|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:28 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote:
This is totally an argument we should totally re-litigate until the heat death of the sun. Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees. EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan. Sure, the DNC is stupid and you were right, they are stupid. But just a month ago I had to watch progressives threatening to primary a senator in three years as a viable political strategy to get what they want. A plan so deeply stupid it made me want to take a nap. And I will watch them make this mistake again and again, doing everything possible to not be taken seriously. Everyone should just try to keep their own people from being stupid, rather than yelling saying “You are dumber than me, told you.” Counter point : Tea party Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020. They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really. Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them. The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies.
That's less a function of the Tea Party's methods as it is a function of their ideology. The playbook the Tea Party used to get elected and obtain influence is solid, that they misuse that influence is a different matter entirely.
There's no reason for a leftist version of the Tea Party restrict themselves to the minor leagues. They can and should build influence at all levels simultaneously, as some resources are only available in the first place if you're competing in a specific sphere.
|
On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:28 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote:
This is totally an argument we should totally re-litigate until the heat death of the sun. Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees. EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan. Sure, the DNC is stupid and you were right, they are stupid. But just a month ago I had to watch progressives threatening to primary a senator in three years as a viable political strategy to get what they want. A plan so deeply stupid it made me want to take a nap. And I will watch them make this mistake again and again, doing everything possible to not be taken seriously. Everyone should just try to keep their own people from being stupid, rather than yelling saying “You are dumber than me, told you.” Counter point : Tea party Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020. They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really. Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them. The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies. You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating. EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!?
Yes, because it is fact. The man said he would kill any bill single payer bill. Straight up. He was pissed as hell that the DNC tried to remove him and backed the anti-Iraq war candidate. That was the man’s entire 6 year term, fuck over the DNC whenever he could. Especially if it was a very left leaning policy.
Of course the DNC establishment is going to fight tooth and nail in the primaries. Fight back. Welcome to the party.
|
On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:28 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote:
This is totally an argument we should totally re-litigate until the heat death of the sun. Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees. EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan. Sure, the DNC is stupid and you were right, they are stupid. But just a month ago I had to watch progressives threatening to primary a senator in three years as a viable political strategy to get what they want. A plan so deeply stupid it made me want to take a nap. And I will watch them make this mistake again and again, doing everything possible to not be taken seriously. Everyone should just try to keep their own people from being stupid, rather than yelling saying “You are dumber than me, told you.” Counter point : Tea party Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020. They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really. Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them. The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies. You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating. EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!?
Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all.
Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk.
|
The tea party was literally a movement about limiting government size. Keeping their party from doing anything is pretty much exactly what they campaigned on. I highly doubt that the progressives in the democratic party have the same goal or result.
|
On August 23 2017 03:59 Nevuk wrote:
The tea party was literally a movement about limiting government size. Keeping their party from doing anything is pretty much exactly what they campaigned on. I highly doubt that the progressives in the democratic party have the same goal or result.
But to pass bills they need to work with the rest of the DNC and Republicans.
|
Contrary to what DNC mainliners suggest (not saying you are one p6), ability to pass legislation is not inherently the fulcrum of political success among legislators; southern Dixiecrats, for example, managed to shake things up for many years after their relatively ineffective break from the party in '48.
|
I’ll admit, I don’t know what a functional push to more progressive policies would look like in the Democratic party. On top of being elected, the collation also has to be functional and I would feel better if I could see that forming. The state pushes to single payer seem like a great way to move that ball forward. But my biggest fear is that they spend their time fighting with the centrist democrats, which are never going to go away. And I don't think that is a crazy concern.
But issues like voters rights and election reform have to be addressed at the national level and likely with the Republican buy in. Same with criminal justice reform.
|
On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:28 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote:
This is totally an argument we should totally re-litigate until the heat death of the sun. Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees. EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan. Sure, the DNC is stupid and you were right, they are stupid. But just a month ago I had to watch progressives threatening to primary a senator in three years as a viable political strategy to get what they want. A plan so deeply stupid it made me want to take a nap. And I will watch them make this mistake again and again, doing everything possible to not be taken seriously. Everyone should just try to keep their own people from being stupid, rather than yelling saying “You are dumber than me, told you.” Counter point : Tea party Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020. They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really. Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them. The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies. You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating. EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!? Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all. Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk.
That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges.
The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance.
|
On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:28 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote:
This is totally an argument we should totally re-litigate until the heat death of the sun. Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees. EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan. Sure, the DNC is stupid and you were right, they are stupid. But just a month ago I had to watch progressives threatening to primary a senator in three years as a viable political strategy to get what they want. A plan so deeply stupid it made me want to take a nap. And I will watch them make this mistake again and again, doing everything possible to not be taken seriously. Everyone should just try to keep their own people from being stupid, rather than yelling saying “You are dumber than me, told you.” Counter point : Tea party Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020. They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really. Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them. The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies. You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating. EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!? Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all. Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk. That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges. The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance.
This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like
"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES
ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?
