|
JeffersonClay posted:I've said this before, but the vast majority of Bernie supporters are great and democrats are lucky to have them. Very few are anywhere near as dumb and insufferable as you, and it's not cool to smear them with your image.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 04:12 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:Oh get hosed you poo poo-brained Blairite garbage person. It's easy to say "oh Bernie people are great" in the abstract, but if you: Well....... With the Neolibs yes, but that's because they shouldn't be in the party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well....... To the extent they use party machinations and underhanded tactics to maintain control (which you'll note is to quite a great extent right now), yeah we'll have to respond in kind and get our hands dirty. The Democratic center-right needs to be defeated at all costs, but for the most part as soon as you can force them to meet on even ground you've already halfway won the battle, and that includes debates, on ideology or strategy. They have no actual good ideas to call their own, excepting perhaps their skill at co-opting other factions within their party like the parasites they are, where they are definitely best-in-class. But, should the day come where the Democrats are a left-wing political party, I wouldn't want the leadership turn to the same strategy for control now utilized by the current party establishment and condoned by the likes of JeffersonClay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
I'm fine with giving neolibs a place at the table as long as they sit down, shut up and vote D while getting none of their agenda presented (let alone passed) at the national level. If they want to try something cute like "Fight for 15(% capital gains tax)" in Houston or something we can throw their cute candidate a bone and give them some national coverage for cred. But that poo poo ain't gonna fly anywhere else. Our presidential candidate will happily address their concerns with, "How about 60%?" as a reasonable compromise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
I mean it's a moot point anyway as they'll all cross over to the GOP where they loving belong. Maybe they can be a moderating influence there. Good riddance, at any rate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
I don't mind the democratic party having a diversity of ideology in it, so long as that's tied to the strategy- if you have to take more conservative stances to win in redder states, that's fine. I do have a problem with democrats in states like California and New York taking neolib stances. There's no tactical purpose to it. That being said, the standard DLC type centrist position is not a winner in red states, either. It's just an electoral loser all around the map that can only win in blue strongholds where there's really not much choice in the matter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Oh get hosed you poo poo-brained Blairite garbage person. It's easy to say "oh Bernie people are great" in the abstract, but if you: That got trump elected. This is a strategy thread so it seems reasonable to me. Actually the play is for the dems to pull a few pieces they already like from Bernie and run with them in a populist tone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:That got trump elected. This is a strategy thread so it seems reasonable to me. it seems reasonable to you to copy trump's lying? no wonder the dems are so unpopular right now
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
there's one dem who's popular right now tho he doesn't have to lie about his policies to gain support, and the fact that he doesn't makes people love him all the more
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Actually the play is for the dems to pull a few pieces they already like from Bernie and run with them in a populist tone. Several Dem senators already failed to vote for Bernie's drug bill. Dems are already failing to endorse Medicare For All. They haven't made a peep about Trump's Goldman Sachs picks. Where's the strategy? Where's the leadership? Bernie is pushing progressive policies left and right, and getting lauded for it. Where's Tom Perez? Or Pelosi? Or Schumer? Where the gently caress is Obama? Dems have a year to get their poo poo together and their fumbling about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Their idea of strategy is staying out of the lime light and letting Trump hang himself (because on economics Democrats and Republicans are 95% the same) and waltz back into power in 2022 and 2024 just like they did back under Bush because all the plebs will cone crawling back to them after 8 years of ruin again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship. Ending racial profiling. And a bunch of others. This actually happened. Meanwhile, in observable reality, Hillary Clinton proudly refused to campaign on any of them. Hillary Clinton's campaign, by any objective metric, was a campaign dedicated to the solemn principle that Donald Trump is Bad. It succeeded in convincing America Donald Trump was bad! It also succeeded in making Donald Trump President of the United States, because a politician being Bad is not and never has been a dealbreaker for the American voter. JeffersonClay's Anti-Trump Strategy, in its entirety, consists of "continue to say Trump is Bad." Why anyone should believe this would work when it failed so abjectly the first time is left as an exercise for the reader.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I don't mind the democratic party having a diversity of ideology in it, so long as that's tied to the strategy- if you have to take more conservative stances to win in redder states, that's fine. Just a reminder: this is how we get blue dogs. Like I agree with you and I don't really see any way around it but we're going to have to deal with the fact that the most conservative Democrats are more conservative than the most liberal Republican is liberal. A coalition with centrist Dems leads to compromised legislation like the ACA. quote:I do have a problem with democrats in states like California and New York taking neolib stances. There's no tactical purpose to it. This, god, yes. Why the gently caress does my state have FEINSTEIN of all people? Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Great Metal Jesus posted:This, god, yes. Why the gently caress does my state have FEINSTEIN of all people? Jesus Christ. Hasn't Feinstein been in Congress since like the i want to say 90s, maybe even 80s. The power of incumbency I guess
