|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
mcmagic posted:Jamie Raskin is cool and good. Raskin is cool and good, and also shows how you don't need to campaign everywhere to get a majority, given how the Republicans barely contested the open seat he won
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:A big difference that people tend to forget is that Bush only tried to privatize social security after 2004. That was a big, big deal people have forgotten and that did a number on Republican support because, like the AHCA, it was so unpopular it never even got a vote. Kerry wasn't able to run on that. also Iraq popularity started sliding in late 2005
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Condiv posted:this is why i'm angry. you say it's ok and they learned their lesson this time, i say they should've learned this lesson after trump's election. hopefully they actually learned something and fund quist. otherwise i hope you'll be there howling for blood with me. so you're saying Hillary should have spent more time campaigning in Kansas?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Probably worth DNC spending on KS race if only as outreach even if doomed effort
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Gonna be real funny when Dems take the House in 2018
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:^^^ But you're (or rather Democrats in general) not powerless to change it. Maybe you can't change the result in the next few elections, but you can still gradually influence some of the people in those areas. And it's not like conservatives don't live in blue states; we're often talking about maybe a 10-20% difference between a state being solid blue and solid red. Yeah but then you get young liberals who move out for college and never go back because they're still dying hellholes at the end of the day
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
State parties should be empowered, unless it's Virginia, in which case we should let Obama ex-staffers just parachute in their preferred candidate
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Uhhhhh...not sure you want to be using Virginia as an example, when their governor is Clinton's bff and '08 campaign chair. The rest of the party isn't tho and they lined up just as hard
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
The one endorsed by Obama staffers and Sanders, not the one endorsed by every state party official
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think it's a lot more complex than that. In many (probably most) cases politicians aren't voting in ways that benefit corporate interests only because said interests gave them money. There's also the problem that politicians generally get most of their information from said interests. An example is politicians getting information on finance and how to write financial legislation from current or past employees/executives in the financial sector. At the end of the day, it's difficult for people outside of those "wealthy urban professionals" circles to access and influence politicians, even if you remove money from the picture. There's also an inherent issue where most people with expertise in (for example) the financial services industry probably will have experience working there, so you end up with a situation where the most knowledgeable people are most knowledgeable because they're heavily invested in a particular industry. It's also hard for people outside the professional class to propose meaningful regulation on the financial sector. Warren might not be a banker, but she's first became a law professor 40 years ago, for instance. And that's still a limited world.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
honestly, strategy for 2020:
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/thegarance/status/854516218782507010
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:It's amazing, people are finally dying to vote D and the Democratic party is doing it's best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/854515040971522049 https://twitter.com/BradOnMessage/status/854515408854016000
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Turns out "the other guy is bad" doesn't work as well when your own policy has the strength of a wet fart or "the other guy is bad" works better against an incumbent than a non-
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:there was a strong push, from the White House and Republicans in Congress, to privatize social security, the "strong push" lasted from january to may, 2005.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:And Bush promised in 2006 that reviving that effort would be a major objective of his last two years in office. The Democrats successfully ran on it, and took Congress because of how stupid a move it was. sure, but Congress had bailed the year before because they realized they had to get reelected (I still think it was more the unpopularity of the war)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
It's not "economic leftism" that can't be trusted but "economic populism", and the two terms aren't interchangeable
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
I mean keeping in mind that FDR had left opposition, both from socialists and also "mainstream" politicians like Long
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
call to action posted:Hillary would never do something like found the EPA The creation of the EPA didn't expand the regulatory power of the federal government - it didn't create any new enforcement mechanisms or substantive legislation - it was a reorganization. Clean Air Act was almost a full decade before the EPA, for instance, and was implemented by the precursor to HHS
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It was a criticism that Clinton left herself incredibly open to, and you're deluded if you think Trump wouldn't have made the same criticisms of Clinton if Sanders hadn't. sure, but the person making the criticism matters
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:What views of Chelsea Clinton's do you take issue with? What views has Chelsea Clinton?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
How could Bernie Sanders, the most popular politician, get fewer votes than Hillary, who nobody likes other than the feckless DNC, which has proven themselves to be incapable of winning elections?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
