|
Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
33 | 6.38% |
| No |
|
343 | 66.34% |
| Keith Ellison |
|
54 | 10.44% |
| Pete Buttigieg |
|
71 | 13.73% |
| Jehmu Green |
|
16 | 3.09% |
| Total: | 416 votes | ||
|
if democrats refuse to change then who are leftists supposed to vote for?
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So you're still trying to claim you're not a useful idiot while crying about racism against whites?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Vote and organize local democrats and draw in a big hairy dick at the national level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:if democrats refuse to change then who are leftists supposed to vote for?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:if democrats refuse to change then who are leftists supposed to vote for? The reason there are few leftist Democrats is because few leftists are running for office as Democrats and winning. If the only option for your vote is a centrist, then the question you should be asking yourself isn't "why won't this centrist turn into a leftist?", it's "why isn't a leftist running for this seat"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:See? Leftists will actively go looking for literally anything, including the platform not broadcasting their own presidents failures, as a reason to not support the Dems. And you still have the gall to still claim they don't do enough to try and appease you. Most still vote Democratic. I agree that leftists who refuse to vote Democratic in any state with a remote chance of being a swing state are doing something really stupid, but tarring all leftists with that brush is absurd. I am not at all happy with the Democratic Party but will still always vote for the Democratic candidate as a pragmatic decision. But this doesn't mean I also have to shut up and not express the things I don't like about the party. Also, keep in mind that you're getting a distorted view of leftists vs. more mainstream liberals on these forums (and other places mainly frequently by left-leaning younger people). Due to the general political bent of SA/D&D posters, there's a much higher ratio of leftist posters to mainstream Democrats/liberals on these forums than there is in the general population. If you look at a broader group (including baby boomers and what have you), there are at least as many, if not more, dumb mainstream liberals/Democrats as there are leftists. For example, there's that poll showing Clinton voters are generally somewhat more racist than Sanders voters. This is likely due to the fact that a huge portion of Clinton voters are older, and older people tend to have worse political views, at least when it comes to social issues. So there are actually a hell of a lot of dumb mainstream liberals/Democrats with bad opinions out there, but we just aren't seeing them on these forums. But we are seeing the dumber leftist people, because they tend to be a part of the demographics that frequent this forum. So when people on these forums discuss "leftist Democrats" vs "mainstream liberals/Democrats" they're really only talking about a subset of younger, more left-leaning people who aren't really representative of the population at large. As a result, it's dumb to say "leftists are like X" based upon what you see on websites like this. Fulchrum posted:In that specific situation and under those circumstances for that entirely different nation, yes. This is sort of like if a rich person found a starving person and offered to feed them if they would be their slave. The starving person is undoubtedly better off as a fed slave than he/she was before, but that doesn't make keeping them as a slave any less hosed up and wrong. In the same way, a situation where a bunch of people make poverty wages is not okay just because the immediate alternative is no wages at all. The correct response to this situation is "wait, this is hosed up, is there anything we can do to ensure all workers receive decent wages?" And solving this problem is definitely really difficult, but the first step is acknowledging the problem exists in the first place and that it isn't acceptable for people to live in poverty while working in sweatshops just because the immediate alternative is even worse. As far as solutions, the main thing that comes to mind is the US mandating that the businesses in domestic businesses' supply chains maintain decent working standards and pay (which would obviously vary depending upon the cost of living in the country). While this might result in many workers losing their jobs, they would be replaced by better paid workers somewhere else that is willing to meet those standards, so there wouldn't be much of a net loss in employment. Probably the hardest part of this would be keeping track of businesses' supply chains (which are often really complex/convoluted) and verifying their working standards, but I don't think this is impossible (and even if we didn't do a perfect job, it would still be better than nothing). It also wouldn't do much to improve the lives of Americans (and might even result in a tiny price increase for some products), but I think that it should still be done just because it's the right thing to do. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The reason there are few leftist Democrats is because few leftists are running for office as Democrats and winning. If the only option for your vote is a centrist, then the question you should be asking yourself isn't "why won't this centrist turn into a leftist?", it's "why isn't a leftist running for this seat"? Most of the time because they get yelled at for splitting the vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Current Affiars has a great article about purifying the party. I think you may all enjoy this. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/02/after-the-dnc-what-now