REVOLUTION
REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
|
On August 23 2017 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:17 Plansix wrote:
This is totally an argument we should totally re-litigate until the heat death of the sun. Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees. EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan. Sure, the DNC is stupid and you were right, they are stupid. But just a month ago I had to watch progressives threatening to primary a senator in three years as a viable political strategy to get what they want. A plan so deeply stupid it made me want to take a nap. And I will watch them make this mistake again and again, doing everything possible to not be taken seriously. Everyone should just try to keep their own people from being stupid, rather than yelling saying “You are dumber than me, told you.” Normally you would be right, if the DNC and folks like zlefin understood their mistake, but clearly too many still don't. Putting a Senator through a primary is one of few ways people can counter-influence the money. Having to fight a primary can effectively reduce big-donor influence. Like if defending a position comes with $200k worth of donations, but they have to spend $500k on a primary if they keep that position, they may just dump the position (or demand more money unfortunately). But if Democrats recognized why it is they lost 1000+ seats and the white house we wouldn't even need to be talking about a need to primary people.
you don't understand your own mistakes, no matter how many times they're explained to you, thoroughly, with citations; so why do you expect others to do so? that just doesn't make sense.
fix the problems in your own house before complaining about others, oh ye who really isn't that different from the tea party.
and learn more about yhe actual results of systemic effects, and be far more careful in making assumptions about the effects a proposal will have. don't assume that primaries counter-influence money rather than simply being another way for money to take effect.and don't assume your analyses or those oyu read are that accurate as to why seats were lost.
|
You are seeing it right now with Jeff Flake and his potential primary opponent. They are creating doctored images that show him shaking hands with Obama. That man is super conservative, but also didn’t back Trump. But they are coming for him for no other reason than he didn't 100% please the crowd. And a lot of that pressure is coming from outside his state from what reporters can tell.
Booker is another example. He dropped donations from companies in his state when it became an issue and does responds to criticism. He has a really approachable style and sat on the capitol steps just talking with people about healthcare. I think the Democrats in the senate are better with him. But there still is going to be a push to remove him via Facebook memes.
|
Just wanted to express some surprise at the idea that the people who support the wing of the democratic party that's in power in the "coalition" don't like the idea of primaries in the democratic party while the wing of the party which has no power supports primaries, isn't that extremely weird? I bet you're all as surprised as I am.
|
On August 23 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:
You are seeing it right now with Jeff Flake and his potential primary opponent. They are creating doctored images that show him shaking hands with Obama. That man is super conservative, but also didn’t back Trump. But they are coming for him for no other reason than he didn't 100% please the crowd. And a lot of that pressure is coming from outside his state from what reporters can tell.
Booker is another example. He dropped donations from companies in his state when it became an issue and does responds to criticism. He has a really approachable style and sat on the capitol steps just talking with people about healthcare. I think the Democrats in the senate are better with him. But there still is going to be a push to remove him via Facebook memes.
Jeff Flake is super conservative? Okay, now I've heard it all.
|
On August 23 2017 04:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:
You are seeing it right now with Jeff Flake and his potential primary opponent. They are creating doctored images that show him shaking hands with Obama. That man is super conservative, but also didn’t back Trump. But they are coming for him for no other reason than he didn't 100% please the crowd. And a lot of that pressure is coming from outside his state from what reporters can tell.
Booker is another example. He dropped donations from companies in his state when it became an issue and does responds to criticism. He has a really approachable style and sat on the capitol steps just talking with people about healthcare. I think the Democrats in the senate are better with him. But there still is going to be a push to remove him via Facebook memes.
Jeff Flake is super conservative? Okay, now I've heard it all.
Can you elaborate on that one? I’ll take a quick bullet point break down of where he falls short.
|
On August 23 2017 04:40 Nebuchad wrote:
Just wanted to express some surprise at the idea that the people who support the wing of the democratic party that's in power in the "coalition" (lol) don't like the idea of primaries in the democratic party while the wing of the party which has no power supports primaries, isn't that extremely weird? I bet you're all as surprised as I am.
are you being sarcastic or serious? I'm not completely sure.
|
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:28 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Nope, just admit one side was wrong about whether the DNC should have been following Hillary or Bernie and arguments like "he's not a even a Democrat" were shallow and missed the forest for the trees.
EDIT: And not make the same mistake again, and again, and again. Best I can tell, there's been little to indicate this is the plan. Sure, the DNC is stupid and you were right, they are stupid. But just a month ago I had to watch progressives threatening to primary a senator in three years as a viable political strategy to get what they want. A plan so deeply stupid it made me want to take a nap. And I will watch them make this mistake again and again, doing everything possible to not be taken seriously. Everyone should just try to keep their own people from being stupid, rather than yelling saying “You are dumber than me, told you.” Counter point : Tea party Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020. They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really. Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them. The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies. You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating. EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!? Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all. Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk. That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges. The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance. This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like "VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA? REVOLUTION REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape.
|
On August 23 2017 04:40 Nebuchad wrote:
Just wanted to express some surprise at the idea that the people who support the wing of the democratic party that's in power in the "coalition" don't like the idea of primaries in the democratic party while the wing of the party which has no power supports primaries, isn't that extremely weird? I bet you're all as surprised as I am.