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Great Metal Jesus posted:This, god, yes. Why the gently caress does my state have FEINSTEIN of all people? Jesus Christ. Real simple dynamic: when you don't have to worry about reelection, you can safely stop worrying about having to represent your constituents, and get right to doing whatever is most convenient for you, personally. It turns out that when you free rich-people to pursue their own self-interest it doesn't turn out too great for the little people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
here's an anti-trump strategy don't threaten to put this guy out of a job, but promise him new, better jobs https://s1.webmshare.com/VnRwj.webm don't let rust belters desperate for work get preyed upon by republicans! we're the party of the working man, not them!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
What if we just accused them of racism and sexism instead? Then they'll have to vote for us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
E: wrong thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:What if we just accused them of racism and sexism instead? It is good to see you agreeing with JeffersonClay, that the problem with Hillary's campaign was that it was too outspoken against racism and sexism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:It is good to see you agreeing with JeffersonClay, that the problem with Hillary's campaign was that it was too outspoken against racism and sexism. It's Insanely Cool that milquetoast democrats are using our minority issues to attempt to shame people who have real grievances with the party into voting for them. I'm glad we have such wonderful defenders looking out for us, btw how many democrats are pushing for free Truvada and PreP in HIV-risk cities?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I absolutely think democrats should study Bernie as part of our strategy moving forward. And I'm implicitly addressing the second point all the time. It's not useful to suggest strategies like democrats should put all the bankers in a food processor, or democrats should propose 95% taxes, because democrats will never be convinced to do those things. They're motivated to change because this is an existential crisis, but you're never going to sell that strategy to them. It needs to be something that looks plausible to them. This post is a lesson in obfuscation. JeffersonClay says he likes Bernie's strategy, but doesn't explain why the DNC won't adopt it. I am arguing we should adopt Bernie's policies, JC is arguing against straw man policies that nobody has ever suggested. The DNC are clearly not motivated to change. They voted against change when they voted against Ellison. They know what change they need to make because they know what policies are popular. They won't make that change because they are fundamentally disconnected from their voting base. Which is why DNC must be purged.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Just as long as we all agree that the Dems should do anything and everything to get elected as long as it doesn't rock the boat too much and doesn't offend members from the donor class. Not like Bernie, who did it all wrong. What a schlub. Why have a million people give you an average of $25 when you could have ten people just give you $2.5 million each. We've got a country to run. Politicians spending time looking for donations is why we can't get anything done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:That got trump elected. This is a strategy thread so it seems reasonable to me. Im not so sure Trump's lies got him elected as much as Clinton's utter failure to present an alternative. Trump at least showed up to motivate his base and lie to them in person, which indicated he thought they were important enough to be worth lying to. Clinton spent her time at fundraisers instead and really only had one coherent campaign message: Trump bad. 'I will look under your bed for the boogeymen who are stealing your jobs' turned out to be a more reassuring message to his base than 'TRUMP REAL BAD' was to Clintons. Plus the message 'CLINTON REAL BAD' was a freebie already instilled into the voting populace for two decades that Clinton did absolutely nothing to counter and decided to compound repeatedly. Any anti-Trump strategy needs to focus on field work, with candidates actually going out to pancake breakfasts, union halls, town halls, public appearances in general and needs to focus on selling a basic message of 'I am listening to your concerns'. You need personable candidates presenting those messages and making impressions that will stick with voters, and then those voters will tell other voters about their experiences. So basically, in a repeat of 2016, the Democratic Party should follow Bernie Sanders' lead. