|
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 June 25 2022 13:33 Diavlo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2022 10:17 Severedevil wrote:
The Bernie crowd pushed for a popular candidate with popular policies who would've won in 2016. The Democratic establishment pushed for an unpopular candidate who lost in 2016. It takes some truly bonkers mental gymnastics to blame that failure on Bernie backers. That's seems like a weird take to me, either Bernie had enough support to win and the fact that his electorate didn't come to vote for Hillary was part of the reason she lost or he was not more popular than Hillary and his voters are blameless but you can't have both. I think it's perfectly fair to think Bernie would have won and that the DNC skrewed him but part of his base sitting at home pouting and the general discourse that Hillary and Trump were the same definitely played a part in her defeat.
Or Hillary didn't inspire as many independents as Bernie would have and it's on Hillary, her campaign, and the DNC for not inspiring people to vote. You can't lay the blame on an electorate of a different candidate that dropped out of the race lol. It's not that electorate's job to go vote for the candidate they don't want. It's on the candidate to convince them they're worth voting for anyways.
And who was saying Hillary and Trump were the same? I don't think anybody thought Hillary and Trump could have been any more different. One was an establishment politician representing the country's leftwing party and the other was a rightwing populist TV personality and failed businessman coasting off his inherited wealth and illegal business dealings. People didn't say they were the same they said the both sucked, and they did. Trump sucked infinitely more than Hillary but having two steaming piles of shit to vote for rarely gets people motivated to vote, which is, again, on Hillary and her campaign.
Luckily, enough people ignored the smell long enough to cast their ballots for Biden in 2020.
|
On June 25 2022 11:06 LegalLord wrote:
First thing's first, we need to get the presidency, and both houses of Congress, for the Democrats. And we can't be purists about it - progressives, moderates, whoever we can get in. And then, no excuses, we'll finally get results and make good steady improvements for the good of the country. I look at it less as "We need to get Democrats into office" and more "we need to get Republicans out of office." At the very least, the people broadly responsible for Republican policy goals being met shouldn't be rewarded with reelection and a comfortable job in Congress. Even if the replacement is functionally a sack of bricks like Manchin or Sinema, that's still better than having a Republican reelected to Congress.
Maybe it even creates space for useful people to run.
|
On June 25 2022 14:30 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2022 13:33 Diavlo wrote:On June 25 2022 10:17 Severedevil wrote:
The Bernie crowd pushed for a popular candidate with popular policies who would've won in 2016. The Democratic establishment pushed for an unpopular candidate who lost in 2016. It takes some truly bonkers mental gymnastics to blame that failure on Bernie backers. That's seems like a weird take to me, either Bernie had enough support to win and the fact that his electorate didn't come to vote for Hillary was part of the reason she lost or he was not more popular than Hillary and his voters are blameless but you can't have both. I think it's perfectly fair to think Bernie would have won and that the DNC skrewed him but part of his base sitting at home pouting and the general discourse that Hillary and Trump were the same definitely played a part in her defeat. Or Hillary didn't inspire as many independents as Bernie would have and it's on Hillary, her campaign, and the DNC for not inspiring people to vote. You can't lay the blame on an electorate of a different candidate that dropped out of the race lol. It's not that electorate's job to go vote for the candidate they don't want. It's on the candidate to convince them they're worth voting for anyways. And who was saying Hillary and Trump were the same? I don't think anybody thought Hillary and Trump could have been any more different. One was an establishment politician representing the country's leftwing party and the other was a rightwing populist TV personality and failed businessman coasting off his inherited wealth and illegal business dealings. People didn't say they were the same they said the both sucked, and they did. Trump sucked infinitely more than Hillary but having two steaming piles of shit to vote for rarely gets people motivated to vote, which is, again, on Hillary and her campaign. Luckily, enough people ignored the smell long enough to cast their ballots for Biden in 2020.
Sure, it is on Hillary if she can't inspire people. But it is definitely also on those people who did not vote for her if they saw that there were 2 choices and did not prevent the one that was objectively much much worse.
|
Alright, listen folks. Friday was horrifying, and next week is going to be significantly worse. The Supreme Court will issue their ruling on the West Virginia v EPA case, and the worst-case scenario is also the most likely: they're going to not only gut the EPA, but most likely the entire federal government by ruling that the non-delegation doctrine is now the law of the land. Goodbye EPA, SEC, DOT, and countless others. Each state will decide what they want and the federal government will not do a thing to stop them. If you're in a red state and you have family, use this weekend to have a massive serious and urgent talk with them about getting out of the country if possible, or to a blue state if you can. We're about to see the United States balkanize, and it's going to be the breakup of Yugoslavia but orders of magnitude more terrifying and violent. Simply put, I do not see the United States lasting until 2030 if this outcome happens.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/west-virginia-v-environmental-protection-agency/
|
are you a Vaush follower?, just wondering.
|
Read an interesting post on reddit.