I don't think that the war chest made a difference given how many states Sanders outspent in only to lose
WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Because it pisses you off so much
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
I mean I still have the same problem today with Bernie that I did during the primaries, namely a a dumb idea of how political change actually gets enacted. The "I'm gonna show up to Mitch McConnell's door with a million pissed off people" strikes me as the same kinda dumb bullshit as Lessig's mandate, or Obama's "the fever's gonna break in 2012". The necessary first step is beating Republicans, and it's why his answer has gotta be "then we'll get rid of him next election", and why it's important to elect Mello and Ossoff etc. Of course, there's then "how you win", which is why I joined DSA after Hillary proved that the status quo is a loser for Democrats
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Yes, we know Democrats are poo poo. What's unfortunate is that they'd rather lose to Donald Trump than let Bernie Sanders make the country a better place. Sanders wouldn't have done poo poo, he would've been another Carter. But then again at least Carter won
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That wouldn't have happened. It would have triggered a revolt among her supporters, who were more numerous than Sanders' in any case. It would have guaranteed a loss. I think Mello's 180 come to Jesus statement is enough
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Because Clinton's supporters actually liked her and having the DNC do to her far worse than anything what they've been accused to doing to Bernie would not engender good feelings towards either the DNC or the candidate on whose behalf the DNC intervened, christ
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Carter was a fiscal conservative who stopped Ted Kennedy from passing UHC and guaranteed government employment. Bernie would have been like Corbyn. Sure, more the "one term president without any working relationship with Congressional leadership", because 2016, even had Sanders won, would not have been a Sanderista downticket wave but at best a Clintonista downticket wave because he didn't have a movement going into the election like he does coming out of it
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What was that? I missed it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...=APPLENEWS00001 Can't find the full statement (probably press release), but here's a celebrity: https://twitter.com/SarahKSilverman/status/855229317739143168
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, I'm relieved to hear that. I hope it's good enough for other Dems. (probably won't be though) It's good enough for me. I'd prefer a lifelong pro-choicer, but I'm happy to embrace converts.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
I'm so angry at the DNC rigging elections!!! They should have rigged the election!!!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, seriously, everyone here needs to read Tom Frank's List, Liberal, if you haven't already. It spells out exactly how unions lost their leadership position in the Democratic Party, and how that affected its trajectory so severely after 1972. http://bostonreview.net/politics/erik-loomis-democrats-and-labor-frenemies-forever Unions never had a leadership position; at best they were junior partners.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Oddly union power subsided at the same time as membership but I think that you and I would take opposing views on cause and effect
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Like there was never a golden era of labor power: it just used to be less lovely
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Name recognition and association with the 90's was a HUGE factor (and is probably a very big reason why Clinton's support was so much higher among older Americans). Almost certainly a much bigger factor than money spent. Most voters aren't exactly that intelligent or informed, so for many people their only thought was "the 90's were a good time for me. Clinton is clearly associated with her husband, who was president during the 90's, so maybe if I vote for her she'll do whatever Bill Clinton did that made the 90's good." Democrats kneecapped labor far earlier with overriding the veto of Taft-Hartley
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This is basically at the core of most liberals who spend most of their effort antagonizing leftists. It was never about some desire to actually make things better; it's because, as long as a non-zero number of dumb leftists exist, they simply cannot repress the urge to express their disgust for people who are (in their minds, at least) so much less intelligent and pragmatic than they are. I mean I think calling social democracy leftism is really selling leftism short, I think the structural barriers to actually enacting leftist policies that are baked into the Constitution are possibly insurmountable within the next few generations, and this is also Just Posts. Nobody thought that France became less French with the collapse of the Fourth Republic, but leftists really don't think much about how to replace our Madisonian federalism
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
And also lol at "you liberals." I'm a firm believer that the choice of the future is socialism or barbarism. I supported Hillary as a status quo to hopefully buy time to create a mass movement for socialism before barbarism came, but a) I was wrong about her electability and b) I was wrong as to the timeframe of when the barbarism would hit; I didn't and don't see Bernie's campaign as either a) a mass movement or b) socialist. I mean I joined DSA post-election, specifically because it is looking to do the former, and arguably the latter (soc dem vs. demsoc, etc. etc.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's more of a commentary on where the Overton Window sits in America than anything. I don't think that that form of welfare liberalism goes anywhere near far enough in combatting income inequality.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:My state went blue and always was going to. I said as much in the third party thread. If you live in a swing state that's a different story. said a few thousand rust belt voters
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 05:47
|
|