The democrats are a waste

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed.
B	77	25.50%
K	160	52.98%
M	65	21.52%
Total:	229 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Yes, the Democrats are a waste, please continue to wallow in defeatism and apathy.

This post brought to you by the Republican National Committee. Trump 2020!

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 16:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 6, 2024 08:49

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Condiv posted:

https://ballotpedia.org/Jon_Ossoff

it's kinda worrying that the only race the DNC actually seems to care about involves a ceo former congressional-aide. are the dems only gonna help the people they happen to meet in D.C.?

That's the spirit! Find any excuse to complain!

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 19:08

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

JeffersonClay posted:

I can't see any reason why its any better to talk about Robbie Mook loving us over than Putin loving us over. Both diminish the argument that policy was the reason dems lost.

If you want to talk about how Democrats should change their policy going forward, I think you might be better off creating a separate thread for that. This thread seems to mainly be obsessed with hating Hillary.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2017 15:01

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

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)

I'd also factor the Katrina clusterfuck in there as well.

But the main point is, at least for Democrats, "the other guy is bad" only really works when things are really, really bad. (Republicans don't have that problem, since their media machine keeps them in a constant state of "Democrats are pure evil" 24/7.)

# ¿ Apr 19, 2017 17:35

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Feldegast42 posted:

I had this amazing idea the other day

Like, I'm about to blow your mind

What if we

I mean IF here

Pushed for Racial Justice WITH

Stick with me here

Economic Justice as well?

Its a pretty real fuckin crazy idea I know

Sorry, that idea is far too radical for the folks in this thread.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2017 20:00

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

So, leaving Booker aside for a moment - who would you guys support as a candidate in 2020?

# ¿ Apr 20, 2017 21:14

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

If being on the cover of Vogue signals a run for political office, than I for one am looking forward to President Zoolander.

# ¿ Apr 21, 2017 00:57

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Top story on HuffPo right now

quote:

Reminder To Progressives: Abortion Is An Economic Issue

Bernie Sanders traveled to Nebraska this week to throw his support behind Omaha Democratic mayoral candidate, Heath Mello, who is running against the incumbent Republican mayor, Jean Stothert. A Mello win, Sanders has said, would give hope to other �progressive Democrats� in conservative states.

But Mello�s �progressive� credentials are questionable at best. As a state senator, he co-sponsored a bill mandating that women have an ultrasound before they can have an abortion, saying it represented a �positive first step to reducing the number of abortions in Nebraska.�

As a populist, Sanders has built a political career protesting economic inequality� and yet by campaigning for Mello, he has demonstrated a willingness to separate economic justice from reproductive justice. (So has Democratic National Committee Chair, Tom Perez, who is also helping to campaign for Mello and who has defended that decision, saying the job of the DNC is to help Democratic candidates win.) But abortion access is not just a medical issue, or even a social one; it is, at its core, also an economic concern. Here�s why.

Unintended pregnancies place an enormous financial burden on women.

Raising children in the United States is expensive. Like, more than $230,000 per child (from birth to age 17) expensive. That includes food, transportation, housing, education (but not college), health care and child care. Oh, and daycare for babies is now more expensive than college tuition in most states.

Women in this country already face a well-documented motherhood financial penalty. Research shows, for example, that mothers are less likely to be hired for jobs and they are offered lower starting salaries when they are hired. (Men don�t appear to be similarly disadvantaged by becoming dads, and might actually benefit from it, career-wise.)

�Having a baby is the most expensive health event that families face during their childbearing years. At the same time, a lack of workplace supports for many women during this critical time means a woman may not have paid sick days for prenatal appointments or well-baby care, or paid family and medical leave to use after giving birth. Addressing all of these issues is central to achieving economic justice for women and families,� said Sarah Lipton-Lubet, vice president of the National Partnership for Women & Families.

Roughly 60 percent of women who have abortions are already mothers, which means they understand these factors not in some abstract way, but both deeply and personally. In fact, economic concerns are a major reason why women chose to end pregnancies. Estimates suggest that between 40 and 75 percent of women seeking abortions do so for financial reasons.

�The most common reason women give for wanting to terminate a pregnancy is that they feel that they cannot afford to have a baby or to have another baby,� Diana Greene Foster, director of research with the University of California San Francisco�s Advancing New Standards In Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) told The Huffington Post.

Low-income women are hit the hardest by unplanned pregnancies � and by policies that limit abortion access.

In the United States, roughly 5 percent of reproductive-age women have an unintended pregnancy each year, and those pregnancies disproportionately occur among low-income and poor women. In 2011, the unintended pregnancy rate among women living well below the federal poverty level ― around $18,000 for a family of three � was five times higher than women living well above the federal poverty line.

Low-income women also struggle to afford abortion, particularly because the Hyde Amendment has long restricted Medicaid coverage for abortion care. Research shows that in order to come up with the money necessary for the procedure, women are forced to forgo food for themselves and their children, to miss rent payments and to sell off personal items.

