|
Apparently his lips were too moist or some poo poo.
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Also let's recall that the 2016 convention, the perfect time to put a young bench of up-and-coming future politicians in front of a national audience like Obama got, the speakers were...a bunch of Republican billionaires and generals, some millionaire celebrities, oh and the keynote was at least a Democrat...a septuagenarian senator who doesn't want to be president. "Look if we even think about losing any of these ancient Democrats the party would literally crumble to the ground" Even if that was true and not just job security for connected insiders, having your party so unprepared for a single person not being there for any reason seems like a gigantic problem that is eventually going to happen. Pelosi isn't immortal so eventually someone is going to have to do her job at being the best Whip of all time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:isn't the SOTU response sort of a cursed position that only goes to back benchers? I never understood why it wasn't taken seriously. A lot of folks think it is, but remember the buzz around Kennedy's speech before and after it. Centrist Dems and the MSNBC and CNN talking heads were touting him as the next big thing, the dude who could take on Trump someday, this wellspring of charisma. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:A lot of folks think it is, but remember the buzz around Kennedy's speech before and after it. Centrist Dems and the MSNBC and CNN talking heads were touting him as the next big thing, the dude who could take on Trump someday, this wellspring of charisma. Chapstiqqudick (I stole this from the succ zone)
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:Literally all politicians are largely unknown to the public, and when Sanders was granted access to the stage, objectively, people didn't care about his decades of experience and credibility, because the nomination was handed to the person with 1.3 Senate terms under her belt. Like I agree that experience and credibility should matter, but any idiot can read the history of the last 3 years and see that it doesn't. So Bernie would have gained just as much traction if he had been a random clerk that decided to throw an announcement party during a lunch break?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
People say the SOTU response is for losers in case the person ends up being a dud. Lots of conservative Democrats were freaking out about President Kennedy without even knowing anything about him once he was announced. If he hadn't been such an uncharismatic dork the SOTU response would have been see as his rising star moment. If you preemptively say that the speach doesn't matter you dont have to explain how your guy fell flat. Rubio certainly wasn't a nobody when he got defeated by a glass of water. He was one of the favorites before Trump ate all their lunches.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
the speaking to dreamers in Spanish was so loving embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
Ich bin ein Träumer
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:So Bernie would have gained just as much traction if he had been a random clerk that decided to throw an announcement party during a lunch break? edit: SOTU response is all risk and no reward you couldn't get from any non-SOTU related event. twodot fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Jul 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
Radish posted:People say the SOTU response is for losers in case the person ends up being a dud. Lots of conservative Democrats were freaking out about President Kennedy without even knowing anything about him once he was announced. If he hadn't been such an uncharismatic dork the SOTU response would have been see as his rising star moment. If you preemptively say that the speach doesn't matter you dont have to explain how your guy fell flat. Rubio certainly wasn't a nobody when he got defeated by a glass of water. He was one of the favorites before Trump ate all their lunches. Or hell, remember Bobby Jindal. Everyone was so drat convinced that he'd be president someday...until he decided to wander up to the podium, looking bewildered, and channeled Kenneth Parcell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think Ellison would be an amazing presidential nominee if he wins his AG race first. Majorian posted:Hahaha, oh my lord, this post is too funny in the wake of the centrist cult gathering at Ozyfest.  Jesus, this reads like some sort of parody.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
The SOTU response is tough because it starts out as a pathetic endeavor by an out-of-power nobody like Gary Johnson videotaping his answers to the presidential debate from his couch. Nobody loving watches it in the first place because who cares. That's not to say you can't knock it out of the park and get it replayed everywhere and shared all over the internet like Colbert roasting Bush to his face at the WHPC dinner (or Michelle Wolf destroying the corporate media at last year's event), but it's a tall order and you can easily look *stares straight ahead at camera* *furtively crouches down at the knees, eyes locked* *sips water never breaking eye contact* *recovers, pretends like nothing happened* ridiculous as in the examples already given by other posters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Cortez appeared yesterday, you have no idea whatsoever what politicians will be available in 2024 /28, or what will have happened with OC by then. Fine, but it is a start....that is as long they are actually on the left. quote:Pretty much. The importance of experience and stature has not diminished, if you are going to be serious about winning AND governing. Ideology is more important. If they want to "tinker" they're worthless and it doesn't matter how long they have been around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
The only reason anyone even thinks the SOTU response is relevant is because that's where the media agrees Obama first started gaining national recognition. In reality, 95% of people that voted for Obama in 2008 probably first started knowing who he was and remembering his name was during the 2015 primary. Jindal and Kennedy are the only 2 other times the media even put any emphasis on the SOTU response because they were the first opposing speakers to a new administration. The journalists hyping the SOTY response lack any imagination and want to retread the same Obama narrative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1021784498449444864 Maybe this puts some of the concern trolling about building a bench/bernie is too old to rest? Bernie is campaigning his rear end off for progressives. Pretty impressive for an old man
