|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 03 2019 06:31 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2019 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 03 2019 06:01 Belisarius wrote:He'll be how a 60 vote Dem majority in the senate could still not be enough to get essentially Republican legislation (The ACA was rehashed Nixoncare and presented by Democrats) passed No, he would not be. The voters in the overwhelmingly red state that elects him would be. The options are not Manchin vs some "replacement" progressive dem. The options are Manchin vs a republican significantly to the right of his current position. Please explain how that republican is better for a progressive agenda than the existing situation. GH's point is that considering Manchin won't vote for a progressive agenda there is no difference between Manchin and a Republican so why bother propping up a Republican running as a Democrat? Its not going to get worse, so why not try to make it better. But it does get a lot worse is my point. Manchin, who is from a R+42 state, votes against Trump in ~50% of votes. Contrast that with say Rick Scott (Florida), who is from a R+1 state but who still votes with Trump ~90% of the time. Manchin provides immense value since every single vote he casts for the D position is a vote that they really 'shouldnt' have. These days split ticket voting is quickly becoming a thing of the past, and a state's preference for president drives its preference for other state level offices, not the other way around. That means that if you want a progressive senator from WV you first have to convince people from WV to vote for a progressive for president. are those votes against GOP initiatives actually meaningful?
contradictory voting on meaningless things to made statistics look better is a tactic of politicians around the globe.
|
On November 03 2019 06:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2019 06:31 KlaCkoN wrote:On November 03 2019 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 03 2019 06:01 Belisarius wrote:He'll be how a 60 vote Dem majority in the senate could still not be enough to get essentially Republican legislation (The ACA was rehashed Nixoncare and presented by Democrats) passed No, he would not be. The voters in the overwhelmingly red state that elects him would be. The options are not Manchin vs some "replacement" progressive dem. The options are Manchin vs a republican significantly to the right of his current position. Please explain how that republican is better for a progressive agenda than the existing situation. GH's point is that considering Manchin won't vote for a progressive agenda there is no difference between Manchin and a Republican so why bother propping up a Republican running as a Democrat? Its not going to get worse, so why not try to make it better. But it does get a lot worse is my point. Manchin, who is from a R+42 state, votes against Trump in ~50% of votes. Contrast that with say Rick Scott (Florida), who is from a R+1 state but who still votes with Trump ~90% of the time. Manchin provides immense value since every single vote he casts for the D position is a vote that they really 'shouldnt' have. These days split ticket voting is quickly becoming a thing of the past, and a state's preference for president drives its preference for other state level offices, not the other way around. That means that if you want a progressive senator from WV you first have to convince people from WV to vote for a progressive for president. are those votes against GOP initiatives actually meaningful? contradictory voting on meaningless things to made statistics look better is a tactic of politicians around the globe.
I certainly think so. For example Manchin has consistently voted against Trump on whether to halt US support for the Saudi war in Yemen as well as whether or not to keep providing military support to Saudi Arabia in general.
|
There are some issues that Manchin will side with the Dems on and give them the 60 votes they need that would not happen if it were a Republican in the seat. However, you will need more than 60 dems to pass highly progressive policies like Medicare for All because Manchin will not be on board.
With Manchin, you get some votes on lesser progressive initiatives. With his replacement, you get nothing. The idea that West Virginia has any chance of become progressive if we just drive out Manchin first is silly. It's purity test bullshit that splits the party and makes the progressive movement weaker. It's also complete bubble talk from people who I'd suspect have never been to West Virginia. The most progressive you could expect out of West Virginia is a very pro-labor candidate who is conservative in other ways. Putting pressure on Manchin to be more pro-labor is the positive move for progressives.