�When women are unable to get an abortion, they are more likely to be poor, less likely to work full time and more likely to receive public assistance,� Foster said. �And this has important consequences for their existing children and their ability to care for a new child.�

Also, because two-thirds of the unplanned births in this country are paid for by public insurance programs, namely Medicaid, unintended pregnancies weigh on the economy as well.

That means that any line separating reproductive rights from economic concerns is an imaginary one. True progressives would do well to remember that.

# ¿ Apr 21, 2017 19:52

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

fsif posted:

Based on his comments to NPR, seems unlikely.

https://twitter.com/scottdetrow/status/855179744731697156

Ugh, loving neoliberals and their excuses.

# ¿ Apr 21, 2017 23:20

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

shrike82 posted:

I can't wait for Chelsea's candidacy

https://twitter.com/mattbruenig/status/856002248798810113

So, this guy dug up a 16-year-old article just to poo poo on Chelsea Clinton for being all rah-rah pro-USA two months after 9/11?

I mean, christ, if you're so scared of a nonexistent Chelsea Clinton candidacy, at least come up with better attacks.

# ¿ Apr 23, 2017 06:50

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Wow, just look at all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in this thread over a single stupid loving speech. I don't think I've ever seen a group of people spend so much effort to justify their inaction and apathy.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2017 14:48

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

steinrokkan posted:

Agitation = apathy

Agitation that doesn't go beyond whining about Dems on a message board = apathy

# ¿ Apr 26, 2017 15:02

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Montana special election update:

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/859839910169202689

# ¿ May 3, 2017 19:40

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

VitalSigns posted:

Taunting evil people that you are going to punish them for doing evil things and take away their power to do yet more evil things isn't a sin

E: unless you mean it's bad 'optics' but it didn't seem to hurt the Republicans in 1993 when they sang about Democrats getting punished for raising taxes, and anyway "remember when I took away your healthcare, remember that when I hosed you over, well Democrats laughed at little ol me aren't they mean" would be an odd campaign ad for a Republican to run

If the 2016 election taught us anything, it's that voters care very very deeply about civility and proper decorum in politics.

# ¿ May 5, 2017 05:29

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Hey guys, maybe you could stop your pointless slapfighting with each other for a second and instead focus on how the Montana race just got a whole lot more interesting:

Rigel posted:

The Republican candidate in Montana was caught saying two different things to two different audiences on the same day, telling voters he's undecided about AHCA, while privately telling donors and lobbyists that AHCA is great.

https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/860615598899908610

# ¿ May 5, 2017 23:21

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Bad news for Gillibrand fans:

https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/861933576799084546

# ¿ May 9, 2017 18:18

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

https://twitter.com/nytgraphics/status/862799007457755136

# ¿ May 12, 2017 00:03

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Polygynous posted:

"nuh uh you love slavery"

great job thread, 2018 looking great

This thread is a mess.

This thread is a waste.

# ¿ May 13, 2017 04:49

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Nate Silver makes an interesting point about the upcoming Montana special election:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/866737544414859264

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/866737892202295296

# ¿ May 22, 2017 20:32

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Rodatose posted:

if the two main choices in the democratic primary were booker and The Zuck who would you pick

I'd go with Zuck, because I've always kinda wondered what living in a cyberpunk dystopia would be like

# ¿ May 29, 2017 05:08

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

# ¿ May 29, 2017 16:03

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Maggie Haberman gets it: the Dems lost 2016 in part because they moved too far to the left.

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/869755629820366849

# ¿ May 31, 2017 04:35

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Radish posted:

Maggie's just trying to get people to forget her poo poo level coverage of the campaign.

# ¿ May 31, 2017 14:39

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Reopening this thread was a mistake.

# ¿ Jun 7, 2017 02:19

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Call Me Charlie posted:

You need to show up for the primaries. The only way we're going to right this ship is by getting more people to care before the general so we can primary out the scum.

But why try to work and make things better, when I can just smugly post on the Internet about how the Dems don't deserve my vote instead?

# ¿ Jun 8, 2017 02:13

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

joepinetree posted:

Hot take from one of the leads in Clinton's 2008 campaign and former member of the Clinton and Cuomo administrations:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/09/jeremy-corbyn-west-nato-russia-215242

So just to make it clear, higher ups in both the Obama and Clinton campaigns have now come out strongly against Corbyn and in favor of May. Remember that the next time anyone tries to claim that the democratic establishment appeals to the right because of pragmatism as opposed to sincerely held beliefs.

It's a lovely opinion, but I'm not sure why you're holding up this guy, who apparently hasn't even been involved in U.S. politics for several years, as representative of the current Democratic party establishment.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2017 21:40

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

joepinetree posted:

I am holding him as representative of the current Democratic establishment because what he said is in line with the current Democratic establishment.

