|
Aurubin posted:I mean, we at least agree that the Podesta emails were real right? So primary salt aside, I think the decisions Perez made in this strategy session reflect poorly on his potential term as DNC chair. Why, because he tried to (and did) win? Also, leftists who are claiming to be democrats, please stop smearing putin's ratfucking bullshit everywhere, thanks. He hacked and released this poo poo precisely to inflame primary salt.
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:So maybe the left are just a bunch of idiots? The argument seems to be "the left is irrationally committed to Ellison and if they don't get their way they'll throw a tantrum" which does not remind me of anything else that has happened recently at all.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Schumer is a close Sanders ally in the Senate. Sanders? Allied with a filthy neoliberal? Have you no shame, sir?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
He didn't support Bernie, QED.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Fiction posted:this goes just as much for how many petty bourgeoisie city dwellers who fear guns more than anything else there are out there and how many congressional districts their vote affects Gun control is most popular with urban people of color. Democrats advocating gun control are listening to their constituents. Fiction posted:do you know what it means to not do something versus doing the opposite of it? i'm just commenting on how ferociously it seems you defend the party orthodoxy on something that's not high on the list of problems for most people right now. Most white people JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Condiv posted:nope, centrists will just call you terrible for voting your conscience Voting third party was terrible in 2016 and it will only be more terrible in 2018. Pull your head out of your rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Nope. Still don't regret my Stein vote and I swear to God if they put up Booker in 2020 I'll vote for her again. I guess the Democrats will just have to put up actual progressives to appease me if they really want to beat Trump. Condiv posted:i will once the dems have. they haven't and are on track to lose even more till republicans can call a constitutional convention, so i'm not gonna bother voting or supporting these idiots. hth. You are extremely dumb and apparently proud of it. Trump thanks you for your useful idiocy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:My god, the Democrats might lose terminally whiny white men... Again!!!! Don't antagonize them, they might feel the need to re-elect trump to teach you a lesson!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:You've spent the last few months defending the sound logic of eternal centrism whenever called upon to do so, and very often when not called upon to do so or explicitly asked not to do so. A central pillar of that logic is that the Democrats don't need the left to win elections, so I don't see what you're so up in arms about. You centrists don't need our votes and you won't have them - godspeed. Perez isn't a centrist. The 2016 democratic platform is not centrist. The positions articulated by Perez and the 2016 platform are not electoral liabilities, and there's zero evidence democrats would benefit from shifting further left. Your "give me exactly what I want or I'll throw a tantrum" strategy got you nothing but Trump in 2016 and will get you exactly the same if you try it again.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Did you accidentally sarcastically make the good point that big unions haven't had workers' best interest at heart for a decent while? Keep following that logic, you're almost there! Service Employees International Union. Service employees don't benefit at all from more manufacturing jobs or better wages in manufacturing jobs, and so are unambiguously harmed by higher prices that inevitably result from protectionism. Most workers, and most unionized workers, don't work in manufacturing. Stop making GBS threads on unions because you don't understand economics.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Not aloe at all. It's to bad you can pretend that wasn't racist. But that is neoliberalism. You're better at discrediting that nonsense narrative than I could aver hope to be, thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Hey you're the one blaming minorities for Abuelas lost. Feel free to quote me doing so, I'm sure that won't backfire spectacularly like every other terrible argument you attempt.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
 Obviously people realize a generic democrat is a more credible leftist than Elizabeth warren.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
