Concerned Citizen posted:

i'm never "gleeful" when a moderate wins. i'm extremely bummed about it. many people itt spent 2017 talking about the coming progressive wave that would sweep away the bad dems. i have consistently argued that progressives have not really done the work to build support for their policies, that their positions do not yet have broad enough support to win generals let alone primaries, and that it was foolish to cherrypick polls that showing support for whatever progressive policies and assuming that means you'll definitely win if you run to the left.

and well, everyone in the thread disagreed. i think willa rogers nearly had a heart attack over the idea that people wouldn't just naturally back candidates supporting medicare-for-all and $15/h minimum wage. the fact is - we should have won here. lipinski was all but abandoned by the party while newman was given endorsements from naral (the same group that went after mello, remember?), pp, seiu, basically whatever part of the alphabet soup of democratic adjacent progressive organizations you can find. and newman still lost. beating incumbents is hard, but this was about as ideal of a scenario as you could ask for without a scandal. if you can't clear this bar, you're going to have much more trouble against people like feinstein and cuomo. so i essentially find the failure here to be inexcusable. and the failure isn't in any one person's hands, it's a collective one amongst progressives.

in an ideal world, progressive candidates losing double-digits to a literal racist vampire billionaire in a democratic primary (and similar losses in nj and va) would spark some soul-searching about strategy and tactics. i felt the same way about the rest of the party after clinton lost. well, i didn't hold my breath at that time and i'm definitely not going to do it now.

Concerned Citizen posted:

here is a thing that is not complex: there aren't enough people who are leftist for leftists to consistently win, and fixing that requires leftists to actually acknowledge this reality. looking at candidates like randy bryce that are getting red carpet treatments, or bernie who is an elected senator, or people like keith ellison, the idea that leftists are locked out of government is just false. the problem is there are not enough people who find leftist message frames appealing. if your goal is to win electorally, that's a problem.

Concerned Citizen posted:

the fact that the left has some structural disadvantages is true. getting $2700 checks makes life a lot easier, and generally, donors who write those kinds of checks aren't socialists. but it's much easier to make up this gap nowadays with small donors, and it's a thing that has been repeatedly proven to not be a death sentence. the left can compete on even enough ground to win, especially if (as they say) their message is better and more appealing. of course, if the message is not better and more appealing, or if small donors ignore your campaign, then it is very difficult to gain traction. thus the fate of virginia democrats, whose progressive candidate lost to a guy who voted for george w bush twice as national groups decided it was more important to chase a meaningless dnc chair election.

Vox Nihili posted:

Senate voted 55-44 to table a motion to end U.S. involvement in Yemen.

10 Dems voted to table: Coons, Cortez Masto, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Jones, Manchin, Menendez, Nelson, Reed, Whitehouse.

5 GOPers voted against: Collins, Daines, Lee, Moran, Paul.

We're supposed to blame the red state Dem senators but it's absolutely the Dem leadership making this happen.

Lastgirl posted:

there's a legit humanitarian crisis, this congress is insanely dysfunctional

Lastgirl posted:

there's a legit humanitarian crisis, this congress is insanely dysfunctional

Oh Snapple! posted:

Concerned Citizen is a Holocaust Denier.

logikv9 posted:

Getting Extremely Angry over internet poster symbol of Political Others

Vox Nihili posted:

80% of CSPAM posters never leave the Trump thread

Vox Nihili posted:

Senate voted 55-44 to table a motion to end U.S. involvement in Yemen.

10 Dems voted to table: Coons, Cortez Masto, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Jones, Manchin, Menendez, Nelson, Reed, Whitehouse.

5 GOPers voted against: Collins, Daines, Lee, Moran, Paul.

We're supposed to blame the red state Dem senators but it's absolutely the Dem leadership making this happen.

StashAugustine posted:

StashAugustine posted:

Serf posted:

why just the other day down at the feed store we were talking about how much we love the saudis

Wraith of J.O.I. posted:

suck!

https://twitter.com/MariannaNBCNews/status/976507662631342080

Vox Nihili posted:

Senate voted 55-44 to table a motion to end U.S. involvement in Yemen.

10 Dems voted to table: Coons, Cortez Masto, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Jones, Manchin, Menendez, Nelson, Reed, Whitehouse.

5 GOPers voted against: Collins, Daines, Lee, Moran, Paul.

We're supposed to blame the red state Dem senators but it's absolutely the Dem leadership making this happen.

Willa Rogers posted:

on the other hand, his initials + appearance have paved the way for the cruelly apt "jb the hut"

punk rebel ecks posted:

Wait so 10 Dems voted to end U.S. involvement in Yemen or to continue it?

punk rebel ecks posted:

Wait so 10 Dems voted to end U.S. involvement in Yemen or to continue it?

punk rebel ecks posted:

Wait so 10 Dems voted to end U.S. involvement in Yemen or to continue it?

