|
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 | ||
|
idk why you are assuming that the "berniecrats" are a majority of the democratic party, op. sanders supporters might be a significant portion of democrats, but the success of moderates within the party has not been invented out of whole cloth.Shbobdb posted:Was the Bernie campaign really a cult of personality though? The people who espouse that line of thinking also usually point of that he was incredibly little known outside of some hardcore leftists circles before the campaign. mainly, the dig is the result of bernie supporters being very vocal both during and after the primary. it's also been reinforced by some scattered polling that suggests that sanders supporters were less driven by ideology than by a dislike of partisan politics. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Mar 5, 2017 |
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
Condiv posted:cause the centrists have been hemorrhaging seats? cause very few people were actually excited for centrist supreme hillary as opposed to thought she was the safe choice/lesser evil? maybe i'm wrong and leftism is an extreme splinter of the party, but I'd like to see some hard evidence of that first, like a non-rigged primary i would probably blame the lack of attention on downballot seats, increased self-sorting, and the normal metronome of politics for the erosion of democratic support, not the party being insufficiently partisan. while democrats themselves have become somewhat more liberal, the number of people in the u.s. population self-identifying is only about 24%. some of the rhetoric i have seen from the far-left remind me a lot of the tea party and ted cruz, who believed that there was this mythical hidden majority that would embrace hardline conservatism if given the chance. so, i ask you: do you have any evidence to the contrary? what do you have to suggest that the democrats lost because of ideology and not lack of focus, changing districts, and 8 years as the incumbent party?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the tea party has been wildly successful compared to us and just saw their candidate elected. idk if i would classify donald trump as tea party. he certainly took some themes from the movement, but i don't associate him with the movement in the same way as someone like ted cruz. that said, only 32% of tea party backed candidates won in the 2010 general election and only a handful of gop incumbents lost their seats to tea party-supported candidates. many of those radicals ended up being so far outside the mainstream that they allowed the opposition to win what should have been easy races or became national embarrassments several years later. the tea party was most successful when it just riled up support for existing politicians who were able to rebrand themselves and, even then, the success is difficult to separate from the Koch Brothers' Red Map project. even if i accept your conception, you are going to need to explain how an outpouring of support for hard-right candidates proves the success of a far-left agenda. or why the democrats should embrace a strategy that, if successful, will leave them as rudderless and divided as the gop currently is QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Mar 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
hey, is this the foreign policy thread now? because I guarantee that very few people within the democratic party consider foreign policy to be their main priority. it's 2017 not 2006.Arri posted:What right does the US even have to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? We are literally the only country in the world that has used them, against a civilian populace no less, so I don't really see where we would have the moral authority to tell someone else no. iran, along with almost every country on earth, is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. they have promised not to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for access to nuclear energy technology and a promise that the p5 will eventually disarm. you can argue that the p5 has not held up its end of the bargain until recently, but, having ratified the npt, Iran has signaled that it will not develop nuclear weapons. also, it is loving crazy to let every country on earth pursue nuclear weapons. you do not want to open that pandora's box Chomskyan posted:Yeah, very simple and easy to understand. So you think the US should give up its nuclear weapons then? yes??? until recently, u.s. policy has been to promote disarmament where it can without compromising its own security. it is why we have those cool and good disarmament agreements with Russia every few years QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 12:41 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
that's a if you want, i can draw out a bunch of econ 101 style charts and explain the classical argument
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
does the constant heckling of clinton serve any non-masturbatory function? this is like the sixth thread that has descended into rage-induced fantasies about vast clintonian conspiracies and establishment subterfuge. tbqh, it makes me think that the problem was less ideological than personal. the democratic party could have run an identical candidate and avoided the bernie crowd's rage so long as the candidate's name was not "hillary clinton." tekz posted:gently caress the Democratic party: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/03/single-payer-dems-colo/ idk how this is a "gently caress the democratic party" story so much as a "private consulting firm accepts client" story QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
Condiv posted:it serves as a constant reminder of what a poo poo candidate she was who are you reminding? i think literally everyone on something awful dot com knows that d&d hates clinton the article you linked is interesting. i don't know if i can really make any conclusions because of the way the performance seems to be set up, but it's an interesting concept. it does seem to point to more personal issues than ideological ones, though. Tight Booty Shorts posted:How do we ensure she doesn't run again? both of new york's senators are well-established and have no interest in retiring. cuomo and de blasio will run for re-election. beyond a few clickbait articles, there's no indication that she is even thinking about 2020. even if she wanted to run for office again, which is doubtful considering her age and the current political mood, there's no place for her to run. if she is politically active at all, it will be in fundraising and organizing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 14:05
|
|