|
Sorus posted:O'Malley would have won. Mike O'Malley is the blue collar candidate we need.
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
theCalamity posted:Is it alright to post this here: Hmmm, I see...*doubles down on recruiting white Republican Never-Trumpers from the suburbs*
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:it's still loving insane that americans have people trying to conjure up some fantasy where you guys getting public healthcare is bad lol It's even more nauseating that a lot of self-described Democrats put so much energy into doing exactly this. (e: to preemptively clarify, I'm talking more about people who just concern troll every proposed solution to the problem, not people who think there are better routes to public healthcare than single payer) Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Sep 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Everyone who has ever used the "Bernie's not even a Democrat!!!" line to discredit him or the left is a dumb-dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If Bernie is the best we can do in 2020 we are so hosed. He'd probably beat Trump pretty handily. But there are probably better candidates for 2020, even from a leftist position.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Condiv posted:not yet there aren't Nope, but ya know, three years. Trabisnikof posted:I am nowhere near as confident as you that 2020 will be so easy. Even the theoretically perfect candidate will likely only be able to achieve a squeaker. If we were talking about Congressional elections, you'd have a point. With Trump, even a semi-competent candidate should be able to capitalize on how little he will have accomplished for his 2016 voters by then. Turnout's gonna be low for him, unless we run another extremely divisive candidate.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah "should" if the American voters and our media cared about that poo poo. If their lives don't materially improve, a big chunk of them aren't going to turn out for him. They don't need to vote for the Democrats for Trump to lose.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm not as confident in the people who voted Trump deciding to vote based on that sort of calculus. I mean, it doesn't need to be true of 100% of his voters for it to keep him from winning. The dumbass won by 80,000 votes. You're right that a lot of people voted for him as a "gently caress your bitches," but that's not gonna be enough people to win him another election.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Futuresight posted:Does Nina Turner have a shot? Probably not for 2020, IMO, as much as I love her. She's "only" a former state senator, and while that's quite literally infinitely more political experience than Trump had before 2015, it's a negative in the Democratic primaries. Plus she's a woman of color, and as you may have noticed, this country has a bit of, as the French say, Le Petit Misogynoir. Also she's a WOC who supported Sanders, so it's erasure time! Trabisnikof posted:Sure but how many thousands or millions will be disenfranchised through voter suppression in 2020? How will any new wars impact voter apathy or turnout? Voter disenfranchisement's going to be worse than ever, but it's also not exactly a new thing. It's something that a lot of people on the left are figuring out ways to minimize and combat, where possible. I'm not sure there's a way out of Trump never having accomplished anything of value for his constituents. I don't think disenfranchisement will manage to offset the number of voters he's going to have lost by not ponying up on any of his promises. This was supposed to be a change candidate. You think voters in the states that swung from blue to red were disillusioned with Obama? Just wait until 2020. As for new wars, those don't always help an incumbent running for reelection. Obama's intervention in Libya certainly didn't help him. It's particularly a bad idea if it looks like a frivolous adventure, when a president has promised to focus on bringing back American manufacturing jobs, revitalize coal mining in Appalachia, and have a genuinely positive impact on his voters' lives. He's not going to be able to accomplish any of those things, and if he gets more involved in Syria, or starts something with North Korea that's unprovoked, it's not gonna look good on him Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Sep 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I really can't think of anyone who could become prominent enough by 2020. Even someone like Ellison strikes me more as just a left-liberal, and while that definitely makes him better than the vast majority of Democrats (and I'd vote for him against almost any other Democrat), it's still not quite the same thing. I mean, it honestly depends on what people like Brown, Warren, etc, do in the next couple years (yes, my fellow lefties, I know Warren met with a banker recently, no, I'm not happy about it, and no, I don't think it should disqualify her in and of itself). "Better than Sanders, even from a leftist position" was definitely an overstatement on my part. But I wouldn't discount the possibility of someone getting close to Sanders on populist issues, while being younger than him, female, and/or a person of color. And Ellison may be a left-liberal, but I don't think there's quite as much ground separating him and Sanders as you're suggesting. Sanders may be a democratic socialist at heart, but I don't think the agenda he's promoted so far has been that different from a standard social democratic one.