|
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 |
sorry i’m a page behind i take this back in the meantime
yep this had been answered by someone else.
|
On June 08 2018 01:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone? No. I think everyone understands the theory, but sees a lot of unintended consequences to that plan and that it might not work. Or to put it another way, I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't like John McCain, Rand Paul and Olympia Snowe. There were threats to primary Snowe or have her support pulled after the healthcare vote. But it never happened, because it is very hard to tell the voters they can't vote for their senator any more because the party said so.
I think the problem you're having is you're stuck imagining this through how Democrats thought 2016 should be handled.
You don't tell them they can't vote for their favorite candidate. You don't beg someone like Manchin to run.
You don't concede the state to the Republican, you give people a progressive they can vote for. Now I'm actually more in the revolutionary camp, but if people are claiming to be progressive (rather than more firmly "centrist" like Manchin) then actually moving the country left is more important than winning a cycle or two, particularly when it means moving to the right to do it.
You embrace the leftward swing in the party, and you turn enough of the 25%+ of the country that agrees with you but doesn't vote into voters by not being sellouts who would spend their money on a Trump supporter that puts a D next to his name.
Then all of you vote for them anyway otherwise you're everything you accused me of being. Presumably you guys still think that's as bad as you thought it was then.
|
On June 08 2018 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 01:40 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone? No. I think everyone understands the theory, but sees a lot of unintended consequences to that plan and that it might not work. Or to put it another way, I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't like John McCain, Rand Paul and Olympia Snowe. There were threats to primary Snowe or have her support pulled after the healthcare vote. But it never happened, because it is very hard to tell the voters they can't vote for their senator any more because the party said so. I think the problem you're having is you're stuck imagining this through how Democrats thought 2016 should be handled. You don't tell them they can't vote for their favorite candidate. You don't beg someone like Manchin to run. You don't concede the state to the Republican, you give people a progressive they can vote for. Now I'm actually more in the revolutionary camp, but if people are claiming to be progressive (rather than more firmly "centrist" like Manchin) then actually moving the country left is more important than winning a cycle or two, particularly when it means moving to the right to do it. You embrace the leftward swing in the party, and you turn enough of the 25%+ of the country that agrees with you but doesn't vote into voters by not being sellouts who would spend their money on a Trump supporter that puts a D next to his name. Then all of you vote for them anyway otherwise you're everything you accused me of being. Presumably you guys still think that's as bad as you thought it was then.
I just don't want any unforced errors for nothing.
To put it another way, I think it will work about as well as DCCC trying to shut out some popular progressive candidates. It will backfire and get them endless ill will. They can quietly withhold some funding from Manchin if they want, but it might be easier to simply focus on winning other seats so they don't need his vote. But that isn't a 2018 issue, since they are just trying to hang on to seats this time around. They are defending more seats that the GOP by like 2 to 1 this year.
|
On June 08 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:40 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone? No. I think everyone understands the theory, but sees a lot of unintended consequences to that plan and that it might not work. Or to put it another way, I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't like John McCain, Rand Paul and Olympia Snowe. There were threats to primary Snowe or have her support pulled after the healthcare vote. But it never happened, because it is very hard to tell the voters they can't vote for their senator any more because the party said so. I think the problem you're having is you're stuck imagining this through how Democrats thought 2016 should be handled. You don't tell them they can't vote for their favorite candidate. You don't beg someone like Manchin to run. You don't concede the state to the Republican, you give people a progressive they can vote for. Now I'm actually more in the revolutionary camp, but if people are claiming to be progressive (rather than more firmly "centrist" like Manchin) then actually moving the country left is more important than winning a cycle or two, particularly when it means moving to the right to do it. You embrace the leftward swing in the party, and you turn enough of the 25%+ of the country that agrees with you but doesn't vote into voters by not being sellouts who would spend their money on a Trump supporter that puts a D next to his name. Then all of you vote for them anyway otherwise you're everything you accused me of being. Presumably you guys still think that's as bad as you thought it was then. I just don't want any unforced errors for nothing. To put it another way, I think it will work about as well as DCCC trying to shut out some popular progressive candidates. It will backfire and get them endless ill will. They can quietly withhold some funding from Manchin if they want, but it might be easier to simply focus on winning other seats so they don't need his vote. But that isn't a 2018 issue, since they are just trying to hang on to seats this time around. They are defending more seats that the GOP by like 2 to 1 this year.
