|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
At some point, on reading comprehension alone, did nobody take even the slightest step back to ponder, "Hmm, so the way forward is to throw our lot in with a group called The Blue Dogs? Surely this will send all the right signals as to our not cowing..." Yep...if the 2008 primaries after Bush didn't show the hand of the Democrats, the fallout from 2016's contest is practically waving the drat cards around.
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
Condiv posted:
e: Hmm, this isn't CSPAM, so I'll use more words: These people are not finding common cause with Blue Dogs out of fear or incompetence; they are closer ideological allies than the rising tide of Actual Leftists. Doc Hawkins fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Jul 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
The Democratic party has a basic structural problem. To win presidential elections the party needs to appease voters in states like Michigan, but to rake in big money from donors they have to advocate for policies like the Trans Pacific Partnership. At times the party's base becomes loud enough that it can actually slow down the implementation of policies that the big donors want - that's what stopped Bill Clinton from shifting social security into private savings accounts on Wall Street and it's the reason Hilary Clinton had to pretend she opposed the Trans Pacific Partnership. The party leadership clearly recognize this structural problem and they want to fix it. They just don't want to fix it by ditching the big donors since that would be incredibly financially harmful to almost every major official currently in power in the Democratic party. So when Donald Trump came along they thought they had an amazing opportunity to replace their reliance on blue collar factory workers with an appeal to college educated suburban whites. And in some ways its really a plan that simply cannot fail in their eyes, because the alternative - that they would fix the structural problem by abandoning the big donors and relying on grassroots fundraising and a coherent social democratic message - would make the party largely useful as a tool for self enrichment by the lanyard class.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Maybe there should be a limit on how much money candidates got to spend on their election campaign. That way people could better see how the candidates chose to spend the money and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:Oh well, it's their money. It's their money, used to gently caress over everybody else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It's their money, used to gently caress over everybody else. How can they gently caress over everybody else if they are inept and the approach they're taking won't work?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Because as has been shown repeatedly, even if establishment dems are inept - and not all of them are, some are just corrupt - they still possess enough power to block and ratfuck progressive rivals. Also because a billion useful idiots will call for "unity", meaning for progressive candidates to abstain and support candidates nominated by the "moderates", and anybody who won't bend the knee will be shamed as a traitor. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Jul 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
It's really depressing to see a few voices in the main Trump thread going "Hey, Dems are not looking like they have a coherent strategy going forward, maybe we should be concerned" and the response to be "Go to the dems are a waste thread and stop interrupting." Please do join us here, where we're willing to have the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:It's really depressing to see a few voices in the main Trump thread going "Hey, Dems are not looking like they have a coherent strategy going forward, maybe we should be concerned" and the response to be "Go to the dems are a waste thread and stop interrupting." Did the "post the map" idiots from the 2016 election thread massacre re-reg or are those new people that just came out of a pre-WW2 bomb shelter in 2017?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
e: wroing thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:It's really depressing to see a few voices in the main Trump thread going "Hey, Dems are not looking like they have a coherent strategy going forward, maybe we should be concerned" and the response to be "Go to the dems are a waste thread and stop interrupting." This part of the trump thread made me very sad. Not voting for centrist dems is a good idea. Maybe it’ll teach people in power to change or die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Eventually I think the dems are going to go through a massive transformation, but it won't necessarily be because the grass-roots 'win' in a conventional sense - it'll be that the utility of large corporate donors to give money to democratic leaders will evaporate, as the dems become more and more of a rump party. Why bother giving these people money, if they keep losing elections? The republicans have a strangehold on state governments and can gerrymander all they want. The well will dry up, and all that's left will be the desiccated husk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Because as has been shown repeatedly, even if establishment dems are inept - and not all of them are, some are just corrupt - they still possess enough power to block and ratfuck progressive rivals. I keep saying, those progressives should just start their own party. That way when or if democrats attempt something like that, it can be turned against them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Dirk Pitt posted:This part of the trump thread made me very sad. Not voting for centrist dems is a good idea. Maybe it’ll teach people in power to change or die. Right now the GOP is in power, and I doubt they'll do either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Dirk Pitt posted:This part of the trump thread made me very sad. Not voting for centrist dems is a good idea. Maybe it’ll teach people in power to change or die. I'm pretty sure the saddest part is the dude who voted for a republican running as an independent over a centrist dem, because apparently being a leftist in america now means voting for right-wingers to stick it to the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:I'm pretty sure the saddest part is the dude who voted for a republican running as an independent over a centrist dem, because apparently being a leftist in america now means voting for right-wingers to stick it to the Democrats. Ignore the idiots like that, no one in this thread is advocating to vote for Republicans, you'll find our position is a bit more nuanced.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/887276023338999809 good thing the dems are still letting her act as a queenmaker
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/healthcare-congress-bernie-sanders-single-payer-obamacare/533595/?utm_source=feedquote:Since losing the White House last year, a growing number of Democrats in Congress have embraced the idea of universal, single-payer health care, setting up an inevitable confrontation between the liberal and centrist wings of the party over its future. quote:“What the first person who runs in 2020 ought to say to Donald Trump is ...‘you promised the American people more benefits, less costs, more coverage, and you didn’t deliver. You know as well as we know that the answer is single payer. So, why are you not supporting Medicare for all?’,” Khanna said in an interview. “That’s a great attack, and a great message,” he added. “My view is that this is really going to become the platform of the Democratic Party.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:good thing the dems are still letting her act as a queenmaker quote:“There’s growing discontent with Hillary Clinton even as she has largely stayed out of the spotlight,” said pollster J. Ann Selzer, who oversaw the survey. "It’s not a pox on the Democratic house, because numbers for other Democrats are good." Hmmm, if only there were something we could do here.  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:I keep saying, those progressives should just start their own party. So they can be ignored as fringe lunatics, eh?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:How can they gently caress over everybody else if they are inept and the approach they're taking won't work? Because they are in control of the party resources. The national Democratic party embracing the Blue Dogs (= conservative democrats) means they intend every general election to be Republican vs Republican-lite. That the answers to the question of 'should social programs be cut?' be 'with a sword' or 'with a cheese grater', not 'expand instead'. That the answers to 'how racist should we be?' be 'we gots a hanging tree' or 'segregation is cool and good', not 'not at all'. So it's a move that fucks over everyone that doesn't benefit from conservative policy in two ways. First, of course, being that non-conservative policy won't be an option you can vote for. Secondly the less conservative option might still lose, as happened with John "cut government waste"* Ossof. *"cutting government waste" is a dog whistle for just reducing overall government spending in order to provide tax cuts. There might be unnecessarily redundant programs or projects, but the answer is to re-allocate those resources instead of cutting them away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Ornedan posted:Because they are in control of the party resources. The national Democratic party embracing the Blue Dogs (= conservative democrats) means they intend every general election to be Republican vs Republican-lite. That the answers to the question of 'should social programs be cut?' be 'with a sword' or 'with a cheese grater', not 'expand instead'. That the answers to 'how racist should we be?' be 'we gots a hanging tree' or 'segregation is cool and good', not 'not at all'. basically, dems have decided their 2018 strategy is to ignore everyone but rich white people, cause that's the only people that vote for conservatives anyway. this bears a striking resemblance to their 2016 strategy
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
the democrats think they're going to beat trump with an army of JEB!s and it's gonna be hilariously depressing to watch in 2018
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Ornedan posted:Because they are in control of the party resources. The national Democratic party embracing the Blue Dogs (= conservative democrats) means they intend every general election to be Republican vs Republican-lite. That the answers to the question of 'should social programs be cut?' be 'with a sword' or 'with a cheese grater', not 'expand instead'. That the answers to 'how racist should we be?' be 'we gots a hanging tree' or 'segregation is cool and good', not 'not at all'. And If those who provide the party with said resources decides enough is enough because the party is becoming less to their liking, then what? Why would it be so hard for a party of progressives to get some resoruces? I mean if even the Greens can do it? steinrokkan posted:So they can be ignored as fringe lunatics, eh? But they would prove too popular amongst the people to be ignored, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the democrats think they're going to beat trump with an army of JEB!s and it's gonna be hilariously depressing to watch in 2018 They know that no one left of Reagan will vote for them, so their strategy is to peel votes from Republicans. You also have the problem of Democrats needing to win in gerrymandered districts which means they pretty much need to become Republicans. Biden will be the DNC pick in 2020. Hilariously depressing is apt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:But they would prove too popular amongst the people to be ignored, obviously. I forgot America was meritocracy, lol Stop concern trolling
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:They know that no one left of Reagan will vote for them, so their strategy is to peel votes from Republicans. You also have the problem of Democrats needing to win in gerrymandered districts which means they pretty much need to become Republicans. Biden will be the DNC pick in 2020. there's ways to get people to the left of reagan to vote quite reliably for them. they just don't want to sacrifice their buddy buddy relationships with big business
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the democrats think they're going to beat trump with an army of JEB!s and it's gonna be hilariously depressing to watch in 2018 Trump's up for re-election in 2018?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I forgot America was meritocracy, lol So you're saying there's no chance for progressives to gain foothold because the game is constantly rigged against them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:So you're saying there's no chance for progressives to gain foothold because the game is constantly rigged against them. Says a cave man thawed from a glacier
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Condiv posted:there's ways to get people to the left of reagan to vote quite reliably for them. they just don't want to sacrifice their buddy buddy relationships with big business I was going to include the caveat "in their current form" but I figured it was a given. They'd need to become an entirely different party to get lefts-of-Reagan to vote for them. If the Democrats DID become an actual party of leftists then you'll have little donor money for down-ticket races. A populist like Bernie or Trump could overcome the lack of money in a presidential election year but then the party is beholden to a cult of personality for a theoretical populist candidate. Democrats suck but late-stage-capitalism has put them in a Catch-22 somewhat. Both parties gradually moving to the right is a symptom of the donors', conscious or unconscious, desire for eliminationist policy than anything else. When you take in the whole sad picture you can see that he dream of the elites is world with only haves where all their needs are satisfied by machines. Huzanko fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Jul 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Says a cave man thawed from a glacier So basically, nothing matters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:I was going to include the caveat "in their current form" but I figured it was a given. They'd need to become an entirely different party to get lefts-of-Reagan to vote for them. No, I refuse to accept this. Money isn't the end all be all for electoral success, and now we have proof thanks to 2016. I think the Dem grift machine has been going so long they don't realize how to campaign without spending gobs and gobs of money on dumb bullshit that doesn't work. We have the internet now, marketing and campaigning should be cheaper than ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No, I refuse to accept this. Money isn't the end all be all for electoral success, and now we have proof thanks to 2016. I elaborated a little when I edited my post just now. Money matters a lot when you don't have a populist candidate with a cult of personality for people to rally around, who can campaign for down-ticket. Democrats ALREADY have a problem with people voting in off-year elections. That's made worse with no money. I'm not saying that there aren't other structural problems and that the DNC isn't run by incompetent buffoons. I'm just pointing out that support for true leftist policy in 2017 means the wealthy will not donate to you. Single payer MAY be possible to support since you can spin it as beneficial to the donor class.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:Trump's up for re-election in 2018? hmm yes that's what i meant
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No, I refuse to accept this. Money isn't the end all be all for electoral success, and now we have proof thanks to 2016. Funnily enough, the best way to reach people is still door-to-door.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:Funnily enough, the best way to reach people is still door-to-door. Well, volunteers are cheap too, and you'll get more of them if you have an actual charismatic candidate with real ideas that appeal to college aged kids (who are most likely to have free time to go door to door) instead of a centrist shill.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:We have the internet now, marketing and campaigning should be cheaper than ever. For now. Never know about that net neutrality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:Funnily enough, the best way to reach people is still door-to-door. that's why leftists need to support the DSA and stop pouring support into the democratic party. DSA approved candidates yes, kamala harrises, no the current party infrastructure is rotted through, and what's left will be used as a weapon against us until the party crumbles, so we might as well start building our own
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
Avirosb posted:I keep saying, those progressives should just start their own party. This is a viable strategy in some non-USA country that has a saner electoral system than First Past The Post. It's very risky in the USA, because the new party would be guaranteed to draw more people away from Democrats than from Republicans. Unless that + however much the new party gains from currently abstaining population is more than the remaining Republicans, the new party would spoil the election in favour of the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 17:05
|
|