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Ideology is more important. If they want to "tinker" they're worthless and it doesn't matter how long they have been around. Yes, I assume correct ideology goes without saying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
I've been a Bernie fan from before most of the posters here became politically aware. He's done an amazing job of pushing policies of the left into the mainstream (or at least out of the wilderness). I wasn't upset with the outcome of the 2016 primary because I never expected him to win the primary, I'm don't honestly believe that he was ever in it to win it. His objective (which he accomplished) was to push Hillary to the left and bring these policies to into public debate. I mean really people gripe about how the establishment Dems undermined his campaign but he was an independent which is all fine and dandy when you are running for a local office or even a Senate seat but doesn't really work when you are asking a political party for their backing. So all of the angst and whining about the 2016 primary both misses the point of it and diminishes his accomplishment. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/once-a-conservative-democrat-kirsten-gillibrand-now-wants-to-abolish-ice That's what he accomplished right there. Now as people who've read my past posts would know I was no Gillibrand fan, But here we have a decided centrist 3rd way Dem embracing leftist positions. Why is she doing it? Because that's where the electorate is and is moving so if she wants to remain relevant she'll shift. This is a good thing, if she's successful in doing so it will encourage more Democrats to follow suit. Something I keep trying to communicate is that Democrats value democracy (small d) so they aren't leaders in the way that the Right has leaders. Democratic or leftists "leaders" period don't tend to be leaders so much as consensus builders and advocates for their constituency. The mistake that the left in the United States has continued to make has been expecting leaders to "rise up" from I have no loving idea where and spearhead some sort of popular revolt. Democratic/progressive politics just doesn't work that way. It's a bottom up thing. Get angry about corporate sell out Democrats all you want but the basic reality is that they win because they get more votes than the alternatives, they get more votes because they support policies that most of their voters can agree on. As those voters support shifts so will their policies. Do moneyed interests matter? Sure it would be foolish and naive to believe otherwise, They are not however the only factor. The real question is public support and enthusiasm for a policy. Now I know the next response is going to be "but the majority of the public agrees with policy X because see this survey, so why don't the sorry Democratic politicians ignore that" well that usually comes down to the fact that often people will support an idea in principle but be less supportive of the steps and sacrifices required to implement and that leaves a lot of room for propaganda to pick away at an idea not so much on it's merits as on it's costs. The thing is that the American public is shifting to the left, hell has shifted and admittedly the Democratic establishment really hasn't been particularly good at reading these tea leaves. In 1990 people would have looked at you like you were crazy if you'd suggested something like a UBI. Christ the source of the GOP ire against Hillary all started because she tried to push universal healthcare as the first lady. Part of the problem is that the majority of the current Democratic pols is that they grew up in that environment and are having a hard time understanding that as the right has been going through their radicalization towards crazy, more and more people have been moving to the left and abandoning moderate centrist ideas and principles. So the answer isn't to hope for better Democrats, nor is it just to vote harder. it's to work on educating our fellow Americans, on showing people what these ideas are and how they are viable. As the masses shift so will the party. Then as we start seeing positive legislative and economic results those policies will gain in support as that happens the Democratic elected officials will follow public sentiment, because that's what you do as a representative in a democracy. Another thing to remember, all of these hand wringing centrists crying about how Democrats need to remain milquetoast decorum worshipers is a good sign. The more and more loudly they express these sentiments the better indication there is that the masses are moving. The fact that they tend to get poo poo on when they do so is a beautiful thing and probably why we're seeing people like Gillibrand moving to the left because they see the writing on the wall and are jumping on the train rather than trying to derail it by laying on the tracks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
I fell for centrists paying lip service to leftists/working class twice (Obama). Never again. Gillibrand sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Skex posted:Get angry about corporate sell out Democrats all you want but the basic reality is that they win [citation needed] If they were winning, we wouldn't be where we are, Skex.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:I fell for centrists paying lip service to leftists/working class twice (Obama). Never again. Gillibrand sucks. this sorry skex. maybe i'll trust gillibrand after she's been advocating for leftist policy for another 8 years. she's got a lot of nasty poo poo in her history that she's gotta make up for quote:Do moneyed interests matter? Sure it would be foolish and naive to believe otherwise, They are not however the only factor. The real question is public support and enthusiasm for a policy. odd. i could've sworn that there was a study done that showed that moneyed interests mattered more than anything and that public support barely had any effect on policy Condiv fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jul 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
Never trust a NY blue dog dem. She is succ incarnate. Like barely above Cuomo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
