "lol at building a winning coalition, just lol at trying to motivate voters" maybe think pragmatically about what would win elections?) I mean, yeah, that's why I canvas. Winning coalition is a buzzword that has no meaning in the US without engagement post-primary. I'm assuming you're taking about enfranchising and meaningfully representing as many allies as possible instead of hanging your supporters out to dry after victory?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Winning coalition: I'm assuming you're taking about enfranchising and meaningfully representing as many allies as possible? Yes! That sounds like a great idea. So things like "gently caress you trans people, no ENDA for you, Panera Bread voters aren't ready for it" or "hey get hosed poor people, we care more about health insurance CEO's campaign donations" are right out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
In the primaries, yes, but at the bottom line I at least need someone who caucuses with progress over someone who caucuses against it. Lots of narrow congressional votes in the last year and a half have been over extremely important poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:In the primaries, yes, but at the bottom line I at least need someone who caucuses with progress over someone who caucuses against it. All the more reason that general election candidates should appeal to the widest coalition possible then isn't it? And all the less reason to play parts of the party against each other by say using gay rights as a bludgeon against UHC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
When you lose a primary to Diane Fuckstein or Jon Pissoff, the next moral decision sits in a space weighing damage of a D vs R. Form this decision usually arises the necessity to vote for whip count.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
I am no fan of accelerationism, but it is a bit much for an elective party to gently caress itself continually and then turn around and say to everyone criticising them that they need to get involved, but not by critiquing the party or by doing outreach outside the party, or by suggesting things the party hasn't signed off. Why has no one at a higher level in the democratic organisation actually had to give up anything in order to redeem themselves? Why is it still so hard after a loss like this for so many people at the very top of the party to actually start adopting outside ideas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:All the more reason that general election candidates should appeal to the widest coalition possible then isn't it? This post comes to us under VP Pence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
lesser of two evils voters are ignorant and confused at best, and collaborators at worst trump is the result of said strategy and it will only get worse if people keep eating their poo poo sandwich every four years Josef bugman posted:Why is it still so hard after a loss like this for so many people at the very top of the party to actually start adopting outside ideas. they are getting paid too much and why change when people are just going to vote for the lesser of two evils, there's simply no need to adopt outside ideas if people are going to vote for you anyways 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
the lesser of two evils strategy is a loser's strategy that just ensures the democrats continue to become more and more evil besides, centrists don't even bother to adhere to the lesser of two evils strategy, because they want to try to ensure the party doesn't drift left. that's why they abandon and torpedo certain dems in the general despite them being better than a republican. why shouldn't we adopt their tactics to make sure the party doesn't drift rightwards?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:When you lose a primary to Diane Fuckstein or Jon Pissoff, the next moral decision sits in a space weighing damage of a D vs R. All the more reason for the party to stop supporting the Diane Feinsteins and Joe Manchins of America in the primary then aint it. Because from a pragmatic perspective, the solution in that moral space is an individual decision. At some point nearly everyone will reject a sorry Ultimatum Game offer and no amount of "bu-bu-but game theory rationality, it's the rational perfect subgame equilibrium for you to cooperate while I defect" will move a meaningful number of people because (a) people aren't game-theory rational and more importantly (b) the willingness to punish antisocial behavior even at some individual personal cost to themselves means that recipients in the Ultimatum Game do fantastically better on average than game theory would predict. I still voted for Hillary. But. Would major players in the Democratic Party have suddenly started signing onto Medicare 4 All in 2017 if Hillary had won lolololol if you think that. Or from the other side: would Republicans be deporting DREAMers right now if this were Romney's second term? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's reason enough for me, since I am in that class. Of course, my T friends were thrown under the bus by Dems the last few times they tried to pass LGB protections and that's not cool. The quote is also true for me. I vote! But there are people who won't be affected by awful GOP policies, and we should give them a reason to vote too. Sure, it loving sucks that people say "both parties are the same, durrr." They're wrong. How about the Dems differentiate themselves with some popular, universal policies instead of the usual wonky means-tested garbage? You can't browbeat them into voting, it's the Dems job to give them a reason to go to the polls. Edit: This is directed at Potato Salad, not VS, who I agree with a.p. dent fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
i love that people continually push the "but it's optimal game theory!" as if the election every four years is literally the only goal worth striving for it's optimal game theory if you want to continue the status quo of neocons and neolibs handing off corporate welfare duty to each other a.p. dent posted:Sure, it loving sucks that people say "both parties are the same, durrr." They're wrong. actually they are right maybe you should just listen and stop voting for people who want to carpet bomb children half way across the globe
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
a.p. dent posted:You can't browbeat them into voting, it's the Dems job to give them a reason to go to the polls. It's really this simple and the fact that so many people think it's the other way around, where the voters are responsible for electing politicians that promise little if anything and go on to not really give a poo poo about what the voters actually are interested in is so mindbogglingly dumb. It's literally "it's your fault when dad hits you because you didn't do what I said" and it's really gross.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:17
|
|