|
Chomskyan posted:Perez won't agree to ban corporate contributions. Neither will Ellison. You know who has, though? Buttigieg.
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
average House winning campaign = $1m average Senate winning campaign = $10m so just for federal legislative elections, Democrats should be looking to fundraise something like $700m every two years. they raised $150m in 2014
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Yeah, this is the real problem with the whole Ellison vs Perez debate: Buttigieg is to the left of both of them, and has far fewer establishment ties, but by throwing Ellison into the ring the establishment effectively froze out real anti-establishment candidates. Sure, Buttigieg has zero chance, but the nature of this race is such that outsiders never had a chance; thanks to Ellison, though, he doesn't even get press. Setting up Ellison as the "true" leftist outsider candidate and setting it up as a one-on-one outsider vs establishment race means that the only reason anyone even remembers Buttigieg is because he's got a funny name, and I wouldn't be surprised if the establishment was quietly pushing that view themselves to make sure that the two establishment candidates totally dominate the discourse. I mean, seriously. Chuck Schumer leaped at the chance to endorse Ellison.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Schumer is a close Sanders ally in the Senate. Schumer endorsed Clinton in loving 2013, way before she even announced. This was the shadow primary that cleared the Democratic field for her. He's a big reason Bernie was her only real opponent. and anyways he's terrible
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Insofar as a Sanders wing of the party exists, Chuck Schumer ain't in it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Again, I think Ellison is a much more telegenic person who I think is better suited to be the de facto face of the party for two years until we hit 2020 primary bullshit. He's obviously a more natural communicator. MD Gov: Perez DNC Chair: Buttigieg 2020 Nominee: Ellison tbqh
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I like this a lot, but only if Warren doesn't run in 2020. Gonna have to be ageist here
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Convergence posted:Maryland's republican governor is actually pretty great and has a >70% approval rating, and is no threat because of the eternally blue legislature. He's one of the very, very few examples of actual functional fiscal conservatives (and not insane corrupt ideologues). He also loathes Trump. Perez is from Montgomery County, MD, and Hogan opposes Trump like McCain opposes Trump: in a manner designed to not offer meaningful substantive opposition
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Chelb posted:If Ellison is smart, he knows he probably has a future in the Democratic Party that lies outside of the Democratic National Chair.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:There seems to be some sort of general opinion that Buttigieg is to the left of Ellison/Perez. Why is this? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with it, but I can't find anything specific that seems to point towards that conclusion. Marched with Women's March instead of going to donor meeting with David Brock Actual pledge to ban lobbyist donations
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/831602599535206401
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
you see NAFTA killed jobs which is why job losses didn't start until GWB's inauguration
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
TPP members: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. We currently have FTA with Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru and Singapore. Our tariff rates on Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand and Vietnam are on the order of like 3% outside of certain goods (e.g., chicken tax on Japanese light trucks) Like sure I get the "what's the benefit to American workers to get them to sign on" but the idea that our trade agreements killed jobs doesn't make sense
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah now I want you to go to Indiana and Ohio and tell everyone there that Nafta made their life better. yes I agree there's been a longstanding misinformation campaign deflecting blame for job losses from capitalists to foreigners
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Entrenching really lovely intellectual property laws and establishing establishing those terrible Invest State Dispute Settlement provisions were far greater sins of the TPP than any impact on jobs. Sure but like defending Malaysian workers isn't really a "protect American workers" program
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm not really clear on what you're trying to say here but not wanting to cede political power to ISDS tribunals seems like a rational and intelligent position for labour unions. again, ISDS tribunals are more an issue for other countries than the United States; we've got one through NAFTA and haven't lost once
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:...yes? $15 is living wage adjusted for inflation. No it isn't; it's too low
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:No, we need to stand for something, and that something should be a minimum wage that makes it so the single mother of 3 that lives in the lovely inner-city apartment only has to work one job instead of two or three. If it only polls at 50%, then that just means we haven't advocated for it hard enough or shown clearly enough how it would benefit everyone. We have dialed it back for far too long--it's time to crank up the volume and rip the loving knob off. Living wage for a single parent of three is on the order of $30
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
It's just mind boggling how there's this huge blow-up over $12 vs. $15 when they're both sub-living wages anyways. I just don't understand that level of militancy over leaving profit in the hands of capital while continuing to leave workers struggling to survive. I'm
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/832995713596399617
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
pretty hosed up that Ellison's making shady smoke-filled backroom deals to clear the field tbqh
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
jesus the Republicans are so loving ideologically rigid they can't even pass a loving tax cut