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Fulchrum's an idiot, but to be fair white people are pretty garbage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Manic_Misanthrope posted:Most of the time because they get yelled at for splitting the vote. How is it splitting the vote to run as a Democrat?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This is sort of like if a rich person found a starving person and offered to feed them if they would be their slave. The starving person is undoubtedly better off as a fed slave than he/she was before, but that doesn't make keeping them as a slave any less hosed up and wrong. In the same way, a situation where a bunch of people make poverty wages is not okay just because the immediate alternative is no wages at all. The correct response to this situation is "wait, this is hosed up, is there anything we can do to ensure all workers receive decent wages?" Which they did, as the wages have since risen to and exceeded the initially proposed levels. That's yet another part of the story most people who get their hot scoops either directly or indirectly from Breitbart don't know, or just don't care about. The plight of the Haitian people is tragic and no-one is suggesting that keep them starving is a good thing. However, you do have to ay least recognise that the abandonment by businesses is a very likely possibility that the state department was trying to prevent and wasnt just her hating them all and blocking a wage increase just to be evil. Also, you have to acknowledge a lot of people only care about it as a way to attack Hillary Clinton due to needing justification for deeper reasons to hate her. Trump absolutely used it that way, as did Crowsbeak. Actively treating them as good faith actors when they are saying this and not recognizing it as a basic attempt to fracture the dems is a bafflingly stupid move. The only thing I can compare it to is that scene in one of the pirates of the Caribbean movies where Steve from Coupling says he knows everything that Johnny Depp told him is bullshit meant to trick him into doing something stupid, and Depp doesn't mean any of it, but he's going to listen to him anyway. Yes, all of these things do still need to be addressed. But recognise who is bringing them up and why, instead of blindly taking that message and running like a madman with it. Do you think all Nazi propaganda in WW2 was purely aggressive and diminishing? Pure aryans are better than you and that poo poo? No, of course not. There were reams and reams of Goebbels led propaganda campaigns trying to attack British moral high ground over the treatment of India and Africa. How well do you think allied resistance efforts would have gone if every third soldier had decided to start listening to those things and running with attacking Britain because hey, the Nazis have a point on this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:How is it splitting the vote to run as a Democrat? He means running as a splitter option because going through the Democratic primary is too hard and restrictive, man, and you just get caught up in politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:*draws two intersecting lines* are you arguing that we should throw out the aggregate in favor of the anecdote or are you arguing that most economists believe that free trade is bad? Crowsbeak posted:Current Affiars has a great article about purifying the party. I think you may all enjoy this. i disagree with the premise that dramatic ideological change is necessary to "save" the democratic party, but if the far-left genuinely believe it then they should, by all means, try to "take over the party at the local level by running for state and county positions in the party." none of this is really incongruent with obama's current plans. i do disagree with the implication that the democratic party should throw out people like claire mccaskill, joe manchin, and heidi heitkamp. the party will not survive in places like west virginia and north dakota if it starts instituting ideological purity tests Kilroy posted:Just vote for the most leftist person on the ballot IMO, regardless of party affiliation. If that's the Democrat, wonderful. If not, also wonderful. this is a bad idea in a first past the post system
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Current Affiars has a great article about purifying the party. I think you may all enjoy this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:How is it splitting the vote to run as a Democrat? i dunno, ask all the people who got mad at bernie for joining the party and running as a democrat
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The reason there are few leftist Democrats is because few leftists are running for office as Democrats and winning. If the only option for your vote is a centrist, then the question you should be asking yourself isn't "why won't this centrist turn into a leftist?", it's "why isn't a leftist running for this seat"? I understand this, and it does need to be acknowledged that for leftists or left-Dems or really anyone left of center to enact positive change, they actually need to win enough elected positions in government. But here's the thing that I think a lot of centrists in the DNC are missing, when they ask your second question: a lot of economically left-wing policies are fairly popular in those purple and red districts. The "leftist candidate" vs. "centrist candidate" debate doesn't actually run along a single axis. Just because a left-wing candidate's views on, say, abortion might be too progressive for a red district in Indiana, doesn't mean that his or her views on expanding Medicare will drive voters away as well. In those cases, candidates who focus way more on an economically progressive, left-populist platform could probably do pretty drat well in those embattled districts. There's more than one way to run (and win as) a leftist candidate. Fulchrum posted:He means running as a splitter option because going through the Democratic primary is too hard and restrictive, man, and you just get caught up in politics. Yes, that really is the reason why the Dems have been losing so frequently over the past nine years: the Greens and the other splitter options. 
Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
looks like we just got an answer, and it's not just a no, but an emphatic hell no! https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/17/hillary-clinton-ready-to-return-politics Hillary Clinton posted:“I am ready to come out of the woods and to help shine a light on what is already happening around kitchen tables, at dinners like this, to help draw strength that will enable everybody to keep going,” said Clinton, who was spotted taking a walk in the woods around her hometown of Chappaqua, New York, two days after losing the election to Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Condiv posted:looks like we just got an answer, and it's not just a no, but an emphatic hell no! Yup, they're dead. They're going to run her again in 2020, I loving guarantee it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Thank God. I was sick of hearing " mean old Hillary abandoned the people and disappeared from politics, unlike real freedom fighters like Bernie". It'll be nice to hear less of that and more of " how dare Hillary ever involve herself in politics or approach the national spotlight ever again, she should apologize and then hide in a cave until she dies". If I'm going to be hearing people whine about Hillary no matter what she does, they might as well be whining for a good reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Thank God. I was sick of hearing " i too am glad that unprecedented failure hillary maintains her grip on the party and we will have 8 years of trump
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
looking forward to hillary leading dems to new and inventive forms of political failure
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Ah its going to be fun watching her get booed whenever a Senator dumb enough to allow her to go to any event attended by the public has her endorse them at such an event. Also it will be fun to see you all then rant against people being against the idiot whop lost to Trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i too am glad that unprecedented failure hillary maintains her grip on the party and we will have 8 years of trump Yeah, because she had such an iron grip on the party in 2008 and 2016.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Yeah, because she had such an iron grip on the party in 2008 and 2016. is that supposed to be a joke? https://twitter.com/BenSpielberg/status/842945874095489024/photo/1 Condiv fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Condiv posted:looking forward to hillary leading dems to new and inventive forms of political failure This is what I am afraid of, basically an attempt to ram Clinton down our throats again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Condiv posted:is that supposed to be a joke? They just can't help but show their disdain for anyone who isn't wealthy member of the donor class
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Condiv posted:is that supposed to be a joke? And despite all that, she lost the primary in 2008 and barely scraped through in 2016. If that's the best she can do, I'm not too worried.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
The early 2000s dems at least had the decency to swap out the hawkish empty suits during the midterms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:And despite all that, she lost the primary in 2008 and barely scraped through in 2016. If that's the best she can do, I'm not too worried. Are you really going to try and deny that in the 2016 primaries the Democratic party organization was essentially unanimous in their backing of Clinton from the very start? You can make a case for the party establishment being divided in 2008, but in 2016 there's no question that every attempt was made to 'clear the field' for Clinton. Main Paineframe posted:Thank God. I was sick of hearing " Can you link me to a few of these horrible brosocialist berniebros who have spent the last few months clamoring to see Hillary Clinton return to electoral politics? Because I seem to have missed them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Are you really going to try and deny that in the 2016 primaries the Democratic party organization was essentially unanimous in their backing of Clinton from the very start? You can make a case for the party establishment being divided in 2008, but in 2016 there's no question that every attempt was made to 'clear the field' for Clinton. Tell me more about how transgender people are all autistic The Insect Court.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Are you really going to try and deny that in the 2016 primaries the Democratic party organization was essentially unanimous in their backing of Clinton from the very start? You can make a case for the party establishment being divided in 2008, but in 2016 there's no question that every attempt was made to 'clear the field' for Clinton. And for all that backing, she still had quite a bit of trouble fending off Bernie, with plenty of establishment Dems (like Ellison and Wisniewski) backing him over Clinton. Sure, the Democratic leadership widely supported her...but that doesn't seem to help her much among the voters! If that is the best Clinton's "grip on the party" can do, I'm not too worried about the Iron Fist of Clinton sweeping aside charismatic, powerful campaigners in 2020. Even if she's stupid or insane enough to run in 2020, she'll be a sideshow...assuming, of course, that the left can come up with a solid candidate to run against her instead of collapsing into a pile of infighting and apathy like it usually does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:And for all that backing, she still had quite a bit of trouble fending off Bernie, with plenty of establishment Dems (like Ellison and Wisniewski) backing him over Clinton. Sure, the Democratic leadership widely supported her...but that doesn't seem to help her much among the voters! If that is the best Clinton's "grip on the party" can do, I'm not too worried about the Iron Fist of Clinton sweeping aside charismatic, powerful campaigners in 2020. Even if she's stupid or insane enough to run in 2020, she'll be a sideshow...assuming, of course, that the left can come up with a solid candidate to run against her instead of collapsing into a pile of infighting and apathy like it usually does. It's clearly all she needed to ensure the primary went her way so she could lose against an orange clown in the presidential election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Tell