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It's Insanely Cool that milquetoast democrats are using our minority issues to attempt to shame people who have real grievances with the party into voting for them. I'm glad we have such wonderful defenders looking out for us, btw how many democrats are pushing for free Truvada and PreP in HIV-risk cities? Agreed. Hillary Clinton's campaign didn't give two shits about the disenfranchised, and where they threw their money to try to convince the American people she should be voted for quantifiably demonstrates that. That idiots like JeffersonClay and Shbobdb see this and somehow reach the conclusion "we gotta stop treating racism and sexism as bad things, that's why we lost" points to a truly fascinating understanding of minorities as nothing more than a rhetorical cudgel to beat up on opponents with, to be discarded at the first hint of political inconvenience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Why anyone should believe this would work when it failed so abjectly the first time is left as an exercise for the reader. It's because neolibs literally believe that they are owed the reins of government by divine providence and hence are unable to acknowledge their own mistakes when they lose, which by extension makes it kinda hard for them to formulate any actual strategic thought.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it seems reasonable to you to copy trump's lying? no wonder the dems are so unpopular right now I think his point is that the lying is not necessarily a barrier to getting elected, and 241 years of American history do seem to back him up on that. That doesn't mean that failing to live up to promises is a good thing, and I'm sure it helped fuel the "throw the bums out" mentality against the Dems in '16, but still. Not as much of a disqualifier as it should be. Great Metal Jesus posted:Just a reminder: this is how we get blue dogs. Like I agree with you and I don't really see any way around it but we're going to have to deal with the fact that the most conservative Democrats are more conservative than the most liberal Republican is liberal. A coalition with centrist Dems leads to compromised legislation like the ACA.  Even so, though, that's why there need to be progressive firebrands out of solid blue states, to just bulldoze over the Manchins and McCaskills. Having effective party whips gives them the out of, "Welp, I'd like to take a more moderate stance towards this issue, but these ultra-lefties just won't let me, so...gotta go with my party!" It works for the Republicans, and I don't see why it couldn't work for the Dems as well.Cerebral Bore posted:It's because neolibs literally believe that they are owed the reins of government by divine providence and hence are unable to acknowledge their own mistakes when they lose, which by extension makes it kinda hard for them to formulate any actual strategic thought. As someone else pointed out in another thread (I forgot who it was or what thread it was, sorry!), it probably doesn't help that a couple full generations of Americans were scared away from left-wing political rhetoric by the Cold War. "Socialism" is still a dirty word for a lot of the country, and that makes it hard to run a campaign that's anything to the left of Sanders, unfortunately. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Trump isn't a stand-in for "Generic Republican". He's too much of his own brand. So, attacking Trump won't do much to discredit Republican Governors, Representatives, or Senators. And those are the people the Democrats actually need to defeat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
the thing about trump is yes he is dangerous but he's a flash in the pan. people like him come rarely and leave quickly. its jeffersonclay and his neoliberal centrist ilk who we need to really worry about: like potholes, they stay forever until somebody gets rid of them
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
While in Trump's case it's lying, but to most voters it's not lying if you at least try. Before Obamas recent attempt to cripple his legacy most of the dem base thought he at least tried with being left leaning and getting UHC passed, and as a result nobody was really going "you loving liar!!!". It's only recently that more voters are souring because he's more visibly getting in the way of progress. Trump's lying isn't sustainable for party support, but Actually Trying absolves a president significantly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Democrats don't have the central coordination they'd need to run a full-out Anti-Trump strategy. The right way is to focus on 1 or 2 scandals at a time. That's what the Republicans did to Hillary. Bengazi. Emails. Etc. The wrong way is to have 10,000 bloggers, reporters and politicians each searching for their own angle on "Trump Bad!" Maybe the first 100 scandals are serious and worthwhile. Eventually you're going to have people reporting that "The President has some thoughts about Snoop Dogg" Everyone's incentive to make a name for themselves, combined with limited story space, is going to turn the whole project into a mess of white noise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Oh get hosed you poo poo-brained Blairite garbage person. It's easy to say "oh Bernie people are great" in the abstract, but if you: Again: quote:why don't you quote them instead of constructing some strange avatar of your broke brained persecution complex? Ze Pollack posted:That idiots like JeffersonClay and Shbobdb see this and somehow reach the conclusion "we gotta stop treating racism and sexism as bad things, that's why we lost" points to a truly fascinating understanding of minorities as nothing more than a rhetorical cudgel to beat up on opponents with, to be discarded at the first hint of political inconvenience. Again: quote:deliberate misreading is the last refuge of the shitposter And again: quote:But these aren't just policy issues-- they're cultural issues as well. And Clinton made a strong case that having a racist sexist islamophobe as the head of state would be incompatible with a culture that respected those values. A lot of her anti-trump advertising was framed around what kids would think, learn, and emulate with a racist president, and that was contrasted with the positive symbolism of electing a woman who would vigorously defend cultural values of diversity. That's what "Stronger Together" was about. You can't promote diversity with policy alone. The Kingfish posted:This post is a lesson in obfuscation. JeffersonClay says he likes Bernie's strategy, but doesn't explain why the DNC won't adopt it. I am arguing we should