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think a mayor, statewide elected official or even an on-the-streets activist could win the Democratic Primary in 2020 if they both a compelling vision and good organizational cadre. There's truth to this, but after Trump, the drive among voters to return competency to the White House is going to be pretty big, IMO. Being able to balance political experience with seeming "in touch with THE PEOPLE (tm)" will probably be necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:People with non life-threatening illnesses having to wait longer is considered too high a price by some Americans. That some efficiency is lost so that all citizens are covered is the price accepted by most nations. In America that same compromise is spoken with contempt and disgust. It's a perversion of the "individual as king" culture. Because the individual is king then anything involving a collective becomes automatically bad with no actual debate or thought. And, of course, that inefficiency is a fairly easy thing to rectify, ie: by adequately funding the public health system. But, of course, eek, muh taxes, can't do that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Strap in and stockpile plenty of alcohol to get through 2020 if we nominate Booker or Gillibrand or Harris though. Yeah, Booker especially. "Used car salesman vs. used car salesman."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:doesn't she support payday loans or some poo poo? That was DWS, who really is awful. e: I doubt she wrote this memo, but this is the sort of awful Democratic strategy that I associate with her: 
Majorian fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Sep 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:More like Guy who saves people from burning buildings vs White Supremacist who grabs women's vaginas without their consent. Oh, I'm not denying that, believe me. In terms of karma, Corey Booker's a hell of a lot closer to the positive side of the spectrum than Donald J. "Literal rapist, unapologetic white supremacist, and huckster to the core" Trump. But Booker's got an authenticity problem among the Democratic base, and not entirely unfairly. He comes off as an opportunist, and a lot of his voting record lends credence to that. Koalas March posted:Payday loan offices are loving evil and often lure in the poorest and most vulnerable with the promise of FREE MONEY NOW! And almost always lands them in more debt. drat fine piece. Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Sep 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:https://twitter.com/Marketplace/status/913422360526671873 Tbf I like La Croix and I'm far from a Hillbot. Oh poo poo, did I just trigger a Thunderdome throwdown?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Aren't you white and well off? It is catnip to those folks. I'm definitely white, but I wouldn't call myself well-off - I work for a charity and don't have a trust fund. Still, yeah, pretty firmly in the La Croix demo. Standard disclaimer: I don't actually like the stuff, but it keeps me from drinking soda, which is always the number 1 priority for any middle class white dude.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:This is a weirdly specific thing to deny. I didn't know what metrics for "well-off" we were using. I'm definitely not rich; my income's in the five-figures range. Nevvy Z posted:I think he was just saying "my ancestors weren't rich" Some of them were, but the dumbasses blew it all. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:not sure if duckworth is running but i think if we hold her feet to the fire we can get her to march left and stand up for real progress  I'm not writing her off as of yet, although I'm annoyed that she's not getting onboard already, because honestly what the gently caress.e: hahaha, I initially said "jumping onboard" because holy poo poo I'm tired. Majorian fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Sep 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Dude Wow, that's some "PHRASING!" on my part. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Condiv posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/grandoftwo/status/913628551043325952?ref_src=tw I'm honestly flummoxed by petty and vindictive anti-Sanders poo poo like this. I'm not trying to lure anybody into a dogpile or anything, but do any Clinton supporters here think this is fair? Since the election (and really, since the end of the primary), Sanders has been nothing but constructive in how he's interacted with the Democratic Party. He's not the one relitigating 2016.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:also it should be pointed out every time someone posts some stupid poo poo from sally albright- she's a republican campaign staffer who worked for newt gingrich and haley barbour Oh, but she's so much more than that, my friend. She is execrable on all levels. (and also, apparently a "rock and roll girl")
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Adlai Stevenson posted:That's fine, but starting with the 80s means you miss a lot of context that goes towards understanding why the Democrats currently are what they are. A good rundown of this can be found here. It really is a must-read before anybody enters into these discussions.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Can't name anything can you? The big problem with Obama wasn't that he dismantled the Great Society; rather, it had already largely been dismantled by his predecessors, and he didn't do enough to put it back together. Read the Atlantic piece that I just posted; it provides some good history.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That article is interesting in that it argues that we should have been more forgiving of former supporters of segregation and of the Vietnam war so long as they're also economic populists. Where does it argue this? Post a quote.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Did you read the article at all? I did - evidently a little more carefully than you did. None of what you posted said we should "forgive" Patman for supporting segregation or Vietnam. quote:The article's premise is that the removal of Patman from Banking was one of the mistakes that led towards the pro-banking era of the Democratic party. The article's premise is actually that removing Patman signaled a turning away from left-wing economic populism. The change in policy and emphasis was the bad thing, not getting rid of the segregationist.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The article certainly was arguing that removing Patman was a mistake. He was removed because of his support for segregation and Vietnam, so yeah the article is arguing that should have been ignored in favor of his populism on banks. The article isn't arguing anything of the sort. Just admit you didn't read it very carefully, jesus dude. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You seriously think that the article doesn't argue that removing Patman was a mistake? The article's lamenting the loss of an anti-monopoly, anti-corporate tradition among the Democrats. It's not about Patman personally; it's about a broader rejection of populism by the Democratic leadership. The notion that this implies that we should "forgive" his segregationism or his support for Vietnam is ludicrous.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But the article says that by dethrowning Patman, the Watergate Babies helped the destruction of the anti-monopoly and anti-bank tradition. Where in the article do you find it saying removing Patman was a good thing? It doesn't say it was a good thing. What it does say is this: quote:The result today is a paradox. At the same time that the nation has achieved perhaps the most tolerant culture in U.S. history, the destruction of the anti-monopoly and anti-bank tradition in the Democratic Party has also cleared the way for the greatest concentration of economic power in a century. This is not what the Watergate Babies intended when they dethroned Patman as chairman of the Banking Committee. But it helped lead them down that path. The story of Patman’s ousting is part of the larger story of how the Democratic Party helped to create today’s shockingly disillusioned and sullen public, a large chunk of whom is now marching for Donald Trump. So again, your claim that this piece is saying that we should "forgive" Patman for his segregationism or support for Vietnam is really dumb. e: VitalSigns posted:I don't think the article is saying that segregation is a good thing, I think it's accusing the Democratic Party of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No longer tolerating segregationists and warlovers: good. Also turning its back on anti-trust and banking regulation: bad Exactly.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're right you got me, the article doesn't say we should forgive him, just let him keep his Banking chair. The article doesn't say that either. Just stop.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So you think the article says that removing Patman from Banking was a good thing? Adlai Stevenson posted:From my understanding the article is drawing a pretty clear line that by rejecting so much of what Democrats like Patman stood for they got rid of both toxic and essential aspects of the party platform. Basically: Exactly. And the fact that so many Democrats are apparently unable to disaggregate these two things is pretty discouraging.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:"I'm just saying there was good growth and popular programs like the autobahn back then. Why bring up the other stuff? That wasn't covered in my book on German politics." "You know who else was popular and brought economic growth? That's right..."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:But seriously a lot of the leftier-than-thou posturing in this thread and D&D in general draws a really rose colored picture of the mid 20th century. That is a real thing for that is being done. It's actually not, but boy, try and let that stop you from projecting it onto us as if it were so.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The Democrats' big mistake was abandoning organized crime in favor of the financial industry. One of the Republicans' biggest triumphs was making organized labor synonymous with organized crime, in the minds of many voters.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, there was a real disparity in the Cold War how both sides viewed the other. The US in all honesty probably saw things from a comparatively broader ideological perspective, they saw all forms of "communism" as equally dangerous and that they should be crushed....errr "contained." It didn't matter that Vietnamese or Cuban forms of socialism often had their own national characteristics or motivations...they had to be crushed one in the same. If anything one could argue that the US may have helped the Soviets by being so hard-lined and rigid and thereby forcing governments that may have taken a more moderate direction to directly align themselves with the Soviets to survive. Yup, the U.S. leadership was operating under very serious misunderstandings about how states balance and bandwagon, particularly states that claim to have ideological kinship, but in reality have very little in common. The "loss" of China to "Communism" really broke the brains of the foreign/defense policy apparatus. The possibility that China wouldn't simply become a client state of Moscow, but instead would pursue a very different set of foreign policy objectives, apparently didn't occur to any of them. Powerful states that have competing interests don't tend to bandwagon, unless they are facing an existential threat from another adversary.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, it does bring us to present day, and now you have US foreign policy arranged about "containing" a growing number of states with different motivations that nevertheless seem to be increasingly willing to work together. Yeah, one good lesson from all of this for superpowers going forward is, if you don't want other countries balancing against you, maybe don't do poo poo that makes them want to balance against you.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:https://twitter.com/mcbyrne/status/914635835412291584 Now let me tell you about my Panera Bread strategy, and how it's not racist.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think they're more upset that a firm that did digital for a losing campaign can still win contracts Yup. Terrible Democratic advisers keep getting rehired, regardless of how poorly the campaigns they serve do.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But here's the thing, what's the non-terrible digital media firm Democrats could hire instead? Hell, I don't know. I'm sure there's more than just that one though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Many of our Bold Internet Leftists would fall in love with the war if only the guy was explicitly calling himself a Nazi instead of a rebranding. I love how blatantly you project. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 07:56
|
|