You're already defending getting intentional errors (supporting Trump supporters with party money) for nothing. Part of how this nonsense continues is always framing it as a necessary evil of timing.
We really want to do something, but it's not the right time. We really want to do something but that won't fix everything. We really want to do something but the other side won't let us. We really want to do something. We really want to do something but these other things we also oppose would be better to focus on.
Any of that sound familiar?
|
On June 08 2018 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:40 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone? No. I think everyone understands the theory, but sees a lot of unintended consequences to that plan and that it might not work. Or to put it another way, I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't like John McCain, Rand Paul and Olympia Snowe. There were threats to primary Snowe or have her support pulled after the healthcare vote. But it never happened, because it is very hard to tell the voters they can't vote for their senator any more because the party said so. I think the problem you're having is you're stuck imagining this through how Democrats thought 2016 should be handled. You don't tell them they can't vote for their favorite candidate. You don't beg someone like Manchin to run. You don't concede the state to the Republican, you give people a progressive they can vote for. Now I'm actually more in the revolutionary camp, but if people are claiming to be progressive (rather than more firmly "centrist" like Manchin) then actually moving the country left is more important than winning a cycle or two, particularly when it means moving to the right to do it. You embrace the leftward swing in the party, and you turn enough of the 25%+ of the country that agrees with you but doesn't vote into voters by not being sellouts who would spend their money on a Trump supporter that puts a D next to his name. Then all of you vote for them anyway otherwise you're everything you accused me of being. Presumably you guys still think that's as bad as you thought it was then. I just don't want any unforced errors for nothing. To put it another way, I think it will work about as well as DCCC trying to shut out some popular progressive candidates. It will backfire and get them endless ill will. They can quietly withhold some funding from Manchin if they want, but it might be easier to simply focus on winning other seats so they don't need his vote. But that isn't a 2018 issue, since they are just trying to hang on to seats this time around. They are defending more seats that the GOP by like 2 to 1 this year. You're already defending getting intentional errors (supporting Trump supporters with party money) for nothing. Part of how this nonsense continues is always framing it as a necessary evil of timing. We really want to do something, but it's not the right time. We really want to do something but that won't fix everything. We really want to do something but the other side won't let us. We really want to do something. We really want to do something but these other things we also oppose would be better to focus on. Any of that sound familiar?
Isn't that what all your posts are about?
|
On June 08 2018 02:07 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:40 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone? No. I think everyone understands the theory, but sees a lot of unintended consequences to that plan and that it might not work. Or to put it another way, I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't like John McCain, Rand Paul and Olympia Snowe. There were threats to primary Snowe or have her support pulled after the healthcare vote. But it never happened, because it is very hard to tell the voters they can't vote for their senator any more because the party said so. I think the problem you're having is you're stuck imagining this through how Democrats thought 2016 should be handled. You don't tell them they can't vote for their favorite candidate. You don't beg someone like Manchin to run. You don't concede the state to the Republican, you give people a progressive they can vote for. Now I'm actually more in the revolutionary camp, but if people are claiming to be progressive (rather than more firmly "centrist" like Manchin) then actually moving the country left is more important than winning a cycle or two, particularly when it means moving to the right to do it. You embrace the leftward swing in the party, and you turn enough of the 25%+ of the country that agrees with you but doesn't vote into voters by not being sellouts who would spend their money on a Trump supporter that puts a D next to his name. Then all of you vote for them anyway otherwise you're everything you accused me of being. Presumably you guys still think that's as bad as you thought it was then. I just don't want any unforced errors for nothing. To put it another way, I think it will work about as well as DCCC trying to shut out some popular progressive candidates. It will backfire and get them endless ill will. They can quietly withhold some funding from Manchin if they want, but it might be easier to simply focus on winning other seats so they don't need his vote. But that isn't a 2018 issue, since they are just trying to hang on to seats this time around. They are defending more seats that the GOP by like 2 to 1 this year. You're already defending getting intentional errors (supporting Trump supporters with party money) for nothing. Part of how this nonsense continues is always framing it as a necessary evil of timing. We really want to do something, but it's not the right time. We really want to do something but that won't fix everything. We really want to do something but the other side won't let us. We really want to do something. We really want to do something but these other things we also oppose would be better to focus on. Any of that sound familiar? Isn't that what all your posts are about?