It was basically saying that if we acknowledge in some states that life begins at conception, then all human rights should be conferred onto the embryo as soon as it forms. The mother should be able to claim social security for the embryo, and the embryo should be added to all insurance.
Pregnant women should be exempt from prison, as the embryo is innocent.
Men should have to start paying child support to the pregnant woman upon a positive test.
Obviously none of this is remotely practical, but i wonder if there's any legal precedent specifically stating so, and whether or not the courts could jammed up with people claiming this kind of thing.
|
As a European there's something I don't understand. What surprised me is that the ruling was 6-3 in favour of abolishing the federal right to abortion but then why did it take so long for the ruling to occur? As far as I know there's been a 5-4 conservative majority for at least 2 decades now so why didn't they throw out Roe vs Wade two decades ago?
|
Northern Ireland25474 Posts
On June 25 2022 13:33 Diavlo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2022 10:17 Severedevil wrote:
The Bernie crowd pushed for a popular candidate with popular policies who would've won in 2016. The Democratic establishment pushed for an unpopular candidate who lost in 2016. It takes some truly bonkers mental gymnastics to blame that failure on Bernie backers. That's seems like a weird take to me, either Bernie had enough support to win and the fact that his electorate didn't come to vote for Hillary was part of the reason she lost or he was not more popular than Hillary and his voters are blameless but you can't have both. I think it's perfectly fair to think Bernie would have won and that the DNC skrewed him but part of his base sitting at home pouting and the general discourse that Hillary and Trump were the same definitely played a part in her defeat.
The screwed part is the important part, or at least the perception thereof.
Bernie enthused a lot of people, some of whom I assume wouldn’t generally be enthusiastic voters anyway. It’s one thing to give your guy a shot, they don’t make it and subsequently you go for that lesser of two evils.
It’s quite another for your guy to get screwed then the same party come out to tell you to vote for them, and subsequently get blamed for them losing.
I can’t personally vote for Labour based on my location, but the Corbyn debacle is similar. Somebody becomes ‘unelectable’ if you decide they’re unelectable and act to torpedo them continually in the lead in to an election. Then you get your electable candidate who isn’t electable because you’ve pissed off a segment of your base.
It’s a sure-fire way to destroy morale, especially amongst the young who may be engaging in party membership and formal politics for the first time.
Here’s the crux of the matter really, why is it always the left who get this blame? If someone thinks say, Bernie is unelectable so we can’t nominate him, why is he unelectable?
Is it because people won’t come out and vote? Or the centre will decide that Trump is the lesser of two evils in that matchup?
Pragmatic calculations, fine but the left shouldn’t shoulder all the moral blame for elections that don’t go one’s way.
If merely keeping the Republicans out is the goal and people should fall in line, this goes both ways.
|
On June 25 2022 14:30 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2022 13:33 Diavlo wrote:On June 25 2022 10:17 Severedevil wrote:
The Bernie crowd pushed for a popular candidate with popular policies who would've won in 2016. The Democratic establishment pushed for an unpopular candidate who lost in 2016. It takes some truly bonkers mental gymnastics to blame that failure on Bernie backers. That's seems like a weird take to me, either Bernie had enough support to win and the fact that his electorate didn't come to vote for Hillary was part of the reason she lost or he was not more popular than Hillary and his voters are blameless but you can't have both. I think it's perfectly fair to think Bernie would have won and that the DNC skrewed him but part of his base sitting at home pouting and the general discourse that Hillary and Trump were the same definitely played a part in her defeat. Or Hillary didn't inspire as many independents as Bernie would have and it's on Hillary, her campaign, and the DNC for not inspiring people to vote. You can't lay the blame on an electorate of a different candidate that dropped out of the race lol. It's not that electorate's job to go vote for the candidate they don't want. It's on the candidate to convince them they're worth voting for anyways. And who was saying Hillary and Trump were the same? I don't think anybody thought Hillary and Trump could have been any more different. One was an establishment politician representing the country's leftwing party and the other was a rightwing populist TV personality and failed businessman coasting off his inherited wealth and illegal business dealings. People didn't say they were the same they said the both sucked, and they did. Trump sucked infinitely more than Hillary but having two steaming piles of shit to vote for rarely gets people motivated to vote, which is, again, on Hillary and her campaign. Luckily, enough people ignored the smell long enough to cast their ballots for Biden in 2020.