If Bernie wins the Dem nomination, he needs to be the bigger man and go into West Virginia and talk to the coal miners about the Democrats of old who were very pro-union and get Manchin on board with that. Bernie still won't win West Virginia, but he may give cover for Manchin to vote more progressive on some issues and get more policy passed.
|
On November 03 2019 06:31 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2019 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 03 2019 06:01 Belisarius wrote:He'll be how a 60 vote Dem majority in the senate could still not be enough to get essentially Republican legislation (The ACA was rehashed Nixoncare and presented by Democrats) passed No, he would not be. The voters in the overwhelmingly red state that elects him would be. The options are not Manchin vs some "replacement" progressive dem. The options are Manchin vs a republican significantly to the right of his current position. Please explain how that republican is better for a progressive agenda than the existing situation. GH's point is that considering Manchin won't vote for a progressive agenda there is no difference between Manchin and a Republican so why bother propping up a Republican running as a Democrat? Its not going to get worse, so why not try to make it better. But it does get a lot worse is my point. Manchin, who is from a R+42 state, votes against Trump in ~50% of votes. Contrast that with say Rick Scott (Florida), who is from a R+1 state but who still votes with Trump ~90% of the time. Manchin provides immense value since every single vote he casts for the D position is a vote that they really 'shouldnt' have. These days split ticket voting is quickly becoming a thing of the past, and a state's preference for president drives its preference for other state level offices, not the other way around. That means that if you want a progressive senator from WV you first have to convince people from WV to vote for a progressive for president.
Besides those votes being effectively worthless, I'd just like to point out that only about 1/3rd of potential voters in WV vote for anyone. I posit there's a winning progressive coalition in the ~800,000 West Virginians that didn't vote plus the ones that voted D, and supporting Manchin with the superficial and reductive imo "better than a Republican" is what keeps them on the bench and progress stalled from my perspective.
EDIT: I think making him run in the Republican primary or as an independent is better in every possible way from the cynical political perspective to be specific though.
|
That seems a wildly optimistic prediction, unless you can back it up with some data showing that the general attitude in WV is massively to the left of how it votes.
|
On November 03 2019 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2019 06:31 KlaCkoN wrote:On November 03 2019 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 03 2019 06:01 Belisarius wrote:He'll be how a 60 vote Dem majority in the senate could still not be enough to get essentially Republican legislation (The ACA was rehashed Nixoncare and presented by Democrats) passed No, he would not be. The voters in the overwhelmingly red state that elects him would be. The options are not Manchin vs some "replacement" progressive dem. The options are Manchin vs a republican significantly to the right of his current position. Please explain how that republican is better for a progressive agenda than the existing situation. GH's point is that considering Manchin won't vote for a progressive agenda there is no difference between Manchin and a Republican so why bother propping up a Republican running as a Democrat? Its not going to get worse, so why not try to make it better. But it does get a lot worse is my point. Manchin, who is from a R+42 state, votes against Trump in ~50% of votes. Contrast that with say Rick Scott (Florida), who is from a R+1 state but who still votes with Trump ~90% of the time. Manchin provides immense value since every single vote he casts for the D position is a vote that they really 'shouldnt' have. These days split ticket voting is quickly becoming a thing of the past, and a state's preference for president drives its preference for other state level offices, not the other way around. That means that if you want a progressive senator from WV you first have to convince people from WV to vote for a progressive for president. Besides those votes being effectively worthless, I'd just like to point out that only about 1/3rd of potential voters in WV vote for anyone. I posit there's a winning progressive coalition in the ~800,000 West Virginians that didn't vote plus the ones that voted D, and supporting Manchin with the superficial and reductive imo "better than a Republican" is what keeps them on the bench and progress stalled from my perspective. EDIT: I think making him run in the Republican primary or as an independent is better in every possible way from the cynical political perspective to be specific though.
What in the world makes you think that any of the 2/3rds of West Virginians that didn't vote would vote for a progressive? Most likely, most don't give a shit about politics and won't give a shit just because a progressive is running. Of the ones who do vote, the vast majority vote conservative. Most likely, if you forced their neighbors and co-workers to vote, they'd vote the same way.
The thing you need to understand, while sitting in your bubble, is that most people aren't progressive. Most people wouldn't vote progressive if the Dems could just get those neo-liberals (or conservatives like Manchin) out of the way. Most people don't want Sanders. If you don't consider Warren progressive enough, then nationally only 17% of Democrats want a progressive like Sanders with another 10% unaccounted for. At best, you're at about 1/4th of the democrats nationally. Iowas looks worse for progressives and I'd bet that West Virginia is even worse than Iowa.