no
|
On June 08 2018 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:40 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone? No. I think everyone understands the theory, but sees a lot of unintended consequences to that plan and that it might not work. Or to put it another way, I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't like John McCain, Rand Paul and Olympia Snowe. There were threats to primary Snowe or have her support pulled after the healthcare vote. But it never happened, because it is very hard to tell the voters they can't vote for their senator any more because the party said so. I think the problem you're having is you're stuck imagining this through how Democrats thought 2016 should be handled. You don't tell them they can't vote for their favorite candidate. You don't beg someone like Manchin to run. You don't concede the state to the Republican, you give people a progressive they can vote for. Now I'm actually more in the revolutionary camp, but if people are claiming to be progressive (rather than more firmly "centrist" like Manchin) then actually moving the country left is more important than winning a cycle or two, particularly when it means moving to the right to do it. You embrace the leftward swing in the party, and you turn enough of the 25%+ of the country that agrees with you but doesn't vote into voters by not being sellouts who would spend their money on a Trump supporter that puts a D next to his name. Then all of you vote for them anyway otherwise you're everything you accused me of being. Presumably you guys still think that's as bad as you thought it was then. I just don't want any unforced errors for nothing. To put it another way, I think it will work about as well as DCCC trying to shut out some popular progressive candidates. It will backfire and get them endless ill will. They can quietly withhold some funding from Manchin if they want, but it might be easier to simply focus on winning other seats so they don't need his vote. But that isn't a 2018 issue, since they are just trying to hang on to seats this time around. They are defending more seats that the GOP by like 2 to 1 this year. You're already defending getting intentional errors (supporting Trump supporters with party money) for nothing. Part of how this nonsense continues is always framing it as a necessary evil of timing. We really want to do something, but it's not the right time. We really want to do something but that won't fix everything. We really want to do something but the other side won't let us. We really want to do something. We really want to do something but these other things we also oppose would be better to focus on. Any of that sound familiar?
You need 60 votes in the senate to do anything of substance. This year it looks like Democrats will pick up zero seats and maybe lose a few. Not so much in 2020, when redistricting also happens. So I have no problem with sending some money to a guy who says he might support Trump. Because I think he will win with or without the support, so I would rather not piss him and his voters off for zero gain.