me more about how transgender people are all autistic The Insect Court. First you tell me which admin revoked your probation for some reason. Main Paineframe posted:And for all that backing, she still had quite a bit of trouble fending off Bernie, with plenty of establishment Dems (like Ellison and Wisniewski) backing him over Clinton. Sure, the Democratic leadership widely supported her...but that doesn't seem to help her much among the voters! If that is the best Clinton's "grip on the party" can do, I'm not too worried about the Iron Fist of Clinton sweeping aside charismatic, powerful campaigners in 2020. Even if she's stupid or insane enough to run in 2020, she'll be a sideshow...assuming, of course, that the left can come up with a solid candidate to run against her instead of collapsing into a pile of infighting and apathy like it usually does. You've got an odd definition of "plenty" if you think Sanders had "plenty" of establishment support. Clinton's establishment support didn't help her amongst voters only if you presuppose party support plays no role whatsoever in voter preference formation, which is wholly at odds with the available evidence. Besides, if you take the position that Clinton's influence within the party has no tangible effect then why get so concerned over progressive's attempts to curtail it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
I'd like to hear what establishment support did Bernie have Mainpainframe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:And for all that backing, she still had quite a bit of trouble fending off Bernie, with plenty of establishment Dems (like Ellison and Wisniewski) backing him over Clinton. Sure, the Democratic leadership widely supported her...but that doesn't seem to help her much among the voters! If that is the best Clinton's "grip on the party" can do, I'm not too worried about the Iron Fist of Clinton sweeping aside charismatic, powerful campaigners in 2020. Even if she's stupid or insane enough to run in 2020, she'll be a sideshow...assuming, of course, that the left can come up with a solid candidate to run against her instead of collapsing into a pile of infighting and apathy like it usually does. Now I'm all for doing something about the latter, but I don't think it's something that's going to happen from within the Democratic party, and I don't think I'm alone in thinking that either, if the number of left-wing organizations existing entirely outside the DNC is anything to go by. Rather, the left will grow as a political force outside the Democratic party, until such time as it either swallows what's left of the Democratic party whole, or squashes it beneath its boot. Trying to take over the Democratic party with anything less than overwhelming organizational force is pointless - establishment centrists don't share power. Kilroy fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
She better just mean that she is going to go back to working on her charity or something. There's literally no reason for her to return to politics. I'm not saying that out of spite, but I just don't see what she can do to help when she's hated now by Republicans, leftists, and a good deal of independents who see her as corrupt due to successful Republican character assassination.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 12:49 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
Two days ago Donna Brazile admitted in a TIME magazine essay that she snuck town hall questions to Clinton, dredging up to the surface a months-old controversy from back when people on this forum were claiming that these allegations were probably false, because they were just rumors at the time. Naturally, the right-wing media is all over this again like flies on feces that somehow got dislodged from a muddy sea floor and floated back up to the surface. Brazile writes that her job was to make “all Democratic candidates look good", but I guess she forgot to sneak the questions to Bernie Sanders also because there were two candidates, and two is just too many to remember. Also, superdelegates still exist. galenanorth fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:Two days ago Donna Brazile admitted in a TIME magazine essay that she snuck town hall questions to Clinton, dredging up to the surface a months-old controversy from back when people on this forum were claiming that these allegations were probably false, because they were just rumors at the time. Naturally, the right-wing media is all over this again like flies on feces that somehow got dislodged from a muddy sea floor and floated back up to the surface. Brazile writes that her job was to make “all Democratic candidates look good", but I guess she forgot to sneak the questions to Bernie Sanders also because there were two candidates, and two is just too many to remember.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Yeah poo poo like that is exactly why the Democrats should have no more use for Hillary. Regardless of how "fair" it is, if she gets back into any sort of power within the party the media is going to laser focus on her and all of her scandals, legitimate or not and take away any momentum from people actually trying to get Democrats in elected positions. Trump will do something stupid and five minutes later the New York Times will be dredging up some ancient bullshit because the Republicans decided to start talking poo poo about her again. It doesn't help that she can't help but self own herself as well. I think it was Vitalsigns that said it right; the cheating almost certainly didn't matter which is what made it so stupid. She didn't gain anything from Brazile helping her, but she is so obsessed with this idea where she has to have the perfect answer (and was clearly rattled because she didn't think that she was actually going to have to participate in a real primary) that she opened herself up to validating the perception that she was crooked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
A huge self-own was not hashing out the email poo poo in the primaries. Who knows what happened behind the scenes but Bernie doing a full attack on it would have massively helped her in the long run. Instead she changed her story 10 times and never put the issue to bed. As I said a billion times during the election, it's truly stunning how bad she is at running for office. Without the clinton name she'd probably have probably been a warren type figure at best.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 15:36
|
|