If you count Warren as a progressive, then the numbers get a bit better, but that's people who want progressive-lite, not progressive-heavy. And again, we're not even talking about the large number of Republicans out there. I'm not sure if we're including independents who might vote Democrat in the polls (would have to dig into methodology).
Nationally, someone who can be reasonably labeled as a Socialist loses to Donald Trump. Sanders beats Trump head to head right now. Socialist loses to Trump head to head. Sanders can reasonably be labeled as a socialist. Something has to give. If Sanders gets more attention as the nominee and receives all the firepower of the Republican machine, he even loses the middle to Trump.
That's what you aren't getting. So, go ahead and vote for Sanders. Go ahead and campaign for Sanders. But when he loses and we're down to the binary vote, vote in your own best interest (lesser evil if necessary) rather than some pipedream of converting every liberal and moderate into a progressive. It ain't happening. The vast majority of Americans repeatedly tell you that they don't want a progressive. Start listening.
|
West Virginia hates liberalism. They vote conservative because they aren't liberals (or claim not to be). They also vote for Bernie over Hillary in the primary, overwhelmingly so, they're not picking the most rightwing choice every time, they're just going with non liberals. Understandably so, as liberalism has fucked them pretty hard. I have no idea how Manchin gets through given that he's pretty standard establishment, he must be super nice in person or something.
The notion that going left of liberal decreases the chances of a politician in WV is absurd, and I don't think anyone actually believes that. Would it be enough to win the seat? I don't know, probably not in the near future. But it's still the sound strategy.
Keep in mind that having a bold agenda is inspiring people everywhere. You might lose a few conservative democrats in red states, but most of the time the conservative democrat will just be replaced by a more progressive democrat. A lot of conservative democrats have deep blue constituencies, it's ridiculous. The bold agenda would also help the democrats running against republicans as they would be able to run on something completely within reach. When you run on things that people like, you get more seats.
|
On November 03 2019 07:15 Nebuchad wrote:
West Virginia hates liberalism. They vote conservative because they aren't liberals (or claim not to be). They also vote for Bernie over Hillary in the primary, overwhelmingly so, they're not picking the most rightwing choice every time, they're just going with non liberals. Understandably so, as liberalism has fucked them pretty hard. I have no idea how Manchin gets through given that he's pretty standard establishment, he must be super nice in person or something.
The notion that going left of liberal decreases the chances of a politician in WV is absurd, and I don't think anyone actually believes that. Would it be enough to win the seat? I don't know, probably not in the near future. But it's still the sound strategy.
Keep in mind that having a bold agenda is inspiring people everywhere. You might lose a few conservative democrats in red states, but most of the time the conservative democrat will just be replaced by a more progressive democrat. A lot of conservative democrats have deep blue constituencies, it's ridiculous. The bold agenda would also help the democrats running against republicans as they would be able to run on something completely within reach. When you run on things that people like, you get more seats.
Yup. Bernie almost got more votes in the primary than she did in the general too. WV doesn't like Trump nearly as much as they hate "coastal" neoliberalism and would quickly embrace a worker focused agenda (might lag behind other states in support for the non-working poor agenda items though).
Hell they voted Dukakkis over Bush and Gore got 45% Even Obama hit 42+%. An old white guy focused on empowering the working class and not afraid to fight would clean up there.
Of course the alternative isn't just a crappy politician, we got less than a decade to remake congress or the scale of ecological catastrophe we'll have doomed future generations (and the younger among us) to will be unimaginably horrific.
|
On November 02 2019 08:46 Nebuchad wrote:I know this isn't groundbreaking but I've seen like ten of these in the past few weeks. I should make a compilation or something. + Show Spoiler +The media is afraid. Good.
Never gets old.