|
On June 08 2018 02:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:40 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone? No. I think everyone understands the theory, but sees a lot of unintended consequences to that plan and that it might not work. Or to put it another way, I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't like John McCain, Rand Paul and Olympia Snowe. There were threats to primary Snowe or have her support pulled after the healthcare vote. But it never happened, because it is very hard to tell the voters they can't vote for their senator any more because the party said so. I think the problem you're having is you're stuck imagining this through how Democrats thought 2016 should be handled. You don't tell them they can't vote for their favorite candidate. You don't beg someone like Manchin to run. You don't concede the state to the Republican, you give people a progressive they can vote for. Now I'm actually more in the revolutionary camp, but if people are claiming to be progressive (rather than more firmly "centrist" like Manchin) then actually moving the country left is more important than winning a cycle or two, particularly when it means moving to the right to do it. You embrace the leftward swing in the party, and you turn enough of the 25%+ of the country that agrees with you but doesn't vote into voters by not being sellouts who would spend their money on a Trump supporter that puts a D next to his name. Then all of you vote for them anyway otherwise you're everything you accused me of being. Presumably you guys still think that's as bad as you thought it was then. I just don't want any unforced errors for nothing. To put it another way, I think it will work about as well as DCCC trying to shut out some popular progressive candidates. It will backfire and get them endless ill will. They can quietly withhold some funding from Manchin if they want, but it might be easier to simply focus on winning other seats so they don't need his vote. But that isn't a 2018 issue, since they are just trying to hang on to seats this time around. They are defending more seats that the GOP by like 2 to 1 this year. You're already defending getting intentional errors (supporting Trump supporters with party money) for nothing. Part of how this nonsense continues is always framing it as a necessary evil of timing. We really want to do something, but it's not the right time. We really want to do something but that won't fix everything. We really want to do something but the other side won't let us. We really want to do something. We really want to do something but these other things we also oppose would be better to focus on. Any of that sound familiar? You need 60 votes in the senate to do anything of substance. This year it looks like Democrats will pick up zero seats and maybe lose a few. Not so much in 2020, when redistricting also happens. So I have no problem with sending some money to a guy who says he might support Trump. Because I think he will win with or without the support, so I would rather not piss him and his voters off for zero gain.
Right, that's my point?
You want Democrats to spend money on supporting Trump for nothing. I think that's a bad strategy. Why you think it's a good one was what I was trying to figure out.
|
On June 08 2018 02:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 02:16 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:40 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone? No. I think everyone understands the theory, but sees a lot of unintended consequences to that plan and that it might not work. Or to put it another way, I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't like John McCain, Rand Paul and Olympia Snowe. There were threats to primary Snowe or have her support pulled after the healthcare vote. But it never happened, because it is very hard to tell the voters they can't vote for their senator any more because the party said so. I think the problem you're having is you're stuck imagining this through how Democrats thought 2016 should be handled. You don't tell them they can't vote for their favorite candidate. You don't beg someone like Manchin to run. You don't concede the state to the Republican, you give people a progressive they can vote for. Now I'm actually more in the revolutionary camp, but if people are claiming to be progressive (rather than more firmly "centrist" like Manchin) then actually moving the country left is more important than winning a cycle or two, particularly when it means moving to the right to do it. You embrace the leftward swing in the party, and you turn enough of the 25%+ of the country that agrees with you but doesn't vote into voters by not being sellouts who would spend their money on a Trump supporter that puts a D next to his name. Then all of you vote for them anyway otherwise you're everything you accused me of being. Presumably you guys still think that's as bad as you thought it was then. I just don't want any unforced errors for nothing. To put it another way, I think it will work about as well as DCCC trying to shut out some popular progressive candidates. It will backfire and get them endless ill will. They can quietly withhold some funding from Manchin if they want, but it might be easier to simply focus on winning other seats so they don't need his vote. But that isn't a 2018 issue, since they are just trying to hang on to seats this time around. They are defending more seats that the GOP by like 2 to 1 this year. You're already defending getting intentional errors (supporting Trump supporters with party money) for nothing. Part of how this nonsense continues is always framing it as a necessary evil of timing. We really want to do something, but it's not the right time. We really want to do something but that won't fix everything. We really want to do something but the other side won't let us. We really want to do something. We really want to do something but these other things we also oppose would be better to focus on. Any of that sound familiar? You need 60 votes in the senate to do anything of substance. This year it looks like Democrats will pick up zero seats and maybe lose a few. Not so much in 2020, when redistricting also happens. So I have no problem with sending some money to a guy who says he might support Trump. Because I think he will win with or without the support, so I would rather not piss him and his voters off for zero gain. Right, that's my point? You want Democrats to spend money on supporting Trump for nothing. I think that's a bad strategy. Why you think it's a good one was what I was trying to figure out.