I still don't see how the fact that Hillary was a poor candidate absolves the indépendant and democrat voters how didn't show up to prevent a Trump presidency. Yes she sucked but if you sat out this election between a lame line democrat and a vile demagogue with dangerous ideas, you still carry some blame. And if you are looking for people arguing that democrats and republicans are the same and therefore voting doesn't matter, just look at every post on reddit about this SC decision, it's filed with them.
|
On June 25 2022 17:45 RvB wrote:
As a European there's something I don't understand. What surprised me is that the ruling was 6-3 in favour of abolishing the federal right to abortion but then why did it take so long for the ruling to occur? As far as I know there's been a 5-4 conservative majority for at least 2 decades now so why didn't they throw out Roe vs Wade two decades ago?
Afaik there was not a 5-4 conservative majority. There was a 4-4 with one guy on the fence. Which lead to mostly reasonable rulings.
First thing's first, we need to get the presidency, and both houses of Congress, for the Democrats. And we can't be purists about it - progressives, moderates, whoever we can get in. And then, no excuses, we'll finally get results and make good steady improvements for the good of the country.
The problem is that that has been the strategy for decades, and it has lead us here. It leads to ever more uninspiring corporate democrats, which you still have to vote for, because the alternative is a crazy republican. And people are less than enthusiastic about that. Maybe it is time for the corporate conservative democrats to vote blue no matter what.
Because usually when your strategy is invoked, it means that progressives have to vote for some conservative democrat. But the conservatives never vote for the progressives, because they prefer the fascists.
It is always "progressives, please no infighting, vote for our conservative guy which we pushed through with lots of establishment party machinery", never "okay, conservatives, please no infighting, we are going to completely support that progressive".
The conservatives have been going at this for decades, and the results speak for themselves. Not only does nothing ever get better, but things got constantly get worse, and now we are here.
|
On June 25 2022 14:30 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2022 13:33 Diavlo wrote:On June 25 2022 10:17 Severedevil wrote:
The Bernie crowd pushed for a popular candidate with popular policies who would've won in 2016. The Democratic establishment pushed for an unpopular candidate who lost in 2016. It takes some truly bonkers mental gymnastics to blame that failure on Bernie backers. That's seems like a weird take to me, either Bernie had enough support to win and the fact that his electorate didn't come to vote for Hillary was part of the reason she lost or he was not more popular than Hillary and his voters are blameless but you can't have both. I think it's perfectly fair to think Bernie would have won and that the DNC skrewed him but part of his base sitting at home pouting and the general discourse that Hillary and Trump were the same definitely played a part in her defeat. Or Hillary didn't inspire as many independents as Bernie would have and it's on Hillary, her campaign, and the DNC for not inspiring people to vote. You can't lay the blame on an electorate of a different candidate that dropped out of the race lol. It's not that electorate's job to go vote for the candidate they don't want. It's on the candidate to convince them they're worth voting for anyways.And who was saying Hillary and Trump were the same? I don't think anybody thought Hillary and Trump could have been any more different. One was an establishment politician representing the country's leftwing party and the other was a rightwing populist TV personality and failed businessman coasting off his inherited wealth and illegal business dealings. People didn't say they were the same they said the both sucked, and they did. Trump sucked infinitely more than Hillary but having two steaming piles of shit to vote for rarely gets people motivated to vote, which is, again, on Hillary and her campaign. Luckily, enough people ignored the smell long enough to cast their ballots for Biden in 2020.
Pretty sure that both are to blame; it's not exclusive to one or the other. Hillary should have done a better job, sure, but the people who didn't vote for Hillary (especially in swing states) were also stupid/indifferent/privileged enough to not care about the outcome of Clinton vs. Trump. It's definitely both the fault of the candidate(s) and the fault of the voter(s). Obviously, we should be blaming Trump and his supporters too, not just Clinton or people on the left who didn't vote for Hillary.