I like how they're still pushing Biden even though he's falling like a stone.Three months ago he was leading by 10 pts in Iowa.Now fourth behind Buttigieg.
|
A lot of West Virginians were registered democrats from a time gone by (Dukakis over Bush) and never bothered to switch the party they registered for. In West Virginia, you cannot switch parties at the time of the primary. So, many politically active Trump supporters could not vote for Trump. Instead, they voted against Clinton, the clear frontrunner for the Dems. They voted to keep Bernie around as long as possible to cause chaos and division in the Democratic party.
I did the same thing in Illinois, in the opposite direction. Illinois allows people to pick their political affiliation at the time of the primary, so I picked Republican and voted against Trump while planning to vote Democrat in the actual election. I was hoping that Kasich would take IL and OH and get a swell of support to take Trump to the convention. He got OH, but not IL and that was the end. I shouldn't really be counted as a Kasich supporter.
Don't count on the Bernie votes as actual support in West Virginia. There were some very specific circumstances around what happened. Also don't count on the Dukakis votes to bring West Virginia back to the Democrats. A lot has changed in that time. I really doubt you'd tell a candidate today to mirror George HW Bush's policies over Dukakis's policies if he wanted to win today's California. Yet, those policies won out in 1988. Understand what is going on today and what the voters want today, not 30 years ago. West Virginia may go for pro-labor policies if the messenger is right, but they don't go for progressives and socialists.
|
It's okay Ren. We don't need them if they don't come.
Meanwhile I hope you realize it's extremely condescending to explain away the support of a candidate in a whole state through people not being politically engaged enough to realize that they haven't changed their party affiliation since 19-fucking-88 when I was born, but then being politically engaged enough to know that they want to fuck over the party they are registered to as hard as possible.
Only poll of West Virginians I found for 2020 was this one, where Bernie beats Trump by 2% at 48 vs 46 with a 400 sample size. Not saying much about who's going to win the state, but certainly pokes a hole in your theory that they don't really like the left over there. Unless they know to lie in the polls just like they lied in the primaries, those mischievous miners.
https://tulchinresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/West-Virginia-Poll-Memo-409-A-5-18-Final.pdf
|
On November 03 2019 07:15 Nebuchad wrote:
.... A lot of conservative democrats have deep blue constituencies, it's ridiculous... .
This part I agree very much with.
|
On November 03 2019 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2019 07:15 Nebuchad wrote:
West Virginia hates liberalism. They vote conservative because they aren't liberals (or claim not to be). They also vote for Bernie over Hillary in the primary, overwhelmingly so, they're not picking the most rightwing choice every time, they're just going with non liberals. Understandably so, as liberalism has fucked them pretty hard. I have no idea how Manchin gets through given that he's pretty standard establishment, he must be super nice in person or something.
The notion that going left of liberal decreases the chances of a politician in WV is absurd, and I don't think anyone actually believes that. Would it be enough to win the seat? I don't know, probably not in the near future. But it's still the sound strategy.
Keep in mind that having a bold agenda is inspiring people everywhere. You might lose a few conservative democrats in red states, but most of the time the conservative democrat will just be replaced by a more progressive democrat. A lot of conservative democrats have deep blue constituencies, it's ridiculous. The bold agenda would also help the democrats running against republicans as they would be able to run on something completely within reach. When you run on things that people like, you get more seats. Yup. Bernie almost got more votes in the primary than she did in the general too. WV doesn't like Trump nearly as much as they hate "coastal" neoliberalism and would quickly embrace a worker focused agenda (might lag behind other states in support for the non-working poor agenda items though). Hell they voted Dukakkis over Bush and Gore got 45% Even Obama hit 42+%. An old white guy focused on empowering the working class and not afraid to fight would clean up there. Of course the alternative isn't just a crappy politician, we got less than a decade to remake congress or the scale of ecological catastrophe we'll have doomed future generations (and the younger among us) to will be unimaginably horrific.