adopt Bernie's policies, JC is arguing against straw man policies that nobody has ever suggested. The DNC are clearly not motivated to change. They voted against change when they voted against Ellison. They know what change they need to make because they know what policies are popular. They won't make that change because they are fundamentally disconnected from their voting base. Are you misusing "the DNC" here to mean elected democrats generally? Because any plan that requires replacing bad democrats is going to take multiple election cycles to work, and we need to resist trump now, not in four years. Feel free to make a thread about your plans to purge the DNC (whatever you think that means). Again: quote:If your contribution is "Dems are dum they'll never do anything good", OK, noted, thanks for visiting. I'm going to entertain my fantasies where we are not doomed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
You ignored the actual point of my post. Democrats already know the anti-Trump strategy but are to friendly with special interests to follow that strategy. So the real question is: how can we get Democrats to adopt the Anti-Trump strategy? E: When I say purge the DNC I am talking about replacing the current members of that institution with leftists. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:the thing about trump is yes he is dangerous but he's a flash in the pan. people like him come rarely and leave quickly. its jeffersonclay and his neoliberal centrist ilk who we need to really worry about : like potholes, they stay forever until somebody gets rid of them Dismissing Trump as a flash in the pan seems more than a little foolhardy, especially given that several European countries now have openly fascist movements that make his brand of white nationalism almost quaint by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Great Metal Jesus posted:Just a reminder: this is how we get blue dogs. Like I agree with you and I don't really see any way around it but we're going to have to deal with the fact that the most conservative Democrats are more conservative than the most liberal Republican is liberal. A coalition with centrist Dems leads to compromised legislation like the ACA. We just have to keep in mind that there's a difference between people like Bernie willing to realize that major gun control is a loser in his local area or Alan Grayson becoming the most effective member of the House by framing his amendments with a libertarian slant and a guy like Patrick Murphy who's basically a Republican that will occasionally show some party discipline when pushed by the DNC Third Way shouldn't be accepted in the party anymore but expecting to win in a conservative area without framing our ideals in a way to make it palatable for those voters is also a bad idea. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You can't promote diversity with policy alone. As a reminder, this is JeffersonClay's excuse for why Hillary Clinton did not campaign on any policies designed to promote or even preserve diversity, in favor of instead whining to suburban republicans about how Donald Trump is Bad. He also is on record as saying the problem with Hillary's campaign was its overemphasis on pluralism. Hillary Clinton offered the disenfranchised nothing and he believes that was too much to offer them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
I'm starting to realize that JC's gimmick pretty much requires Effectronica's shitposting to make him look cerebral by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Re: Lying, I think there is a fundamental difference between "saying you'll implement policies you know the other party will stop you from implementing" and "saying you'll implement policies you have no intention of implementing." The first set is fine, even necessary in cases like now, where Republicans control everything. The second will kill your electoral chances unless you're a really good* salesman. *"Really good" being relative of course, as conservative voters will buy anything and liberal voters don't so much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:As a reminder, this is JeffersonClay's excuse for why Hillary Clinton did not campaign on any policies designed to promote or even preserve diversity, in favor of instead whining to suburban republicans about how Donald Trump is Bad. Your problem is the primary broke your brain. You refuse to engage with the substance of any of the arguments and you continue to spew out patently absurd bernout diarrhea. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to disabuse you of your lovely opinions or bother explaining myself in progressively simpler terms until we happen upon something at your cognitive level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Your problem is the primary broke your brain. You refuse to engage with the substance of any of the arguments and you continue to spew out patently absurd bernout diarrhea. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to disabuse you of your lovely opinions or bother explaining myself in progressively simpler terms until we happen upon something at your cognitive level. You are absolved, my son. Say thirty "Want a selfie?"s and you will be able to wipe your thoughts clean of absurd bernout diarrhea. Like "if you offer people nothing, they will return the favor."
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 04:12 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Again: So I'm done trying to reason with you, as you've absolutely proven yourself impervious to it. You've decided for yourself what needs to be done first, made up whatever tortured reasoning to justify it to yourself second, and posted worthless threads like this one to jerk yourself off over your own ideas and poo poo on anyone else's, third. Now I'm just here to remind everyone you're a worthless shill who sold his soul to his DNC overlords, for what benefit I can not say. To make sure no one forgets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:27
|
|