|
Northern Ireland25474 Posts
On June 25 2022 18:11 Diavlo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2022 14:30 StasisField wrote:On June 25 2022 13:33 Diavlo wrote:On June 25 2022 10:17 Severedevil wrote:
The Bernie crowd pushed for a popular candidate with popular policies who would've won in 2016. The Democratic establishment pushed for an unpopular candidate who lost in 2016. It takes some truly bonkers mental gymnastics to blame that failure on Bernie backers. That's seems like a weird take to me, either Bernie had enough support to win and the fact that his electorate didn't come to vote for Hillary was part of the reason she lost or he was not more popular than Hillary and his voters are blameless but you can't have both. I think it's perfectly fair to think Bernie would have won and that the DNC skrewed him but part of his base sitting at home pouting and the general discourse that Hillary and Trump were the same definitely played a part in her defeat. Or Hillary didn't inspire as many independents as Bernie would have and it's on Hillary, her campaign, and the DNC for not inspiring people to vote. You can't lay the blame on an electorate of a different candidate that dropped out of the race lol. It's not that electorate's job to go vote for the candidate they don't want. It's on the candidate to convince them they're worth voting for anyways. And who was saying Hillary and Trump were the same? I don't think anybody thought Hillary and Trump could have been any more different. One was an establishment politician representing the country's leftwing party and the other was a rightwing populist TV personality and failed businessman coasting off his inherited wealth and illegal business dealings. People didn't say they were the same they said the both sucked, and they did. Trump sucked infinitely more than Hillary but having two steaming piles of shit to vote for rarely gets people motivated to vote, which is, again, on Hillary and her campaign. Luckily, enough people ignored the smell long enough to cast their ballots for Biden in 2020. I still don't see how the fact that Hillary was a poor candidate absolves the indépendant and democrat voters how didn't show up to prevent a Trump presidency. Yes she sucked but if you sat out this election between a lame line democrat and a vile demagogue with dangerous ideas, you still carry some blame. And if you are looking for people arguing that democrats and republicans are the same and therefore voting doesn't matter, just look at every post on reddit about this SC decision, it's filed with them.
It is worth noting that while there were plenty of warning signs, obvious dog whistles etc, candidate Trump, President Trump and the GOP in the post-Trump era are somewhat different things.
Populist nonsense was there for all to see, but it was somewhat plausible that at least on social issues Trump would not be apocalyptic, given he himself was ahead of Clinton’s curve on some of them.
By his re-election campaign of course much more was clear. I wouldn’t be much inclined to give people any kind of pass by then.
I predicted mostly bad things from a Trump Presidency, absolutely, I’m sure I’m not alone in not thinking that it wouldn’t precipitate a return to prominence for Christian fundamentalism.
|
|
|
On June 25 2022 18:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2022 14:30 StasisField wrote:On June 25 2022 13:33 Diavlo wrote:On June 25 2022 10:17 Severedevil wrote:
The Bernie crowd pushed for a popular candidate with popular policies who would've won in 2016. The Democratic establishment pushed for an unpopular candidate who lost in 2016. It takes some truly bonkers mental gymnastics to blame that failure on Bernie backers. That's seems like a weird take to me, either Bernie had enough support to win and the fact that his electorate didn't come to vote for Hillary was part of the reason she lost or he was not more popular than Hillary and his voters are blameless but you can't have both. I think it's perfectly fair to think Bernie would have won and that the DNC skrewed him but part of his base sitting at home pouting and the general discourse that Hillary and Trump were the same definitely played a part in her defeat. Or Hillary didn't inspire as many independents as Bernie would have and it's on Hillary, her campaign, and the DNC for not inspiring people to vote. You can't lay the blame on an electorate of a different candidate that dropped out of the race lol. It's not that electorate's job to go vote for the candidate they don't want. It's on the candidate to convince them they're worth voting for anyways.And who was saying Hillary and Trump were the same? I don't think anybody thought Hillary and Trump could have been any more different. One was an establishment politician representing the country's leftwing party and the other was a rightwing populist TV personality and failed businessman coasting off his inherited wealth and illegal business dealings. People didn't say they were the same they said the both sucked, and they did. Trump sucked infinitely more than Hillary but having two steaming piles of shit to vote for rarely gets people motivated to vote, which is, again, on Hillary and her campaign. Luckily, enough people ignored the smell long enough to cast their ballots for Biden in 2020. Pretty sure that both are to blame; it's not exclusive to one or the other. Hillary should have done a better job, sure, but the people who didn't vote for Hillary (especially in swing states) were also stupid/indifferent/privileged enough to not care about the outcome of Clinton vs. Trump. It's definitely both the fault of the candidate(s) and the fault of the voter(s). Obviously, we should be blaming Trump and his supporters too, not just Clinton or people on the left who didn't vote for Hillary.