StashAugustine posted:

the dems listed voted to shoot down the measure and the 5 repubs voted for it

FactsAreUseless posted:

It will be socialism for whites built on exploitation of minority labor.

docbeard posted:

The agenda for tonight's Feed Store Town Hall Meeting:

7:30 Opening Remarks
7:45 An Open Discussion on the Correct Pronunciation of "Louisville"
9:15 Saudi Arabia: Our Oldest And Dearest Ally
9:30 Do We Even Still Sell Feed?

Ytlaya posted:

The problem is you're painting things as progressives being dumb and attributing their losses to some sort of lack of merit, when in reality they're facing an uphill battle to begin with and a big part of the solution is through negative messaging against mainstream/moderate democrats.

What you're doing is the same thing as going into a conversation where people complain about institutional racism and saying "black people just aren't doing the necessary work." Like, that is actually a very strong analogy here! Even if you could argue that there might be better things black activists could do, it's extremely wrong-headed to blame them when they're facing an uphill battle against forces with far more resources than they have access to.

edit: So while it's true that the posters saying how leftist policy would definitely be electorally successful are/were wrong, there's no reason to mock them unless, on some level, you view yourself as being in opposition to them.


You're ignoring the fact that peoples' views are extremely heavily influenced by what they see/hear from politicians and the media, so there is a direct link between money/resources and peoples' opinions. These aren't views they just "naturally/genuinely" hold in the vast majority of cases, and are open to change, but it is extremely difficult to do so when most media is owned by people/organizations who are strongly opposed to certain ideas. Certan people can slip through in the same way that it's not impossible for a black person to become rich, but there are strong institutional factors disadvantaging the left and blaming the left for this is quite literally no different than blaming minorities for not being as materially successful as whites.


As mentioned before, this is completely identical to "some poor/black/whatever people can become rich!" logic. A group can be disadvantaged and still occasionally succeed, but this doesn't mean that they can viably succeed to a significantly greater extent on their own merits. Just as in the case of other disadvantaged groups, the source of the disadvantage must be attacked. You are using certain examples of success to argue that more widespread success is also possible, which is not logical.

This is actually a good example of the way many liberals claim to care about economic-based inequality, but in practice do not treat it the same as racial/gender inequality. For example, this situation is a very clear parallel, where the left is generally economically disadvantaged and has trouble gaining institutional representation as a result. You usually wouldn't see this sort of "well some succeeded, clearly the left isn't trying hard enough" argument used in the context of black people gaining political representation (at least from most contemporary liberals), but you still see it when it comes to topics related to wealth/income inequality.

docbeard posted:

The agenda for tonight's Feed Store Town Hall Meeting:

7:30 Opening Remarks
7:45 An Open Discussion on the Correct Pronunciation of "Louisville"
9:15 Saudi Arabia: Our Oldest And Dearest Ally
9:30 Do We Even Still Sell Feed?

FactsAreUseless posted:

It's not a crisis if we caused it, it's liberation.

Serf posted:

best i ever saw was loo-vill

punk rebel ecks posted:

That doesn't add up to 55 "yes" votes though.

docbeard posted:

7:45 An Open Discussion on the Correct Pronunciation of "Louisville"

punk rebel ecks posted:

Illinois is pretty much the Dark Souls of state politics.

Concerned Citizen posted:

here is a thing that is not complex: there aren't enough people who are leftist for leftists to consistently win

Vox Nihili posted:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00058

punk rebel ecks posted:

Why is the "more pro-war party" the Republicans voting to pull out while the "less pro-war party" the Democrats want to stay in the war?

comedyblissoption posted:

the american voters are far more leftist than the policies that are implemented. the policies that are implemented have very high correlation with what donors want and very little correlation with what american voters want.

the most reasonable explanation for this phenomenon is massive propaganda intended to disinform viewers by npr, the nyt, wapo, cnn, fox news, etc. and also the massive amounts of propaganda you can buy through electoral spending

docbeard posted:

Dear Answerbot 5000,

Thank you for consulting the Suck Zone Oracle.

The resolution being voted on was a "motion to table" which is code for "let's shut up about this forever". The people who voted in favor (most Republicans, a few, but still too many Democrats), are the ones who want the war to continue.

As for why those particular Democrats voted the way they did, the Suck Zone Oracle has consulted the Mists of Eternity and the received the following revelation:

THEY ARE BAD, FAAAAAAAAAART

The Suck Zone Oracle hopes this answer will be of help to you and wishes you the best in your future "just asking questions" endeavors.