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:lol yes ellison is everything with sprinkles and a cherry on top instead of the first and most visible signal that the base of the party is being listened to. Why are Bernie voters "the base" as opposed to Clinton voters, given that, you know, there were more of them?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:well i and the party's base of activists and unions want the person so the DNC should give us the person instead of going "they're both okay." regardless if their policies are the same the base has clearly decided which messenger it prefers How are unions "the base" if they can't deliver votes?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Obama ran on ending the partisan divide
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Wasn't it hope and change? Keep in mind he was pushed to run because of his '04 DNC "no red America or blue America" speech
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:"I want to make childcare universal and education free" is apparently not good enough for y'all. Childcare, which costs more than college, and for which loans and grants aren't available
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Medicare itself isn't single payer, so I don't know why people are using Medicare-for-All as the basis for calls for single payer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because Medicare itself is popular, so saying your healthcare reform is "like Medicare" gets your plan 5 to 10 extra favorability points in the polls. Dr. Fishopolis posted:Because everyone knows someone who couldn't live without Medicare. It's a third rail that even Republicans can't get near. If you call your plan "Medicare for all", you gain the advantage of making your opponents look like they're arguing against Medicare, which is political suicide. sure but like the same "the ACA is terrible" crowd crowing about a plan that has absolutely no out-of-pocket caps at all unless (horror of horrors) you pay money to a insurance company might have something to do with the relative popularity of Medicare vs. Obamacare? Not to mention limited networks. Deductibles are low, but like you get cancer and need a $30k a month treatment, you're on the hook for $6k a month until treatment is over vs. a capped $7k if you've got non-Medicare health insurance.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
I mean the "Medicare is awesome" thing is because it just works without you really having to think about it but that's more about how Democrats made Obamacare more complicated than it should have been in order for it to be popular, as opposed to a discussion about the relative substantive merits.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
like she was up what, double digits in October?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:its not about progresivism or centrists actually. Its about if the policies appeal to the basic self interest of voters. FOr that is why people choose to vote. Hillary had at one point boosted TPP, which frankly wouldn't have been bad for the most part in concerns to manufacturing. However to people in the midwest still remembering the damage done in the 80s and 90s by trade policies it was not something they could back. Meanwhile the orange rear end in a top hat offers to bring their jobs back. Many didn't believe him, but also couldn't vote for someone who had supported more trade policies that were not in her interest. (Didn't help that Kaine was saying she really supported it either). Meanswhile the people in these towns and cities all over the Midwest were being told by orange asshoel he wanted America to be great again. Some thought that would mean better lives. others knew he couldn't or being great wouldn't help them. But then HRC said everything was great and they knew that was a lie. So they either vote fro Trump or stay home. Trump played to their self interest and won. The damage done in manufacturing was in the 2000s 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:By earlier trade policy. The early 2000s recession, itself caused by an earlier recession in the EU, killed 3m manufacturing jobs, followed by bleeding another 2m during the '08 recession (the two sharp drops). The first recession caused probably by the introduction of the Euro, and the second because of the financial system melting down. Neither due to trade. Meanwhile, manufacturing itself grew 35% 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Which was done by earlier trade policy. Also Whisky telling people convinced their job is in china, or in Mexico because evil NAFTA or WTO that you want a even bigger trade agreement doesn't make them want to vote for you. It makes those that had jobs in factories despair and those in the remaining factories mad. So best not to encourage such feelings. Again, the job losses were due to external recessions, and I think it might be worthwhile examining why people are convinced that their job is in China or Mexico (we don't even have a trade deal with China!)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:2 sets of logic that baffle me, and I'm earnestly looking for someone to explain to me what I'm missing. Based on reading and participating in this thread, I don't believe either of these are strawmen. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/opinion/move-left-democrats.html quote:Mrs. Clinton came closer to winning Texas than she did Iowa. She fared better in Arizona, Georgia and Florida than she did in the traditional battleground state of Ohio. The electoral action for Democrats may have once been in the Rust Belt, but it’s now moving west and south.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:So the jobs that can't be automated go overseas when the economy dips? And the trade deals have nothing to do with this? We just straight up lost both jobs and production during recessions, then never added jobs back during recoveries as firms increased per worker productivity instead of hiring
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:We just straight up lost both jobs and production during recessions, then never added jobs back during recoveries as firms increased per worker productivity instead of hiring I mean, you might say that, given our trade balance over this time, we replaced domestic growth with foreign imports, but the big changes in our trade balance coincided with flat employment, not job loss
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 02:32
|
|