Because I don’t believe there is anything to gain by trying to pull support. It is just mess infighting within the party that accomplishes very little. I didn’t agree with it when they tried to do it with Leiberman over his support of the Iraq war, even though I disagreed with him in every way. Manchin says he supports Trump now while running for office in the most pro-Trump state. That might sound a bit different once he has another 6 year term under his belt. And I don’t’ really care what he says out loud as long has he doesn’t vote to fuck over my wife’s health care, which he hasn’t done yet.
|
On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone?
"We need people like Manchin & Heitkamp in there for legislative majorities. No more purity tests!"
*Manchin & Heitkamp confirm people like Scott Pruitt to EPA*
"Pruitt is a cartoon villain that wants to destroy the environment through asbestos!"
I suggest honesty in the tradeoffs. If you're okay compromising with those two furthering the environmental agenda of Donald Trump, say it's a worthy exchange. Preservation of PPACA/Obamacare for asbestos. You literally can't have it both ways.
|
On June 08 2018 02:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 02:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 02:16 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:57 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:40 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone? No. I think everyone understands the theory, but sees a lot of unintended consequences to that plan and that it might not work. Or to put it another way, I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't like John McCain, Rand Paul and Olympia Snowe. There were threats to primary Snowe or have her support pulled after the healthcare vote. But it never happened, because it is very hard to tell the voters they can't vote for their senator any more because the party said so. I think the problem you're having is you're stuck imagining this through how Democrats thought 2016 should be handled. You don't tell them they can't vote for their favorite candidate. You don't beg someone like Manchin to run. You don't concede the state to the Republican, you give people a progressive they can vote for. Now I'm actually more in the revolutionary camp, but if people are claiming to be progressive (rather than more firmly "centrist" like Manchin) then actually moving the country left is more important than winning a cycle or two, particularly when it means moving to the right to do it. You embrace the leftward swing in the party, and you turn enough of the 25%+ of the country that agrees with you but doesn't vote into voters by not being sellouts who would spend their money on a Trump supporter that puts a D next to his name. Then all of you vote for them anyway otherwise you're everything you accused me of being. Presumably you guys still think that's as bad as you thought it was then. I just don't want any unforced errors for nothing. To put it another way, I think it will work about as well as DCCC trying to shut out some popular progressive candidates. It will backfire and get them endless ill will. They can quietly withhold some funding from Manchin if they want, but it might be easier to simply focus on winning other seats so they don't need his vote. But that isn't a 2018 issue, since they are just trying to hang on to seats this time around. They are defending more seats that the GOP by like 2 to 1 this year. You're already defending getting intentional errors (supporting Trump supporters with party money) for nothing. Part of how this nonsense continues is always framing it as a necessary evil of timing. We really want to do something, but it's not the right time. We really want to do something but that won't fix everything. We really want to do something but the other side won't let us. We really want to do something. We really want to do something but these other things we also oppose would be better to focus on. Any of that sound familiar? You need 60 votes in the senate to do anything of substance. This year it looks like Democrats will pick up zero seats and maybe lose a few. Not so much in 2020, when redistricting also happens. So I have no problem with sending some money to a guy who says he might support Trump. Because I think he will win with or without the support, so I would rather not piss him and his voters off for zero gain. Right, that's my point? You want Democrats to spend money on supporting Trump for nothing. I think that's a bad strategy. Why you think it's a good one was what I was trying to figure out. Because I don’t believe there is anything to gain by trying to pull support. It is just mess infighting within the party that accomplishes very little. I didn’t agree with it when they tried to do it with Leiberman over his support of the Iraq war, even though I disagreed with him in every way. Manchin says he supports Trump now while running for office in the most pro-Trump state. That might sound a bit different once he has another 6 year term under his belt. And I don’t’ really care what he says out loud as long has he doesn’t vote to fuck over my wife’s health care, which he hasn’t done yet.
So you're hoping he's a liar and deceiving his voters (despite having a record of supporting many of Trump's worst nominations and his immigration policy) because you don't want him to feel unwelcome.