See also:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/08/labour-elected-jeremy-corbyn-maddest-person-in-room-bill-clinton
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/26/barack-obama-says-democrats-will-not-disintegrate-like-labour/

And, of course, anything that Obama's 2012 campaign manager, chairman of OFA and chairman of priorities USA Jim Messina has said while actually campaigning for Theresa May.

In a similar vein, this Jacobin article makes the case better than I have:

https://jacobinmag.com/2017/06/corbyn-jk-rowling-obama-blair-macron

I was curious about the Obama comments cited in that Telegraph article, so I went and checked out the actual transcript of the interview in question, and it looks like most of those negative quoted comments about Corbyn/Labour actually came from Axelrod, not Obama himself. The worst you could say is that Obama didn't contest Axelrod's premise about Labour not doing well, but then again, that was a pretty widely held perception at the time.

And as for Messina, well, he's a strategist, not a politician or maker or policy. It's a little weird to hold him up as representative of what Democrats in general believe.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2017 22:59

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

joepinetree posted:

You can't be serious. Messina is the current chair of Organizing for Action and was a co-chair of Priorities USA.
And you really have to make an effort to not read that interview as Obama clearly stating that Corbyn is too leftwing and unelectable:

*shrug* Okay, sure, feel free to believe that if it makes you feel better. I ain't gonna stop you.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2017 23:35

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Raskolnikov38 posted:

hillary 2020!

e: lmao

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/886643007914749955

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/886979367741607936

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/886979782289879042

# ¿ Jul 17, 2017 17:12

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Oh my god, you guys were right about Hillary - look at this nefarious stuff she's up to!

https://twitter.com/NatEnquirer/status/887731212349059075

# ¿ Jul 21, 2017 22:04

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

quote:

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Sunday promised a bolder economic message for the Democratic Party, including the potential for single-payer health care.

"We were too cautious, we were too namby-pamby," Schumer said on ABC's "This Week." "This is sharp, bold and will appeal to both the old Obama coalition, let's say the young lady who's just getting out of college, and the Democratic voters who deserted us for Trump, the blue-collar worker. Economics is our strength, and we are going to get at it."

The New York senator said the new Democratic agenda, set to be unveiled on Monday, would include proposals to "just go after these drug companies when they raise prices so egregiously and people can't afford these drugs" and a plan to "change the way companies can merge," mentioning the cable, airline and gas industries.

"How the heck did we let Exxon and Mobil merge?" he said. "And that was Democrats."

Democrats have searched for a new message since their loss to President Donald Trump in November, with public polling showing that most people don't know what Democrats stand for beyond opposition to the unpopular president. The left wing of the party, including many followers of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, has pushed for the party to adopt a more populist economic message, including single-payer health care.

Asked if single-payer was on the table, Schumer responded: "Sure."

"Many things are on the table. Medicare for people above 55 is on the table. A buy-in to Medicare is on the table. A buy-in to Medicaid is on the table," he said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/23/schumer-democrats-namby-pamby-240857

Sounds promising.

# ¿ Jul 23, 2017 16:56

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

https://twitter.com/ComfortablySmug/status/891309735110168577

# ¿ Jul 29, 2017 15:57

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Oh, you guys are gonna love this:

https://twitter.com/politico/status/892876700358520832

# ¿ Aug 2, 2017 23:49

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

https://twitter.com/JoePerticone/status/901205263788781568

https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/901071772199661568

# ¿ Aug 25, 2017 23:28

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

https://mobile.twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/901233201796055040

Just thought you guys should know

# ¿ Aug 26, 2017 01:57

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

VitalSigns posted:

"Thanks for coming to the White House, Joe. Now the public option: I made a promise to the American people, and I intend to keep it. It's non-negotiable, you can vote against it, but I need you to vote for cloture. The American people deserve an up-or-down vote, and they will get it one way or another. I will end the filibuster if I have to, I have the votes. And Joe, if I have to take the heat for that, I'm not stopping with the public option, I have a bill right here to nationalize the healthcare system. Americans are losing their jobs, if I give them free health care they will love it. Now I don't want to do that Joe, I want to respect the process. But I need you to meet me halfway on this, I won't let down the American people."

So are you guys just straight-up writing fan-fiction in this thread now or what

# ¿ Aug 26, 2017 02:37

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

Condiv posted:

yeah we're imagining what it'd be like if obama was actually a good president

Yeah, yeah, as though all he had to do was say the right words, and everything would magically fall into place

I mean, you basically sound like the mirror image of the Trump cultists who believed that Trump could just walk into Washington and fix everything with his Super Dealmaking Skills, but hey, whatever makes you feel good

# ¿ Aug 26, 2017 02:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 6, 2024 08:49

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

lol okay, whatevs

feel free to keep on having the same dumb pointless arguments over and over again if it makes you all feel better

laters

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Aug 26, 2017 03:27

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste