|
The sort of resigned, saddened 'why do we all have to fight' attitudes here prove that the progressive left will never have the nerve to do something like the Tea Party did in 2010 when they primaried the hell out of everyone. Admittedly, it cost them seats in the short term because many Tea primary wins became Dem general wins, but it also got them people like Ted Cruz. It also in the long term made the GOP far more radicalized: Tea Party casualty Bob Inglis was primaries out in 2010 and was last seen last year on MSNBC last year denouncing Trump. Perez/Ellison may make no tangible difference in the years to come, but one sends a sign to the establishment that there's no election loss so humiliating that it can't be apologized for. Because this last election loss is as humiliating as it could possibly get.
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 01:01 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:The TPP was a great example of messaging failure. The "No TPP" side had a simple and clear message - "TPP Bad." That and EFF was sounding the alarm that the patent/trademark/IPlaw related elements of TPP was SOPA/PIPA levels terrible. It was an awful stand for Obama to go out on. edit: I'm 25 pages back when y'all were accusing people of being anti-semetic and trying to parse a difference between Ellison/Perez than just rehashing a primary, and I want to say that it's pretty funny that the general assumption is that if the far-left doesn't get on board with the center-left and let the center-left win, then the right wing will overrun us all. It feels like an admission that there's no reason to be centrist. A proper centrist should draw enough votes from the Republicans that losing a few radicals shouldn't matter. Also, can we admit that if we do recalibrate our meaning of left/right that some old voting blocks might become less powerful? Part of the reason I've speculated that the Sanders left was viewed as a bunch of white boys who couldn't get black people to vote for them may be because, as a national demographic, black people have a strong role for the church in their communities. I have periodically thought that, if the Republicans weren't always attacking the poor as a signal of attacking black people, that their anti-abortion, pro-church viewpoints would get them more traction in the black demographic. It's possible that the Democrats 98% support among black people might need to erote to 70% or so if we're to move further leftward, and we'd just have to accept that. I don't want to "play the card" or whatever, but Ellison may be able to better bridge that divide. That's one reason I lean toward him. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:
I'm not so much speculating so much as I am reacting to the primary threads where the general consensus was that the Sanders coalition was a bunch of whiny whites and thank god that Democratic turnout in the south were sane and voted Abuela. The only thing I actually know is in the south party affiliation frequently aligns with race. Clinton supporters read those turnout numbers and saw fit to chalk it up to the black vote. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Idly wondering whether or not a white progressive party would be more successful is literally the reason why black people were on average wary of Sanders, hth. If that's what you read, you didn't read it right. Going left is going to cause some moderate people to feel that the party left them. I'm talking about deeply religious black voters because the deeply religious white voters are already Republicans.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:yeah, you could basically run a white progressive party and win every election See, I don't think you can. And that's kind of what scares me. My emotional brain is concerned because for some reason leftism is associated with godlessness in this country, and my analytical brain is concerned because we already saw of a large black turnout in California in 2008 and the passage of prop 8 (gay marriage ban), and all theories trying to suggest correlation instead of causation never quite added up. All of that suggested that if the Republicans weren't virulently racist, Democrats would be losing a lot of voters over our stance on abortion, gays, etc. I suppose however there's not many ways that Democrats can oppose the political position of churches much further than they already have. Still, to me it suggests we need to do more to improve and invest in minority communities schools, services, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
That's a good, reassuring post. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
Just to touch something earlier tonight. Regarding the 2010 Tea primaries...BI NOW GAY LATER posted:They had the chance to unseat Harry loving Reid. Hi, I'm from Nevada. Nobody had a chance to unseat Harry Reid. The other alternatives was this lady who literally suggested bartering for health care (who had still more skeletons in her closet regarding how she strong-armed people into signing a document pinky swearing to never unionize) and also the kind of likable but totally inexperienced son of a famous local coach. So, don't use Reid/Angle as a deterrent against red-meat candidates in the primaries.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
The MTP Daily panel on this just a few minutes ago was borderline revolting. Chuck Todd expressed over and over that Ellison is being held back because of his religion, noting "if he was a Christian and had the support of Sanders and Warren this thing would have been done." A lady from Urban Radio spread a rumor that she heard Perez is going to win as a strategy of "getting back to our roots", the most antagonistic (conservative?) voice complained about Ellison being too close to Nation of Islam, and the lady who went last said Ellison's early and steadfast Sanders support would doom him with the people who make the decisions. It ended with Todd remarking, "Sanders and Warren versus Obama and Clinton? I think we know where that's going..." and someone responding "Perez!" as they blacked out to a commercial. Regardless that Perez isn't a bad choice, it was the most discouraging thing I've seen since Election Day in thinking we might finally end this grip on power held by wealthy liberals who don't understand poor people and burnish their support of minorities they never see.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Perez isn't "old leadership" and the amount of twisted reality poo poo in this thread is ridiculous. Of all people Chuck Todd has framed it in Sanders/Warren vs Obama/Clinton, and he's nowhere in this thread. And I don't see anyone crying of islamophobia holding Ellison back the way he did.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
nachos posted:Hah, the concession to the sanders wing is deputy chair This seems like Perez's promise to not be as bad as DWS was. If it happens again and he gets tossed, it's Ellison that replaces him(??) That said, I would join DSA if my state had a chapter. Oh well!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
I ran this one through the time warp from 2009...Confounding Factor posted:I agree with all that but my only counterpoint to that is the Republican Party is the only relevant party that can stop liberals from taking power.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 01:01 |
|
|
To the people unhappy, if Ellison had won and named Perez deputy chair, would you be happy? Or would be upset that he gave a bone to those dang neoliberalism and now they'll triangulate all the leverage away? It's like they tried to go for an "everybody wins" storyline but the people who were caught up in the race for months can't buy into it. Maybe we can run Stone Cold Steve Austin out there to deliver a stunner to both guys and ensure everyone's happy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 22:46
|
|