That's what is wrong with the party. Democrats (you among them) felt perfectly fine making the progressive wing feel unwelcome (this is ongoing with the "Bernie isn't a Democrat" meme). What you want isn't to avoid infighting, you want to avoid infighting against the status quo. Not just the status quo, you want to stifle infighting against the Trump supporting wing of the status quo.
We can agree to disagree on whether that's a good strategy, but at least I know it's the reasoning Democrats like yourself are using. For the ones that flush it out this far anyway.
On June 08 2018 02:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone? "We need people like Manchin & Heitkamp in there for legislative majorities. No more purity tests!" *Manchin & Heitkamp confirm people like Scott Pruitt to EPA* "Pruitt is a cartoon villain that wants to destroy the environment through asbestos!" I suggest honesty in the tradeoffs. If you're okay compromising with those two furthering the environmental agenda of Donald Trump, say it's a worthy exchange. Preservation of PPACA/Obamacare for asbestos. You literally can't have it both ways.
ffs stop making danglars right.
Please, if I can't convince you of anything else, please stop making Danglars right.
|
The asbestos is staggeringly stupid. I half way expect him to roll back lead paint regulations too and remove the strict liability associated with it.
GH: You forget that I am not a democrat. I’m unaffiliated. I don’t give a shit who is the Senator of W.V. But I really give a shit about healthcare laws. I am perfectly happy with a liar I don’t have and never will vote for that doesn’t mess with my wife’s healthcare.
|
United States13815 Posts
It baffles me that anyone would actualy register as apart of a political party outside of the politicians themselves.
|
On June 08 2018 02:34 Plansix wrote:
The asbestos is staggeringly stupid. I half way expect him to roll back lead paint regulations too and remove the strict liability associated with it.
GH: You forget that I am not a democrat. I’m unaffiliated. I don’t give a shit who is the Senator of W.V. But I really give a shit about healthcare laws. I am perfectly happy with a liar I don’t have and never will vote for that doesn’t mess with my wife’s healthcare.
I'm not forgetting. It doesn't change my point at all. The whole "mess with my wife's healthcare" makes about as much sense as your supporting Hillary in the primary to avoid your brother going back to a warzone.
But I think we've covered it. Folks can be fine with Manchin, but don't pretend the bipartisan asbestos isn't part of the deal. A deal you support and I oppose or more generally as it applies to the factions of the political scene.
|
Did the DNC even give Manchin anything for this most recent primary? I can't turn anything up but admittedly it's a month old at this point and drowned out by other primaries. He kinda just wins the primaries against more progressive opposition.
Or are we talking about some sort of banning him from caucusing with Dems/not supporting him in the general deal?
The only way you'll guarantee a nationally unified party is to have national registration and mandatory closed primaries (and even that only works in a situation where everyone votes to select every Senatorial nominee which is illegal and probably unconstitutional), and closed primaries seem unpalatable to the left right now, so I'm not sure what solutions there even are.
It is fascinating that opposition to closed primaries and arguments against conservative Democrats/liberal Republicans peaked at the same time, though.
|
On June 08 2018 02:42 Sermokala wrote:
It baffles me that anyone would actualy register as apart of a political party outside of the politicians themselves.
Closed primaries or if you plan to work in politics are the only other reasons. Beyond being part of the state party and doing work for them. I’ve helped out with a couple state elections, but that was because a friend’s family member was running for local office.
On June 08 2018 02:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Did the DNC even give Manchin anything for this most recent primary? I can't turn anything up but admittedly it's a month old at this point and drowned out by other primaries. He kinda just wins the primaries against opposition.
Or are we talking about some sort of banning him from caucusing with Dems/not supporting him in the general deal?
The only way you'll guarantee a nationally unified party is to have national registration and mandatory closed primaries (and even that only works in a situation where everyone votes to select every Senatorial nominee which is illegal and probably unconstitutional), and closed primaries seem unpalatable to the left right now, so I'm not sure what solutions there even are.