Unprincipled opportunists embracing left-wing positions is a good sign, because it indicates the debate has shifted so radically that unprincipled opportunists realize they have to pretend not to be racist-rear end corporate bootlickers or get booted out of office. Voting for them in primaries is still stupid though, because unprincipled opportunists will sell you out the second it is convenient or advantageous for them to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
For example I will be leaving the NY senate seat box blank this November. I won't even give her a WFP vote.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Don't worry VitalSigns, Gillibrand doesn't want to make you a second-class citizen anymore because it's no longer popular, and she won't throw you under a speeding car until and unless fickle public opinion swings against your kind again in which case she will knife you in a heartbeat because that's the pragmatic sensible thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:the speaking to dreamers in Spanish was so loving embarrassing. I seem to recall the actual Spanish-language SOTU response was Quite Good and from a younger congresswoman but I can’t look right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
Skex posted:Get angry about corporate sell out Democrats all you want but the basic reality is that they win because they get more votes than the alternatives, they get more votes because they support policies that most of their voters can agree on. Absolute bullshit. I'm going to just go ahead and quote Matt Taibbi in response to this, he's a lot better at this than I am: quote:What actual people are against importing cheap Canadian generic pharmaceuticals? Where’s the group of people intent on protecting our thousand-headed hydra of insurers, so that doctors and hospitals can waste time and money on paperwork? What individual human being is out there who just can’t stand the thought of allowing Medicare to negotiate lower bulk prices?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:[citation needed] If they weren't winning their races, we wouldn't be talking about them. VitalSigns posted:Unprincipled opportunists embracing left-wing positions is a good sign, because it indicates the debate has shifted so radically that unprincipled opportunists realize they have to pretend not to be racist-rear end corporate bootlickers or get booted out of office. Oh I agree, Primaries are when you try to change the party and you don't get that from voting for people who oppose them. That said, I don't really care why they end up embracing progressive principles and policies as long as we get those policies implemented. Also it's entirely possible that it's not an opportunistic shift but rather a real change in principles as new information becomes available, and sometimes it's a principled opportunist who embraced centrism in order to try and accomplish some good but were always sympathetic to progressive principles. In the end it doesn't matter why they shift just that they do so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
 that people genuinely vote for guys like Carper the sex pest Iraq Warmonger.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
Skex posted:If they weren't winning their races, we wouldn't be talking about them. this doesn't really hold true. they lost a poo poo ton of power in 2016 and people including myself were still talking about them quote:Oh I agree, Primaries are when you try to change the party and you don't get that from voting for people who oppose them. That said, I don't really care why they end up embracing progressive principles and policies as long as we get those policies implemented. Also it's entirely possible that it's not an opportunistic shift but rather a real change in principles as new information becomes available, and sometimes it's a principled opportunist who embraced centrism in order to try and accomplish some good but were always sympathetic to progressive principles. but we don't know that they've actually shifted lipservice is a thing, and they have a history of paying lipservice to the left and then saying "oh you actually thought i was leftist oops guess you misinterpreted me"
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
Skex posted:Oh I agree, Primaries are when you try to change the party and you don't get that from voting for people who oppose them. That said, I don't really care why they end up embracing progressive principles and policies as long as we get those policies implemented. You should care because there are plenty of ways to kill policy while leaving oneself with plausible deniability (for example: "I wanted to pass X but that gosh-darned Lieberman/Manchin/Heitkamp thank God they voted no so I could take a hall pass"). If someone will say anything to get elected, what makes you think they will implement policy they will be paid not to implement if they can find a facially acceptable excuse to dump their promises and take the money? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jul 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
I'm going to laugh really hard when Dems try to give the SOTU rebuttal to ¡Ocasio! in 2022-2023 in an effort to sink her.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NYMag/status/1021702024528781312 i'm sure that a politician that associates with people who think leftism is as great a threat as trump is really, truly dedicated to leftism
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
Dirk Pitt posted:I'm going to laugh really hard when Dems try to give the SOTU rebuttal to ¡Ocasio! in 2022-2023 in an effort to sink her. She should be a keynote at the 2020 convention.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:She should be a keynote at the 2020 convention. Agreed, but no way Kamala or Gillibrand are about to be usurped. Staring into the abyss here and I don't think democrats are ready to forgive Bernie for stumping for Hillary quite yet to give him the nom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