I like warren a lot more than most democrats so I sure hope it's an outlier. Lightning Knight posted:This says more about Warren than her politics, I think. Why? Warren, to her credit, wears her politics with pride.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:I'm the 9% of democrats that would vote for trump Conservative democrats exist and they might prefer trump to an outspoken leftist like warren.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I don't think the demographic group of "Democrats who prefer Trump to any Democrat" is large or worth catering to. That 13 point shift tho. Wouldn't the "democratic base won't vote for another generic centrist democrat" narrative lead us to expect exactly the opposite, or at least to mitigate that shift?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I feel like using "Generic Democrat" as your baseline is flawed because such a person doesn't actually exist. In reality any given candidate comes with baggage. I hear you, and maybe this poll is trash (the head to head matchups very likely are). But the argument is that all democrats have spineless centrist neoliberal baggage except for a select few like warren who are pure enough to excite the base and win. If that's less important than Pocahontas memes, well...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Seriously, though, do you guys not know that Generic Republican/Democrat always outpolls an actual specific person? Yes, that could explain what we're seeing here. But no, that's not always true. Here's George W Bush beating a generic Republican. http://www.people-press.org/1998/09/10/other-important-findings-5/  Here's Clinton beating a generic Democrat. http://fusion.net/story/41972/fusion-poll-millennials-politics-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-election-2016/   Are these outliers? I do not know. Kilroy posted:I'm still wondering how we keep yo-yoing back and forth between "the left doesn't need to be pandered to" and "Republicans love the left because they keep throwing elections to the GOP" and nobody seems to be blinking an eye. JC here advocates one or the other depending on whether we're on an even page or an odd one - can't have it both ways, dude. I don't doubt the democrats could get more votes from leftists by pandering to them. I don't think it's self evident that they would gain more leftist votes than they'd lose moderate votes. That's not inconsistent with the suggestion that some of the left hosed itself and everybody else by putting purity above pragmatism-- a weakness Trump and the Russians deftly exploited. I don't blame any Somethingawful dot com poster for losing us the election. I blame the people and institutions on the left with actual influence, like Greenwald, or the Jacobin, who thought that by attacking lesser-evilism they weren't responsible for the consequences of tearing down the only person who could beat trump. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:NBC is reporting that Ellison has offered Buckley a role in leading DNC operations in exchange for his support. Buckley is the (hopelessly doomed) conservative Democratic candidate who once drove around one of Lieberman's two Joemobiles. Its almost as if success in politics requires an ability and willingness to compromise and build coalitions who don't agree on everything. Goondolences to all the purity people who just had their dreams crushed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I feel like "pandering to leftists" and "pandering to disaffected voters who don't feel represented" doesn't necessarily represent the exact same group. Yes, exactly. Our problem is identifying the issues that appeal to both leftists and disaffected voters AND that won't piss off too many other people in the coalition. It's not as simple as "go left".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Blaming Republicans isn't helpful. We can't exercize any pressure on them and they aren't going away. They are going to be there as a malevolent force in our politics for the foreseeable future. Which is why voting for the lesser of two evils, rather than purity posturing, is your ethical duty.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
It's weird how Hillary hosed up by spending all her time portraying Trump as a racist sexual predator, but the electorate was still widely ignorant of him being a racist sexual predator. If Hillary had instead spent all her time articulating her progressive policy positions, the electorate would have realized the importance of voting for democrats, because apparently campaigning on issues only affects the electorate in counterfactuals where democrats are terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:. Bullshit. quote:7. Trade Policies that Benefit American Workers
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:nowadays we have democrats unironically labeling opposing politicians as russian puppets and buying into moronic conspiracy theories like this is a new cold war. no one bats an eye at the thought that the most powerful nation in the world who is currently keeping tabs on virtually all global communication is suddenly and completely out of the blue total under the influence russian infiltration and we are powerless to oppose it. suddenly everyone is a deep cover russian agent. its totally insane and crazy. the world is more interconnected than ever. of course you can find tenuous links between powerful people in the two most powerful countries on the planet. but the idea that putin is puppet master pulling the strings of world policy is insane. This idiotic concern trolling from the left helped trump in the campaign and it's helping him now. Crowsbeak posted:Yeah who is more effective than Sanders? Warren is loved by the left but she has never been able to connect the way Bernie has. I mean I personally think Keith's great but I know he turns some people off. So who is more effective? Unlike warren, Bernie has never faced serious republican opposition. Indeed Trump and Russia acted strategically to elevate him as a way to encourage divisions in the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Decrying the loss of American manufacturing and advocating trade policies that encourage american companies to stop outsourcing is not the same thing as advocating bringing factories back. He's obviously talking about creating trade policies that will rebuild American manufacturing. If that really wasn't his intention, then he hosed up real bad and inadvertantly primed the rust belt to fall for trump.