Good to have ya back man. Missed ya posting.
|
On November 03 2019 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:It's okay Ren. We don't need them if they don't come.Meanwhile I hope you realize it's extremely condescending to explain away the support of a candidate in a whole state through people not being politically engaged enough to realize that they haven't changed their party affiliation since 19-fucking-88 when I was born, but then being politically engaged enough to know that they want to fuck over the party they are registered to as hard as possible. Only poll of West Virginians I found for 2020 was this one, where Bernie beats Trump by 2% at 48 vs 46 with a 400 sample size. Not saying much about who's going to win the state, but certainly pokes a hole in your theory that they don't really like the left over there. Unless they know to lie in the polls just like they lied in the primaries, those mischievous miners. https://tulchinresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/West-Virginia-Poll-Memo-409-A-5-18-Final.pdf
Who is "they"? Non-progressive Democrats? I'm a progressive, and I want more progressives, but I don't pretend that everyone is going to fall in line behind a progressive candidate if Sanders wins the general election (and why should they, when Bernie-or-Bust voters didn't all fall in line behind Hillary last election). Sadly, some people don't care about the lesser of two evils, and some people don't care about the general election if their favorite primary candidate loses, as if being stuck with Trump, not dealing with climate change, and having more conservative Supreme Court Justices are acceptable punishments. It's an incredibly short-sighted temper tantrum, but it's reality for many voters.
Democrats need to find a way to appeal to moderates, liberals, and progressives.
|
Speaker Pelosi gave an interesting interview to Bloomberg about the left-wing ideas that aregetting all the coverage. Its interesting not because it's new, but because she could he accused of using, as some progressives might complain, "Republican talking points." Pelosi has been fighting to get and maintain a House majority for years now, and while she sacrificed it for almost a decade to pass the ACA, it appears she is not keen to give it up again to pursue pipe dreams. (If only Republicans would give up power to make an almost irreversible change, but alas, fear of the Democrat's insanity is both a gift and a curse. For another time.)
Nancy Pelosi Is Worried 2020 Candidates Are on Wrong Track
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is issuing a pointed message to Democrats running for president in 2020: Those liberal ideas that fire up the party’s base are a big loser when it comes to beating President Donald Trump.
Proposals pushed by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders like Medicare for All and a wealth tax play well in liberal enclaves like her own district in San Francisco but won’t sell in the Midwestern states that sent Trump to the White House in 2016, she said.
“What works in San Francisco does not necessarily work in Michigan,” Pelosi said at a roundtable of Bloomberg News reporters and editors on Friday. “What works in Michigan works in San Francisco — talking about workers’ rights and sharing prosperity.”
“Remember November,” she said. “You must win the Electoral College.”
Pelosi was careful not to back any one candidate in the party’s contentious presidential contest, but didn’t hold back when asked about which ideas should – and shouldn’t – form the party’s case to American voters. Or about her fears that candidates like Warren and Sanders are going down the wrong track by courting only fellow progressives – and not the middle-of-the-road voters Democrats need to win back from Trump.
This is familiar ground for Pelosi, who has spent the year tussling with the “Squad,” a vanguard of liberal newcomers to the House led by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
“As a left-wing San Francisco liberal I can say to these people: What are you thinking?” Pelosi said. “You can ask the left — they’re unhappy with me for not being a socialist.”
Her call for caution is backed by the authority she carries as a giant of Democratic politics who rose from the left wing of the party to become the first female speaker of the House and has earned grudging praise from her foes for her skill as a legislator.
She spoke as polls show a significant tightening of the race with Warren edging up on Joe Biden at the top of the field. A New York Times/Siena College survey of Iowa Democrats released Friday showed the top four candidates — Warren, Sanders, Biden and Pete Buttigieg — all bunched up in a five-point spread at the top of the field.
The speaker’s concerns reflect those of many Democratic leaders and donors who believe that left-wing policies will alienate swing voters and lead to defeat.