We don't have the same thing the right has. The tea party was extremely pointed and directional. We've got this repulsive mix of this and that where people can't really agree on anything. It is an extremely idealistic "wing" that can only agree on "fuck that shit" and basically nothing else. This wing also gets extremely riled up any time a candidate of theirs is black, muslim, female or homosexual. The idea of having one of these groups pushing for unrealistic agenda items makes them shiver with excitement.
Tea party was super different. All it tried to do with dismantle government as strongly as possible as directly as possible. Is it a government program? Probably cut it. If there was a whiny wing of the democratic party who just wanted single payer, it would be totally different. I'd be in that wing. But right now, the only objective of this wing is to weaken the dominant wing. Without a shred of unity. And some of these candidates have such shockingly troubled histories that it is extremely clear no one put a shred of time into making sure they are even somewhat decent. They just see a youtube video of them saying "AND WE CAN'T PUT UP WITH THIS! WE NEED TO FIGHT! WE NEED TO SAY WE WON'T SETTLE FOR LESS! NO MORE!" and people just lose their god damn minds.
|
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2017 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2017 03:28 Nevuk wrote:On August 23 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Sure, the DNC is stupid and you were right, they are stupid. But just a month ago I had to watch progressives threatening to primary a senator in three years as a viable political strategy to get what they want. A plan so deeply stupid it made me want to take a nap. And I will watch them make this mistake again and again, doing everything possible to not be taken seriously. Everyone should just try to keep their own people from being stupid, rather than yelling saying “You are dumber than me, told you.”
Counter point : Tea party Primary a house member, not a senator up for reelection in 2020. They primaried pretty much everyone, including Mitch Mcconnell. The GOP lost a couple of races in 2010 due to saying batshit crazy things ("Women have ways to shut the whole thing down if the rape is legitimate") but they won a lot of primaries and it seems to be the only way to get a political party to take the movement seriously. The primaries don't even need to win to effect change, really. Seeing how the Tea Party has obtain power for the republicans, but also made it impossible for them to pass substantive legislation, I think the verdict might be out on the national level. But if progressives can run people than are serious about compromise and working with traditional democrats, more power to them. The local level is a different story. That is where they could make a real push for change and build a solid, functional proving ground for their policies. You know the Democratic party is fighting this tooth and nail down to the local level right? Not that I don't agree with you these fights need to happen, just that the Democratic party is actively trying to prevent the kind of action you're advocating. EDIT: @P6 you're not trying to blame single payer dying on a CT primary are you?!? Look at how the tea party took over the GOP and destroyed their ability to get anything done at all. Tell me why the DNC should not fight against that risk. That's not what's going on. This isn't about getting things done, it's about power, influence, and identity. Most of the current Democratic establishment would lose their positions, influence, etc. if the party shifted significantly to the left. It is therefore in their own best interests to fight any effort to shift the party in that direction. They're not thinking about how hard it will be to govern with their own Tea Party to manage, they're thinking about how they won't be the ones involved in governing if one emerges. The DNC and the Democratic establishment, for all their faults, aren't completely blind. They saw what happened to the Republican Party as politicians who had long been known as staunch conservatives got ousted for not being conservative enough. They know that even if they try to move to the left themselves they might still end up on the street because of their past positions and the appearance of opportunism. They fight because the alternative is their own irrelevance. This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like "VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA? REVOLUTION REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape outside.
^ You see this, this is what the Democratic party stands for, and thinks. They think they lost 1000+ seats because of 70k whitish voters in the suburbs and they don't need us (until they're looking for another scapegoat for losing).
That's why I keep pointing out that Democrats don't get it and too many people are giving them a pass for reasons I can't comprehend.
|
On August 23 2017 04:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 04:42 Danglars wrote:On August 23 2017 04:37 Plansix wrote:
You are seeing it right now with Jeff Flake and his potential primary opponent. They are creating doctored images that show him shaking hands with Obama. That man is super conservative, but also didn’t back Trump. But they are coming for him for no other reason than he didn't 100% please the crowd. And a lot of that pressure is coming from outside his state from what reporters can tell.
Booker is another example. He dropped donations from companies in his state when it became an issue and does responds to criticism. He has a really approachable style and sat on the capitol steps just talking with people about healthcare. I think the Democrats in the senate are better with him. But there still is going to be a push to remove him via Facebook memes.
Jeff Flake is super conservative? Okay, now I've heard it all. Can you elaborate on that one? I’ll take a quick bullet point break down of where he falls short.
On why he ranks on the leaderboards of least conservative members of the Senate? Or why his establishment and directionless vision led to Trump winning the primary in the first place? He's the kind of flake on conservative policy that acquainted people that conservatism more often than not ends upon election to the national legislature.
|
Really, it seems that "compromise" doesn't go both ways, as much as it is that the leading wing of the party wants the more extreme (left/right for Dem/Rep respectively) on the political spectrum to just compromise away their most consequential goals, in favor of little more than some symbolic and meaningless concessions. If the party refuses to cooperate, more active measures are certainly appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