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The Russians tried to help Bernie is a reach even for you. Trump repeatedly praised Bernie on the campaign trail and talked about how unfairly he'd been treated by the DNC and Clinton. In concert with the hacked podesta emails, it was a naked attempt to ratfuck us and it worked like a charm.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Where did he do that? What speech? It takes willful ignorance to look at that quote and not see the implication.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I see a rallying cry against NAFTA that I don't necessarily agree with, but what I don't see is a promise to bring back manufacturing. . Trade deals killed US manufacturing. We will end those trade deals so corporations will create jobs here. But oh no I don't mean manufacturing jobs that's ridiculous. Come on. Lightning Knight posted:Ok, but that doesn't imply direct Russian involvement with Bernie. That's a strategy they could've come up with on their own. Look at all the fawning pro-Bernie articles on RT, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Oh god drat it gently caress off with this poo poo. The only lesson you can possibly take from this is that going forward we can't even have a primary in the first place, because doing so will damage whatever precious snowflake candidate does wind up competing in the general. Of course the opposing party is going to try to gently caress with you - the Democrats did it to the Republicans as well and it probably got Trump nominated. Certainly Hillary's camp was delighted by the fact and we have documentation of that. Actually the lesson we should take from it is the next time we have the republicans and a foreign government colluding to ratfuck us we shouldn't fall for it. I don't care that Russia wanted Bernie to win, and I don't hold it against him or think it was his fault. I care that after Bernie had decisively lost his dumbest supporters guzzled down naked ratfucking like it was ambrosia.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:And yet they voted for Hillary in the general in greater proportion than did Hillary supporters for Obama in 2008. You have no idea if that's true or not, and it doesn't matter in any case. The PUMA bullshit was GOP ratfucking too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The numbers bear it out and if it doesn't matter then why are you complaining about "dumb" Bernie supporters? They don't, because we don't actually have the vote totals by party ID data yet. It doesn't matter because falling for ratfucking is still bad in 2016 even if some people fell for it in 2008.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Believing that the magnitude by which people "fell for the ratfucking" isn't important, is incredibly dangerous because it leaves you vulnerable to focusing on the wrong problem. The numbers matter. You are asserting the problem was minuscule sans any evidence whatsoever, whereas we know that the actual content of the ratfucking--podesta emails-- were a massive issue in the election. Bury your head deeper if you want, clearly you have no interest in examining our failings in this past election with any sort of objectivity. Typo posted:Support for free trade rise to new highs! That's just democrats, right?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Fiction posted:So it's "ratfucking" now to attack your opponent on her loving garbage positions but not to collude with the media to bring down your opponent? Gotcha. No it's ratfucking to hack your opponents and leak information that will inflame tensions in your opponent's coalition. You can't be this obtuse.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
I don't think it's self evident that the political strategy the left is outlining will make it easier to win the next election. I don't intend to mistake the things I want to be true for the things that actually are true, again, after making that mistake this past election. That's how I'm participating in that debate. It's also a bit galling to have people who just got ratfucked without batting an eye claim that the election somehow validates the sophistication of their politics. Like I don't necessarily think Bernie would have lost, but it seems like the height of naive hubris to be utterly convinced he would have won. And so insofar as the DNC election has been turned into a proxy battle for that argument, I'm not really excited for Ellison to win precisely because it would validate a strategy I think has significant risks. Which is not to say I don't think we should keep pushing democrats left or that we should never take risks. I do think it's really disingenuous to suggest a Perez win would signal a Democratic Party that has no interest in moving left.