The rest is at the link, think I posted about half or more. any errors are from mobile posting.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-02/nancy-pelosi-is-worried-2020-candidates-are-on-wrong-track
|
On November 03 2019 09:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2019 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:It's okay Ren. We don't need them if they don't come.Meanwhile I hope you realize it's extremely condescending to explain away the support of a candidate in a whole state through people not being politically engaged enough to realize that they haven't changed their party affiliation since 19-fucking-88 when I was born, but then being politically engaged enough to know that they want to fuck over the party they are registered to as hard as possible. Only poll of West Virginians I found for 2020 was this one, where Bernie beats Trump by 2% at 48 vs 46 with a 400 sample size. Not saying much about who's going to win the state, but certainly pokes a hole in your theory that they don't really like the left over there. Unless they know to lie in the polls just like they lied in the primaries, those mischievous miners. https://tulchinresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/West-Virginia-Poll-Memo-409-A-5-18-Final.pdf Who is "they"? Non-progressive Democrats? I'm a progressive, and I want more progressives, but I don't pretend that everyone is going to fall in line behind a progressive candidate if Sanders wins the general election (and why should they, when Bernie-or-Bust voters didn't all fall in line behind Hillary last election). Sadly, some people don't care about the lesser of two evils, and some people don't care about the general election if their favorite primary candidate loses, as if being stuck with Trump, not dealing with climate change, and having more conservative Supreme Court Justices are acceptable punishments. It's an incredibly short-sighted temper tantrum, but it's reality for many voters. Democrats need to find a way to appeal to moderates, liberals, and progressives.
They was West Virginia in this instance.
It's logically impossible to appeal to moderates, liberals and progressives at the same time, because liberals simply do not want the same things as progressives. There are contradictions there that we need to solve between different ideologies in order to present a coherent vision. As long as they are grouped together, one of the ideologies isn't going to get what it wants, and the other is going to call for "unity" and blame its opposition whenever it loses some political fight.
Right now the momentum is behind progressives. I think we should use that momentum to offer a very radical vision and shift the Overton window to our side. We appeal to the good chunk of people who vote republican because they hate liberalism, and if things work well enough, we get enough support so that down the line we can then shed the liberals and let them join the rightwing party (where they belong). This in turn allows the rightwing party to moderate, and everything is well in the US again.
I know, simplistic. I don't claim that it's going to work smoothly. But at least it has a coherence in terms of ideologies.
|
On November 03 2019 09:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2019 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:It's okay Ren. We don't need them if they don't come.Meanwhile I hope you realize it's extremely condescending to explain away the support of a candidate in a whole state through people not being politically engaged enough to realize that they haven't changed their party affiliation since 19-fucking-88 when I was born, but then being politically engaged enough to know that they want to fuck over the party they are registered to as hard as possible. Only poll of West Virginians I found for 2020 was this one, where Bernie beats Trump by 2% at 48 vs 46 with a 400 sample size. Not saying much about who's going to win the state, but certainly pokes a hole in your theory that they don't really like the left over there. Unless they know to lie in the polls just like they lied in the primaries, those mischievous miners. https://tulchinresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/West-Virginia-Poll-Memo-409-A-5-18-Final.pdf Who is "they"? Non-progressive Democrats? I'm a progressive, and I want more progressives, but I don't pretend that everyone is going to fall in line behind a progressive candidate if Sanders wins the general election (and why should they, when Bernie-or-Bust voters didn't all fall in line behind Hillary last election). Sadly, some people don't care about the lesser of two evils, and some people don't care about the general election if their favorite primary candidate loses, as if being stuck with Trump, not dealing with climate change, and having more conservative Supreme Court Justices are acceptable punishments. It's an incredibly short-sighted temper tantrum, but it's reality for many voters. Democrats need to find a way to appeal to moderates, liberals, and progressives.
"Non-progressive Democrats" are just Republicans that prefer not to debase themselves with Republicans more ridiculous social positions/rhetoric best I can tell.