Good luck with that, primary laws are set state by state. And states lawmakers go crazy when the federal goverment tells them how to run their shit.
|
On June 08 2018 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 01:40 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone? No. I think everyone understands the theory, but sees a lot of unintended consequences to that plan and that it might not work. Or to put it another way, I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't like John McCain, Rand Paul and Olympia Snowe. There were threats to primary Snowe or have her support pulled after the healthcare vote. But it never happened, because it is very hard to tell the voters they can't vote for their senator any more because the party said so. I think the problem you're having is you're stuck imagining this through how Democrats thought 2016 should be handled. You don't tell them they can't vote for their favorite candidate. You don't beg someone like Manchin to run. You don't concede the state to the Republican, you give people a progressive they can vote for. Now I'm actually more in the revolutionary camp, but if people are claiming to be progressive (rather than more firmly "centrist" like Manchin) then actually moving the country left is more important than winning a cycle or two, particularly when it means moving to the right to do it. You embrace the leftward swing in the party, and you turn enough of the 25%+ of the country that agrees with you but doesn't vote into voters by not being sellouts who would spend their money on a Trump supporter that puts a D next to his name. Then all of you vote for them anyway otherwise you're everything you accused me of being. Presumably you guys still think that's as bad as you thought it was then.
I don't see how any of this is at all relevant to West Virginia.
|
On June 08 2018 02:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:40 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone? No. I think everyone understands the theory, but sees a lot of unintended consequences to that plan and that it might not work. Or to put it another way, I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't like John McCain, Rand Paul and Olympia Snowe. There were threats to primary Snowe or have her support pulled after the healthcare vote. But it never happened, because it is very hard to tell the voters they can't vote for their senator any more because the party said so. I think the problem you're having is you're stuck imagining this through how Democrats thought 2016 should be handled. You don't tell them they can't vote for their favorite candidate. You don't beg someone like Manchin to run. You don't concede the state to the Republican, you give people a progressive they can vote for. Now I'm actually more in the revolutionary camp, but if people are claiming to be progressive (rather than more firmly "centrist" like Manchin) then actually moving the country left is more important than winning a cycle or two, particularly when it means moving to the right to do it. You embrace the leftward swing in the party, and you turn enough of the 25%+ of the country that agrees with you but doesn't vote into voters by not being sellouts who would spend their money on a Trump supporter that puts a D next to his name. Then all of you vote for them anyway otherwise you're everything you accused me of being. Presumably you guys still think that's as bad as you thought it was then. I don't see how any of this is at all relevant to West Virginia.
It's not. GH just posts inflammatory things so that people will respond to him so that he can have another one of his rants about embracing the left. This has happened a million times and it will just keep happening. This thread regularly goes through phases with GH tries to get as many people to reply to him as possible.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 08 2018 02:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Did the DNC even give Manchin anything for this most recent primary? I can't turn anything up but admittedly it's a month old at this point and drowned out by other primaries. He kinda just always wins the primaries against opposition consistently.
Or are we talking about some sort of banning him from caucusing with Dems/not supporting him in the general deal?
The only way you'll guarantee a nationally unified party is to have national registration and mandatory closed primaries (and even that only works in a situation where everyone votes to select every Senatorial nominee which is illegal), and closed primaries seem unpalatable to the left right now, so I'm not sure what solutions there even are.
Yes. They actually spent more than a million propping up a criminal Republican to hold people to Manchin's left hostage with (vote Manchin or else).
As to the party giving to him directly, there was the piece I cited where they were practically begging him to run/he threatened to retire.
Solutions, I mentioned earlier as well. But Democrats/Liberals/however they label largely think it's the progressives and the idea they need solutions that *is* the problem.
