• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 07:18
CEST 13:18
KST 20:18
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments1[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt2: Turbulence10Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon9[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt1: Ascent10Maestros of the Game: Week 1/Play-in Preview12
Community News
StarCraft II 5.0.15 PTR Patch Notes145BSL 2025 Warsaw LAN + Legends Showmatch2Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups4WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments1SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia8
StarCraft 2
General
Why Storm Should NOT Be Nerfed – A Core Part of Pr StarCraft II 5.0.15 PTR Patch Notes #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy
Tourneys
Stellar Fest KSL Week 80 StarCraft Evolution League (SC Evo Biweekly) RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 19
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 491 Night Drive Mutation # 490 Masters of Midnight Mutation # 489 Bannable Offense Mutation # 488 What Goes Around
Brood War
General
Soulkey on ASL S20 ASL20 General Discussion BW General Discussion Diplomacy, Cosmonarchy Edition ASL TICKET LIVE help! :D
Tourneys
[ASL20] Ro16 Group D BSL 2025 Warsaw LAN + Legends Showmatch [ASL20] Ro16 Group C Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Borderlands 3 Nintendo Switch Thread General RTS Discussion Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Big Programming Thread UK Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread High temperatures on bridge(s)
TL Community
BarCraft in Tokyo Japan for ASL Season5 Final The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Too Many LANs? Tournament Ov…
TrAiDoS
i'm really bored guys
Peanutsc
I <=> 9
KrillinFromwales
A very expensive lesson on ma…
Garnet
hello world
radishsoup
Lemme tell you a thing o…
JoinTheRain
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1721 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8524

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 8522 8523 8524 8525 8526 10093 Next
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.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
August 22 2017 19:53 GMT
#170461
I don’t think primaries challenges are bad. I think they are bad when used as a threat outside primary season to leverage support for something that isn’t legislation. Like a bad response in an interview: calls for a primary challenge because of bad response. I’ve spoken to a lot of progressives I know and they said it is part of the discussion with the person in power. I don’t think there is a real understanding that the threat of a primary challenge is normally the end of that discussion.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Wulfey_LA
Profile Joined April 2017
932 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-22 19:58:10
August 22 2017 19:54 GMT
#170462
On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
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:
[quote]
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.


Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money.

EDIT: further, why hasn't a single "but my Socialism" candidate won anywhere? Suburban whites turned on Dems and Obama hard because they bought FOX narratives about Obamaphones and Obamacare. Why aren't the socialist candidates making any inroads on these disaffected whites? Socialism doesn't sell in America. It polls like crap at the ballotbox.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
August 22 2017 19:55 GMT
#170463
On August 23 2017 04:52 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 04:43 Plansix wrote:
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.

I will take any answer that does not come in the form of further questions.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23305 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-22 19:58:14
August 22 2017 19:57 GMT
#170464
On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
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:
[quote]
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.


Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money.


They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling).
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
August 22 2017 19:58 GMT
#170465
Anyone who looks at how things went down in 2016 and says "we were fine, we just lost a few key voters in a few key states, otherwise we would've won the presidency" is a fool. It is only by virtue of the badness of Trump that it even was close; the fundamental weaknesses of the Democratic party all over the country, especially at the local level, was on full display. A widespread loss of rural voters all across the country may have been the tipping point for the presidency, but it is only by virtue of the personal charm of Obama that the loss of the working class base of the Democrats was not so readily apparent as it was when Trump beat Clinton.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18832 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-22 19:59:24
August 22 2017 19:59 GMT
#170466
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.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-22 20:02:55
August 22 2017 20:01 GMT
#170467
Any effort to take back congress is going to have to come from a focus on pocketbook issues and things that the entire country agrees on. GH is not wrong that making this election about Trump(though that will work in some areas) won’t lead to the gains democrats need. They need to fight over the whole country and focus on winning elections. Better candidates would help. Not running national candidates with negative approval ratings would be a great place to start.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Wulfey_LA
Profile Joined April 2017
932 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-22 20:03:54
August 22 2017 20:02 GMT
#170468
On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
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:
[quote]
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.


Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money.


They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling).


Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this:

Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus

Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smacks of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
August 22 2017 20:02 GMT
#170469
In minor science news...
You've been drawing the sun's corona ever since you were in pre-K — and that's probably the last time it made any sense. The sun is the 865,000-mile ball of gas that was the scribbly yellow circle in your drawing. The corona is the veil of luminous plasma streaming millions of miles into space, where you drew straight yellow rays. Things were never so simple again.

Studying the mysteries of the corona is not easy, for the same reason that looking at the sun itself isn't easy: the brilliance of the solar fires washes out everything else. Coronagraphs — black masks fitted in telescopes and other observing instruments — can cover up the solar disk and allow astronomers to focus just on the plasma. But diffraction of the incoming light makes the pictures imperfect.