They need to acknowledge their wrongness or be defeated, not appealed to imo. They aren't tenuous allies, they are deceitful opposition. The piece posted by Introvert is just one of many appalling pieces/interviews coming out lately with millionaires who want to blame gouging people for insulin on anything but the obvious obsequiousness between both parties and the people that profit from our shameful healthcare system.
|
On November 03 2019 10:39 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2019 09:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 03 2019 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:It's okay Ren. We don't need them if they don't come.Meanwhile I hope you realize it's extremely condescending to explain away the support of a candidate in a whole state through people not being politically engaged enough to realize that they haven't changed their party affiliation since 19-fucking-88 when I was born, but then being politically engaged enough to know that they want to fuck over the party they are registered to as hard as possible. Only poll of West Virginians I found for 2020 was this one, where Bernie beats Trump by 2% at 48 vs 46 with a 400 sample size. Not saying much about who's going to win the state, but certainly pokes a hole in your theory that they don't really like the left over there. Unless they know to lie in the polls just like they lied in the primaries, those mischievous miners. https://tulchinresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/West-Virginia-Poll-Memo-409-A-5-18-Final.pdf Who is "they"? Non-progressive Democrats? I'm a progressive, and I want more progressives, but I don't pretend that everyone is going to fall in line behind a progressive candidate if Sanders wins the general election (and why should they, when Bernie-or-Bust voters didn't all fall in line behind Hillary last election). Sadly, some people don't care about the lesser of two evils, and some people don't care about the general election if their favorite primary candidate loses, as if being stuck with Trump, not dealing with climate change, and having more conservative Supreme Court Justices are acceptable punishments. It's an incredibly short-sighted temper tantrum, but it's reality for many voters. Democrats need to find a way to appeal to moderates, liberals, and progressives. They was West Virginia in this instance. It's logically impossible to appeal to moderates, liberals and progressives at the same time, because liberals simply do not want the same things as progressives. There are contradictions there that we need to solve between different ideologies in order to present a coherent vision. As long as they are grouped together, one of the ideologies isn't going to get what it wants, and the other is going to call for "unity" and blame its opposition whenever it loses some political fight. Right now the momentum is behind progressives. I think we should use that momentum to offer a very radical vision and shift the Overton window to our side. We appeal to the good chunk of people who vote republican because they hate liberalism, and if things work well enough, we get enough support so that down the line we can then shed the liberals and let them join the rightwing party (where they belong). This in turn allows the rightwing party to moderate, and everything is well in the US again. I know, simplistic. I don't claim that it's going to work smoothly. But at least it has a coherence in terms of ideologies.
Its not simplistic its fatalist. And its incoherent. You say its impossible to appeal to progressives moderates and liberals yet propose that somehow Republicans would be able to appeal to reactionaries conservatives moderates and liberals. You also ignore how this would be a disaster for the dems causing them to lose elections for decades or until they change course.
Do people really think ideological purity is the way to electoral success in a two party system?
|
On November 03 2019 12:01 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2019 10:39 Nebuchad wrote:On November 03 2019 09:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 03 2019 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:It's okay Ren. We don't need them if they don't come.Meanwhile I hope you realize it's extremely condescending to explain away the support of a candidate in a whole state through people not being politically engaged enough to realize that they haven't changed their party affiliation since 19-fucking-88 when I was born, but then being politically engaged enough to know that they want to fuck over the party they are registered to as hard as possible. Only poll of West Virginians I found for 2020 was this one, where Bernie beats Trump by 2% at 48 vs 46 with a 400 sample size. Not saying much about who's going to win the state, but certainly pokes a hole in your theory that they don't really like the left over there. Unless they know to lie in the polls just like they lied in the primaries, those mischievous miners. https://tulchinresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/West-Virginia-Poll-Memo-409-A-5-18-Final.pdf Who is "they"? Non-progressive Democrats? I'm a progressive, and I want more progressives, but I don't pretend that everyone is going to fall in line behind a progressive candidate if Sanders wins the general election (and why should they, when Bernie-or-Bust voters didn't all fall in line behind Hillary last election). Sadly, some people don't care about the lesser of two evils, and some people don't care about the general election if their favorite primary candidate loses, as if being stuck with Trump, not dealing with climate change, and having more conservative Supreme Court Justices are acceptable punishments. It's an incredibly short-sighted temper tantrum, but it's reality for many voters. Democrats need to find a way to appeal to moderates, liberals, and progressives. They was West Virginia in this instance. It's logically impossible to appeal to moderates, liberals and progressives at the same time, because liberals simply do not want the same things as progressives. There are contradictions there that we need to solve between different ideologies in order to present a coherent vision. As long as they are grouped together, one of the ideologies isn't going to get what it wants, and the other is going to call for "unity" and blame its opposition whenever it loses some political fight. Right now the momentum is behind progressives. I think we should use that momentum to offer a very radical vision and shift the Overton window to our side. We appeal to the good chunk of people who vote republican because they hate liberalism, and if things work well enough, we get enough support so that down the line we can then shed the liberals and let them join the rightwing party (where they belong). This in turn allows the rightwing party to moderate, and everything is well in the US again. I know, simplistic. I don't claim that it's going to work smoothly. But at least it has a coherence in terms of ideologies. Its not simplistic its fatalist. And its incoherent. You say its impossible to appeal to progressives moderates and liberals yet propose that somehow Republicans would be able to appeal to reactionaries conservatives moderates and liberals. You also ignore how this would be a disaster for the dems causing them to lose elections for decades or until they change course. Do people really think ideological purity is the way to electoral success in a two party system?
