|
Mooseontheloose posted:The only real kinda kernel truth here, for me personally, is that Hillary Clinton was ostensibly punished for doing her job correctly from people who were nascent into the national level politics. If you don't like her or her policies, fine but to come in and tell her that all her hard work made her unqualified for the job is a tough pill to swallow. She worked hard to have relationships with people in the party, she played the game, and then people decided that the rules are dumb and she was awful by playing by the rules . I have been reading a lot of very "left" issues about the Democrats at the moment and one of the key ones being that the DNC is constantly broke because of a variety of factors (the ones like constantly having to go cap in hand to wealthy people, being under the leadership of someone who didn't actually get on with anyone and continually shovelling money to consultants instead of doing any actual work.) Would you say that is accurate or fair in your experience? Alongside that would you argue that it is possible to change a set up like the DNC or the democratic party more generally into something that is not continually focussing on being just "the lesser evil" as it were? As someone who is getting more involved in my own countries politics I feel that the systemic problems that have cropped up are not talked about but can be used as an effective way of getting round the problem of insulting people by instead making the system itself a target instead of insisting it is peoples moral failure to confront themselves that leads to their opinions. And would you argue that the rules don't need changing? If all but a few states "didn't vote" would have won the popular vote, and that is a worrying sentiment because it shows how little there is for so many people to separate between the major parties. I think that Hilary was not actually a very good politician at all, which is a really terrible thing to say about someone who has been involved in it for so long.
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 14:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I think its super complicated which I realize is a cop out on one hand. I think the rich people who fund the Democratic party are PROBABLY more to the left than people realize, even on economic issues. From what I have been reading Tom Perez is trying to get the party to focus MORE on funding field programs, which is good but the reason the party is constantly broke is because you do want to spend down your money cycle to cycle as it can come across as irresponsible not to make sure you are spending all your resources on getting people elected. Also remember, there is the DSCC and the DCCC which serve election functions and are distinct from the DNC itself. I do realise it is more complex than what I am laying out, this is after all a dead forum and not a policy document, however whilst I do not doubt that people donating to the democrats may be more "left-wing" I do doubt that they would ever willingly give up their own property because it represents theft from a vast number of people all over the planet. Even things that are trying to help often seem to undermine and limit what can be done by local governments. I think a secondary problem can be that it is hard to raise money for an organisation that has to be truly national in character, especially when things like the whole kerfuffle some months back with Osoff. She may well have had a program that was helpful to the USA, I am not going to disagree and if I had been in the USA I would have voted for her, but I think along side that presentation matters. She also was, from a foreigners perspective, kind of shite on foreign policy. Not the Russia thing, it should be noted, but a lot of her positions were very, well, bad? The Honduran Coup being the most obvious thing in that. I would not say that both parties are the same, but I would say that the democrats in particular have the problem of acting solely as antithesis. All they do, again I am foreign so do forgive my low level reading, is seemingly point at the Republicans and say "I am not that". And whilst that can be good when the "that" is defined and obvious (say after a long time with the "that") it becomes a lot lot harder to justify when you are in power because then people go "well if you aren't that then maybe the that will help!" Mooseontheloose posted:Which rules are we talking about? The party rules? I mean if I had it my way, there wouldn't be caucuses anymore and switch every state to a primary election system where Democrats and independent voters can vote. I would limit super delegates to elected members of the party on the state and federal level and elected members from the past 5 to 10 years. No as in the overarching and more subtle rules of how "politics is done". Is the way we understand "politics" in terms of two distinct parties and so on, are those ideas perhaps need not just of tinkering, but changing in every way? Alongside that would you be inclined to believe what this article has to say about some measure of the current backlash we are seeing in politics? In particular this section https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/17/americas-far-right-white-supremacists-nationalism?CMP=share_btn_tw quote:Ultimately, however, I believe Matthew’s vision, and the incarnation of the far right in America that I spent years covering, is destined to fail. Not because America is inherently good and that the forces of justice and progress are always stronger than those of intolerance and hatred, but because white supremacy is doing just fine without the far right.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 21:40
|
|