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:We've lost 900+ seats over 8 years, and Republicans are about to hold all three branches of government. Why should the Democratic party be risk-averse in any way? What is there left to protect? I don't disagree that democrats need to do something different. I don't think it's self evident that the only reasonable choice is to take a hard left. Looking at the clusterfuck trump is managing to create in the whitehouse, I think democrats are going to have the easiest path by focusing their efforts on being anti-trump, tying the republicans to trump, and making smart marginal improvements to the 2016 platform. This strikes me as significantly less risky than a strategy where we take a hard left and find out that welp, Americans do really have an irrational opposition to socialism, and the republicans really are good at weaponizing it. Ytlaya posted:Um, you do realize that some people want these changes because they think they are good things for reasons other than helping to win elections, right? People are not advocating for leftist policy just because they think it is a pragmatic strategic decision that will get more votes; they're advocating for it because they think it will help people. You're free to disagree with that, but you keep trying to recast things in terms of "are you literally 100% sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that moving to the left will help win elections?!" when people are just saying they think it's a good idea because they think such policy will help people. We need to win the next election. That matters more than anything else. I don't need 100% proof, but you're deluding yourself if you have anything approaching that level of certainty that leftist policy is going to help us in 2 years. VitalSigns posted:The argument for moderate centrism was always a pragmatic one that it may not help anyone but it could win against the Republicans' actively harmful policies. It's obviously not the only variable, and it's silly to think one data point can disprove the entire trend. We know Bill Clinton and Obama were able to win big by appealing to the middle. And I don't necessarily agree with your premise. Hillary ran a campaign further left than any other democrat in 40 years, its not obvious that the problem was not being far enough left. I'm not willing to ignore all the other possibilities because I really want the US to be ready for actual leftism. I just mistook the things I want to be true for the things that are true, and I'm not keen to repeat the error.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Economicly yes. People want better wages. They want control of their schools. They like big money out of politics. They want refs Yes, people want these things. No, it's not clear they think the means to get them is leftist policy. Trump promised better wages by kicking out immigrants, cutting regulations, and protectionism. local control of schools is very often in service of conservatism. Alter Ego posted:You continue to conflate "being true to the principles of actual liberalism" with "veering harder left". Aggressively selling good policy with a clear, well-defined message will work just as well as the aggressive sale of lovely policy. If you're claiming all we have is a marketing problem, I dont think you're necessarily wrong. But I don't think most of the die hard Ellison supporters would agree that all we have is a marketing problem. snyprmag posted:The left turn is more about turning out people who don't vote, rather than appeal to people who vote republican. Bush was much more popular in 2004 than Trump is now. If he gets his poo poo together and his approval rating is at or above 50%, maybe making the election a referrendum on Trump won't work, but that's not the trend we're seeing now. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:"Don't talk policy, just trash Trump" is literally the exact strategy that lost Hillary the election. Before, Trump was a blank slate; some voters projected their hopes onto him rather than see him for what he was. Next time, he'll have a (historically terrible) record and won't be able to run on empty anti-establishment platitudes. He and the Republican Party are the establishment now, and they'll own the disaterous consequences of letting him into power. There's no reason to think making elections into referendums on unpopular incumbents doesn't work anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
For what? A higher minimum wage? That's great! Does that mean that democrats should fight for 15 and reject any lower amount as a spineless compromise? I don't think so. A 10 dollar federal minimum has more support than a 12 dollar minimum, and they both have more support than a 15 dollar minimum, which polls below 50% often enough to worry me. 12 looks like the best in terms of risk/reward.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:...yes? $15 is living wage adjusted for inflation. 12 polls around 60% and 15 polls around 50%. We need around 55% to overcome republican gerrymandering and take the house. If your position is that we should not consider the political consequences of policy and let our hearts be our guide, that's fine, but I don't agree. The Little Kielbasa posted:Looks like the teachers' union is endorsing Ellison now too. NEA or AFT?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
Fiction posted:people don't loving vote based on that level of granularity. that's the issue with your approach here. I don't put a lot of faith in your evidence-free assertions, that's the issue with your approach here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 20:55
|
|