In a healthy two party system, if such a thing exists, nobody should appeal to reactionaries. Conservatives and liberals are virtually the same group and is the group that the right should primarily be appealing to, while the left should be the group of people that want structural change (see the right as a defense of existing power structures and order, ergo liberalism, and the left as offering another vision).
|
On November 03 2019 10:39 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2019 09:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 03 2019 08:15 Nebuchad wrote:It's okay Ren. We don't need them if they don't come.Meanwhile I hope you realize it's extremely condescending to explain away the support of a candidate in a whole state through people not being politically engaged enough to realize that they haven't changed their party affiliation since 19-fucking-88 when I was born, but then being politically engaged enough to know that they want to fuck over the party they are registered to as hard as possible. Only poll of West Virginians I found for 2020 was this one, where Bernie beats Trump by 2% at 48 vs 46 with a 400 sample size. Not saying much about who's going to win the state, but certainly pokes a hole in your theory that they don't really like the left over there. Unless they know to lie in the polls just like they lied in the primaries, those mischievous miners. https://tulchinresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/West-Virginia-Poll-Memo-409-A-5-18-Final.pdf Who is "they"? Non-progressive Democrats? I'm a progressive, and I want more progressives, but I don't pretend that everyone is going to fall in line behind a progressive candidate if Sanders wins the general election (and why should they, when Bernie-or-Bust voters didn't all fall in line behind Hillary last election). Sadly, some people don't care about the lesser of two evils, and some people don't care about the general election if their favorite primary candidate loses, as if being stuck with Trump, not dealing with climate change, and having more conservative Supreme Court Justices are acceptable punishments. It's an incredibly short-sighted temper tantrum, but it's reality for many voters. Democrats need to find a way to appeal to moderates, liberals, and progressives. They was West Virginia in this instance. It's logically impossible to appeal to moderates, liberals and progressives at the same time, because liberals simply do not want the same things as progressives. There are contradictions there that we need to solve between different ideologies in order to present a coherent vision. As long as they are grouped together, one of the ideologies isn't going to get what it wants, and the other is going to call for "unity" and blame its opposition whenever it loses some political fight. Right now the momentum is behind progressives. I think we should use that momentum to offer a very radical vision and shift the Overton window to our side. We appeal to the good chunk of people who vote republican because they hate liberalism, and if things work well enough, we get enough support so that down the line we can then shed the liberals and let them join the rightwing party (where they belong). This in turn allows the rightwing party to moderate, and everything is well in the US again. I know, simplistic. I don't claim that it's going to work smoothly. But at least it has a coherence in terms of ideologies.
I agree that the Overton window shifting further is a good thing, but I disagree that there isn't a way to simultaneously please liberals, progressives, and moderates. If those groups are unwilling to compromise at all, then fine, but I think a Democratic candidate can run on a package of platforms that is more attractive to liberals, progressives, and even moderates, if those groups are looking for an overall, bigger picture victory, compared to what Republicans want to offer them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/WyjYGzP.jpg)