It is only during a total eclipse, when the moon itself acts as the greatest coronagraph of all, that a truly good look at the corona becomes possible. That's exactly what will happen on August 21, when the event that is being called The Great American Eclipse tracks across the U.S. in a path of totality that will run from western Oregon to eastern South Carolina, traveling from coast to coast in just over 90 minutes. Those will be 90 minutes that scientists from NASA, the University of Hawaii, the Southwest Research Institute, and multiple other labs and universities plan to spend well, scrutinizing the corona until the moon passes by and the sun once again forbids such a clear gaze from Earth.

time.com

Just so we know that the eclipse is actually scientifically useful.

Incidentally, the ESA is launching its own artificial eclipse sat in the not-too-distant future.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12267 Posts
August 22 2017 20:04 GMT
#170470
On August 23 2017 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
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.


Exactly correct.
No will to live, no wish to die
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-22 20:06:14
August 22 2017 20:04 GMT
#170471
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
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:
[quote]
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.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Show nested quote +
Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source


but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparagingly to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23305 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-22 20:07:57
August 22 2017 20:04 GMT
#170472
On August 23 2017 05:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
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:
[quote]
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.


Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money.


They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling).


Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this:

Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus

Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smack of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism.


Bernie's townhall in WV is some. Where a Trump delegate and a Trump voting coal miner agreed with Bernie on several issues, one big one being healthcare.

On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
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:
[quote]
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.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source


but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparately to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.


Didn't hurt you had outlets like WaPo and MSNBC pushing lies about Bernie specifically aimed to decrease his support.

Not to say Bernie couldn't have done better. But the irony is his focus on economic issues as a way to address race issues is both what Democrats ridicule him for and say they want to do more of to appeal to the people Bernie got over Hillary.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
August 22 2017 20:07 GMT
#170473
On August 23 2017 05:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
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.


Exactly correct.

I disagree; I'd say it's far from exactly correct; it has some partially correctness, and some inaccuracy.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Wulfey_LA
Profile Joined April 2017
932 Posts
August 22 2017 20:10 GMT
#170474
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
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:
[quote]
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.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Show nested quote +
Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source


Here is a good explainer of who the targets are for Democratic expansion. To the point about black voters staying home, there are a couple of issues there. First is Voter ID. Second is HRC not being the most inspirational candidate. Booker is plausible as the kind of guy who might reverse that trend.

And on the pocketbook issues mentioned above, note how traditional Democrats ran ahead of HRC. It wasn't by selling more socialism!


MANY REMAIN PERSUADABLE The C.C.E.S. found that 26 percent of Obama-Trump voters identified as Democrats in their postelection study, while 35 percent were Republicans and 37 percent were independents. Including those independents who lean toward a party, Republicans led by a wider margin of 45 percent to 30 percent. Even so, that’s a significant share who continue to identify with the Democratic Party despite voting for Mr. Trump.

Democrats were probably still winning a lot of these voters in 2016. The results speak for themselves to some extent. Jason Kander lost his Senate race in Missouri by just three percentage points, even as Mrs. Clinton lost by 20 points. Even Democrats who didn’t run ahead of Mrs. Clinton over all — like Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, Russ Feingold in Wisconsin or Katie McGinty in Pennsylvania — nonetheless ran far ahead of Mrs. Clinton in traditionally Democratic, white working-class areas.

Mrs. Duckworth’s performance is probably the most telling. She won Illinois’s 12th Congressional District — a downstate, working-class district now held by Republican Mike Bost — by nine points. Mr. Trump won it by 12 points.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upshot/the-obama-trump-voters-are-real-heres-what-they-think.html?mcubz=1&_r=0
Godwrath
Profile Joined August 2012
Spain10131 Posts
August 22 2017 20:10 GMT
#170475
On August 23 2017 05:07 zlefin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 05:04 Nebuchad wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
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.


Exactly correct.

I disagree; I'd say it's far from exactly correct; it has some partially correctness, and some inaccuracy.

Where are the inaccuracies ?
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-08-22 20:21:14
August 22 2017 20:13 GMT
#170476
Editorials are going to happen. Blaming them for existing is just as bad as Clinton voters blaming the FBI investigation or CNN for its coverage.

Edit: also saying socialism is a winning stance nationwide has yet to be proven. If they can make it work in a deep red state like WV, then go for it. But don’t blame anyone else if it fails.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
August 22 2017 20:20 GMT
#170477
On August 23 2017 05:10 Godwrath wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 05:07 zlefin wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:04 Nebuchad wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
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.


Exactly correct.

I disagree; I'd say it's far from exactly correct; it has some partially correctness, and some inaccuracy.

Where are the inaccuracies ?

First, I'd say compromise does go both ways; one o fthe problems with the extreme factions is that THEY are the ones unwilling to compromise. they want what they want, and they're not willing to sacrifice some goals to achieve others, or just to make deals in general. This is quite apparent with the tea party in particular. They barely even get along with republicans, and loath dems greatly. That's why the Republicans, despite having majorities, can't govern. because the extreme wing isn't willing to go along with many things. I'm sure there are some issues with the center parts not compromising enough, but there's also plenty of problems with the wings not being willing to compromise; so the claims of compromise not going both ways are false.
I'd dispute that the concessions that have been offered to those wings are meaningless; i'd say they're of moderate value, though surely less than those groups would like. (which is how compromise works)
I woudln't call the anti-party actions entirely appropriate unless the wings had a decent, passably sound actual plan. Often they simply don't. They're raging against the "machine" without having an actual replacement in mind once they remove it. They don't have the ability to actually govern if called upon to do so. It's often based more on an ideologue stance and a hatred of government/some in power than an actual set of policy proposals.
It's easy to say things like "wall street bad" it's much harder to come up with concrete proposals to do something about it, and harder still to make proposals that have some potential to actually make it into law.

Many of the problems in governance today, the hatred and vitriol in society, the division, are a result of wing primary-pressures forcing candidates to be more extreme, rather than centrist and compromising.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18832 Posts
August 22 2017 20:25 GMT
#170478
On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
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:
[quote]
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.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source


but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparagingly to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.

I agree that an unqualified comparison with Obama's numbers is uncalled for, but the point remains that boiling down Hillary's loss into a neat and tidy 70k easily identifiable voters such that the party can at-large ignore everyone else is not a good idea.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21801 Posts
August 22 2017 20:25 GMT
#170479
On August 23 2017 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 05:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
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:
[quote]

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.


Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money.


They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling).


Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this:

Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus

Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smack of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism.


Bernie's townhall in WV is some. Where a Trump delegate and a Trump voting coal miner agreed with Bernie on several issues, one big one being healthcare.

Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
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:
[quote]
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.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source


but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparately to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.


Didn't hurt you had outlets like WaPo and MSNBC pushing lies about Bernie specifically aimed to decrease his support.

Not to say Bernie couldn't have done better. But the irony is his focus on economic issues as a way to address race issues is both what Democrats ridicule him for and say they want to do more of to appeal to the people Bernie got over Hillary.

Lots of Republicans agree on single points from the Democratic agenda.

I seem to remember a study into that with the ACA, that most people agreed on its points in isolation but the moment you put them together and called them the ACA/Obamacare they became against it.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
August 22 2017 20:30 GMT
#170480
On August 23 2017 05:25 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 23 2017 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 05:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:21 Seuss wrote:
On August 23 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
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.


Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money.


They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling).


Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this:

Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus

Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smack of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism.


Bernie's townhall in WV is some. Where a Trump delegate and a Trump voting coal miner agreed with Bernie on several issues, one big one being healthcare.

On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:
On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:
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:
[quote]
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.

Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise.

Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.

The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact.


Source


but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparately to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable.


Didn't hurt you had outlets like WaPo and MSNBC pushing lies about Bernie specifically aimed to decrease his support.

Not to say Bernie couldn't have done better. But the irony is his focus on economic issues as a way to address race issues is both what Democrats ridicule him for and say they want to do more of to appeal to the people Bernie got over Hillary.

Lots of Republicans agree on single points from the Democratic agenda.

I seem to remember a study into that with the ACA, that most people agreed on its points in isolation but the moment you put them together and called them the ACA/Obamacare they became against it.

I vaguely remember a study long ago where people were against Obamacare and for the ACA.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Prev 1 8522 8523 8524 8525 8526 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
RSL Revival
10:00
Season 2: Playoffs Day 7
Reynor vs CureLIVE!
TBD vs Zoun
Crank 1061
Tasteless1047
RotterdaM713
IndyStarCraft 211
Rex119
CranKy Ducklings88
3DClanTV 49
IntoTheiNu 27
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Crank 1061
Tasteless 1047
RotterdaM 713
IndyStarCraft 211
Rex 119
ProTech66
MindelVK 38
Railgan 18
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 14777
Calm 6576
Horang2 2565
Rain 2205
Flash 1326
GuemChi 1311
EffOrt 531
Larva 508
actioN 432
Hyuk 352
[ Show more ]
BeSt 340
Zeus 220
Hyun 217
firebathero 185
Last 165
PianO 160
Pusan 151
ZZZero.O 83
Soma 81
Rush 74
Free 62
ajuk12(nOOB) 61
Aegong 57
sSak 56
Sharp 52
Soulkey 43
Nal_rA 43
Mong 42
Sacsri 34
Movie 34
sas.Sziky 29
Sexy 25
soO 21
Bale 20
ivOry 14
Icarus 11
HiyA 9
Hm[arnc] 5
Terrorterran 1
Dota 2
XcaliburYe1271
singsing839
Fuzer 222
Dendi196
Counter-Strike
allub298
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor184
Other Games
B2W.Neo667
crisheroes353
DeMusliM316
NeuroSwarm59
Lowko35
Trikslyr23
OptimusSC210
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick687
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• LUISG 36
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Jankos1232
• Stunt540
Other Games
• WagamamaTV322
Upcoming Events
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
3h 42m
OSC
9h 42m
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
20h 42m
RSL Revival
22h 42m
Classic vs TBD
WardiTV Invitational
23h 42m
Online Event
1d 4h
Wardi Open
1d 23h
Monday Night Weeklies
2 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
LiuLi Cup
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
4 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-09-10
Chzzk MurlocKing SC1 vs SC2 Cup #2
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
2025 Chongqing Offline CUP
BSL World Championship of Poland 2025
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1

Upcoming

IPSL Winter 2025-26
BSL Season 21
SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL 21 Team A
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
EC S1
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.