On June 08 2018 02:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:40 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone? No. I think everyone understands the theory, but sees a lot of unintended consequences to that plan and that it might not work. Or to put it another way, I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't like John McCain, Rand Paul and Olympia Snowe. There were threats to primary Snowe or have her support pulled after the healthcare vote. But it never happened, because it is very hard to tell the voters they can't vote for their senator any more because the party said so. I think the problem you're having is you're stuck imagining this through how Democrats thought 2016 should be handled. You don't tell them they can't vote for their favorite candidate. You don't beg someone like Manchin to run. You don't concede the state to the Republican, you give people a progressive they can vote for. Now I'm actually more in the revolutionary camp, but if people are claiming to be progressive (rather than more firmly "centrist" like Manchin) then actually moving the country left is more important than winning a cycle or two, particularly when it means moving to the right to do it. You embrace the leftward swing in the party, and you turn enough of the 25%+ of the country that agrees with you but doesn't vote into voters by not being sellouts who would spend their money on a Trump supporter that puts a D next to his name. Then all of you vote for them anyway otherwise you're everything you accused me of being. Presumably you guys still think that's as bad as you thought it was then. I don't see how any of this is at all relevant to West Virginia.
How isn't it?
On June 08 2018 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 02:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 08 2018 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:40 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone? No. I think everyone understands the theory, but sees a lot of unintended consequences to that plan and that it might not work. Or to put it another way, I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't like John McCain, Rand Paul and Olympia Snowe. There were threats to primary Snowe or have her support pulled after the healthcare vote. But it never happened, because it is very hard to tell the voters they can't vote for their senator any more because the party said so. I think the problem you're having is you're stuck imagining this through how Democrats thought 2016 should be handled. You don't tell them they can't vote for their favorite candidate. You don't beg someone like Manchin to run. You don't concede the state to the Republican, you give people a progressive they can vote for. Now I'm actually more in the revolutionary camp, but if people are claiming to be progressive (rather than more firmly "centrist" like Manchin) then actually moving the country left is more important than winning a cycle or two, particularly when it means moving to the right to do it. You embrace the leftward swing in the party, and you turn enough of the 25%+ of the country that agrees with you but doesn't vote into voters by not being sellouts who would spend their money on a Trump supporter that puts a D next to his name. Then all of you vote for them anyway otherwise you're everything you accused me of being. Presumably you guys still think that's as bad as you thought it was then. I don't see how any of this is at all relevant to West Virginia. It's not. GH just posts inflammatory things so that people will respond to him so that he can have another one of his rants about embracing the left. This has happened a million times and it will just keep happening. This thread regularly goes through phases with GH tries to get as many people to reply to him as possible.
"inflammatory things" lol
EDIT: For the record though, I'd prefer one good poster/argument rather than posts like Wolfs which just pop in and out without any cogent argument. Or yours which gives a one-liner disagreement then abandons the conversation only to come back and complain about it without anything of value to add.
|
On June 08 2018 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 02:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 08 2018 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:40 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone? No. I think everyone understands the theory, but sees a lot of unintended consequences to that plan and that it might not work. Or to put it another way, I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't like John McCain, Rand Paul and Olympia Snowe. There were threats to primary Snowe or have her support pulled after the healthcare vote. But it never happened, because it is very hard to tell the voters they can't vote for their senator any more because the party said so. I think the problem you're having is you're stuck imagining this through how Democrats thought 2016 should be handled. You don't tell them they can't vote for their favorite candidate. You don't beg someone like Manchin to run. You don't concede the state to the Republican, you give people a progressive they can vote for. Now I'm actually more in the revolutionary camp, but if people are claiming to be progressive (rather than more firmly "centrist" like Manchin) then actually moving the country left is more important than winning a cycle or two, particularly when it means moving to the right to do it. You embrace the leftward swing in the party, and you turn enough of the 25%+ of the country that agrees with you but doesn't vote into voters by not being sellouts who would spend their money on a Trump supporter that puts a D next to his name. Then all of you vote for them anyway otherwise you're everything you accused me of being. Presumably you guys still think that's as bad as you thought it was then. I don't see how any of this is at all relevant to West Virginia. How isn't it?
So what does this hypothetical progressive that West Virginians can vote for run their platform on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