It probably doesn't help that C-More here in Sweden finally got syndication rights for West Wing, and I am not feeling hopeful at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Centrist Democrats going after Bernie because he's advocating for better healthcare after spending four years doing nothing to actually oppose Trump (I guess we'll see how much they do if they take the House) and then screaming that leftists need to vote for whoever they stabbed him for or else they are worse than Republicans is going to be a super good look that won't backfire at all. They are probably going to try and do it secretly but considering Democrats are absolutely terrible at politics they won't help but brag openly and smugly about stopping this dastardly "living wage" nonsense when what people REALLY care about is being polite to Republicans. Also lol at the people that keep saying we need party unity and leftists have to hold their nose for the greater good until like ONE leftist won a House primary and then suddenly it's open Civil War. "Crowley TOTALLY isn't running guys trust us." The Democrats benefit from being the good cop to the Republican's bad cop (remember both are on the opposite side of the suspect) but if they are spending their time saying why the people advocating for better things is just as bad as the fascist stealing kids that's going to become a harder sell. Their brand is pretty toxic and really passionate fans are aging out or a minority of the upper class. It's not like they are seen as "for the people" right now as it is. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Jul 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i'm sure that a politician that associates with people who think leftism is as great a threat as trump is really, truly dedicated to leftism Their policy goals are absolutely nightmarish too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
The type of person that sees Trump putting screaming kids in concentration camps away from their crying parents and thinks "hmm we need to make sure this guy advocating for better health care is stopped" PROOOOBABLY isn't as left on social issues as they want people to think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
Condiv posted:this doesn't really hold true. they lost a poo poo ton of power in 2016 and people including myself were still talking about them Condiv posted:but we don't know that they've actually shifted As a 48 year old white guy let me assure you, the public has definitely shifted. 30 years ago, being called a socialist was about the worst accusation that conservatives leveled as liberals, and those same liberals fell all over themselves to deny that assertion. In 2018 when conservatives level that same attach the left is responding with "so what? better than being a Fascist" That's a real sea change in attitudes. VitalSigns posted:You should care because there are plenty of ways to kill policy while leaving oneself with plausible deniability (for example: "I wanted to pass X but that gosh-darned Lieberman/Manchin/Heitkamp thank God they voted no so I could take a hall pass"). Welcome to democracy, it's messy, chaotic and imperfect. But it's better than all of the alternatives. VitalSigns posted:If someone will say anything to get elected, what makes you think they will implement policy they will be paid not to implement if they can find a facially acceptable excuse to dump their promises and take the money? That same argument can be made for someone who runs as a leftist from jump street. It's entirely possible that you'll get unscrupulous opportunists cashing in on a surge of leftist sentiment only to succumb to temptation once elected. That's just a risk that one takes, the thing is that if the masses really want something and the politicians don't give it to them, then you primary their asses. This is what I think so many here miss, this isn't going to be a quick fight, progress takes time, persistence and continued effort. This is something that the left needs to get better about, to understand that progress is gained through an evolutionary rather than revolutionary process. Evolution is the natural adaptation to reality as it is, Revolution is willful effort to bend reality to your will and it tends to be chaotic, destructive and full of unintended consequences. And I do understand that people don't like hearing this sort of message, the message from MLK's I have a dream speech, where he stated that he wasn't going to see that promised land, because changing peoples minds is a process and a glacially slow one at that. It's not like we're going to suddenly get a socialist utopia, it's not like the solutions that the left have are perfect because perfect doesn't exist, we'll address existing problems and in the process create new ones that will have to be tackled. The Right will of course capitalize on that to push back. That's just how things go. The key is to not let those setbacks demoralize us, to not be pushed into hopelessness or apathy. That's why this thread exists, because the sentiments in it while arguably accurate are at the same time toxic to accomplishing the very goals it purportedly seeks to achieve. Stop thinking of Centrists as evil enemies, they really aren't. Think of them as abuse victims who have been gaslit and abused for years and have been convinced that nothing will ever change. Remember the resources that have been arrayed against them, ourselves and frankly everyone. Going on 50 years of propaganda, billions of dollars spent to engage in the research, to fund the think tanks, to build and acquire the media to push their message, the political capital to smooth their way, strategically , cynically and effectively to the point we find ourselves in today. We are at war, against an opponent who has most of the advantages, the wealth, the power, a stranglehold on the media (MSNBC may play at being the anti-Fox but they're still a corporation and have a corporate bias). Our only weapon is the truth and each other. Our collective voices to spread that truth and counter that massive machine that stands against us. That's why the left can't fight like the Right does. Think about it, how many times has someone from the left said some silly "Democrats should be doing X" only to have someone come along seconds later with documentation showing that the Democrats have been doing X all along. Believe me I feel the frustration, this sense of powerlessness that  the hopelessness at loss after loss, the disappointment of seeing the opposition continue to achieve victory when you know that if there was any justice in the world they'd drop dead where they stood. You can't let that sentiment rule you, you can't let it suck out your will. Because doing so is surrender, it's conceding the fight to the regressives and that is a certain path to failure. Skex fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jul 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 22:59
|
|