There's not really anyone in the country that can't be given some of the blame. Surely you're not suggesting Clinton supporters are exempt?
|
United States24690 Posts
I took away from his post that Clinton supporters are exempt from all accusations and criticism on all matters.
|
|
|
On June 25 2022 21:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2022 18:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2022 14:30 StasisField wrote:On June 25 2022 13:33 Diavlo wrote:On June 25 2022 10:17 Severedevil wrote:
The Bernie crowd pushed for a popular candidate with popular policies who would've won in 2016. The Democratic establishment pushed for an unpopular candidate who lost in 2016. It takes some truly bonkers mental gymnastics to blame that failure on Bernie backers. That's seems like a weird take to me, either Bernie had enough support to win and the fact that his electorate didn't come to vote for Hillary was part of the reason she lost or he was not more popular than Hillary and his voters are blameless but you can't have both. I think it's perfectly fair to think Bernie would have won and that the DNC skrewed him but part of his base sitting at home pouting and the general discourse that Hillary and Trump were the same definitely played a part in her defeat. Or Hillary didn't inspire as many independents as Bernie would have and it's on Hillary, her campaign, and the DNC for not inspiring people to vote. You can't lay the blame on an electorate of a different candidate that dropped out of the race lol. It's not that electorate's job to go vote for the candidate they don't want. It's on the candidate to convince them they're worth voting for anyways.And who was saying Hillary and Trump were the same? I don't think anybody thought Hillary and Trump could have been any more different. One was an establishment politician representing the country's leftwing party and the other was a rightwing populist TV personality and failed businessman coasting off his inherited wealth and illegal business dealings. People didn't say they were the same they said the both sucked, and they did. Trump sucked infinitely more than Hillary but having two steaming piles of shit to vote for rarely gets people motivated to vote, which is, again, on Hillary and her campaign. Luckily, enough people ignored the smell long enough to cast their ballots for Biden in 2020. Pretty sure that both are to blame; it's not exclusive to one or the other. Hillary should have done a better job, sure, but the people who didn't vote for Hillary (especially in swing states) were also stupid/indifferent/privileged enough to not care about the outcome of Clinton vs. Trump. It's definitely both the fault of the candidate(s) and the fault of the voter(s). Obviously, we should be blaming Trump and his supporters too, not just Clinton or people on the left who didn't vote for Hillary. There's not really anyone in the country that can't be given some of the blame. Surely you're not suggesting Clinton supporters are exempt?
I said that the blame isn't exclusive to one group, and that the candidates and the voters are all at fault. The Clinton supporters aren't exempt from blame (e.g., they could have done a better job of persuading other people to vote for Clinton), although if we're trying to create tiers of blame, they at least voted for Clinton at the end of the day (as opposed to someone who voted for Trump, who would certainly deserve "more" blame, whatever that means).
On June 25 2022 22:09 micronesia wrote:
I took away from his post that Clinton supporters are exempt from all accusations and criticism on all matters.
"his" = mine? How?
|
On June 25 2022 12:05 Zambrah wrote:
Primaries are a shit metric for popularity, especially because states that aren’t going to vote Democrat are given a lot of say when their opinions likely don’t mean shit because the Democrat isn’t going to win there.
South Carolina? Hugely important bell weather state for Democrats amiright
Yup. I live in PA, which constantly gets pointed out as a critical swing state, but by the time primaries get to us the race is always effectively over.
|
Northern Ireland25474 Posts
On June 25 2022 18:16 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2022 17:45 RvB wrote:
As a European there's something I don't understand. What surprised me is that the ruling was 6-3 in favour of abolishing the federal right to abortion but then why did it take so long for the ruling to occur? As far as I know there's been a 5-4 conservative majority for at least 2 decades now so why didn't they throw out Roe vs Wade two decades ago? Afaik there was not a 5-4 conservative majority. There was a 4-4 with one guy on the fence. Which lead to mostly reasonable rulings. Show nested quote +First thing's first, we need to get the presidency, and both houses of Congress, for the Democrats. And we can't be purists about it - progressives, moderates, whoever we can get in. And then, no excuses, we'll finally get results and make good steady improvements for the good of the country. The problem is that that has been the strategy for decades, and it has lead us here. It leads to ever more uninspiring corporate democrats, which you still have to vote for, because the alternative is a crazy republican. And people are less than enthusiastic about that. Maybe it is time for the corporate conservative democrats to vote blue no matter what. Because usually when your strategy is invoked, it means that progressives have to vote for some conservative democrat. But the conservatives never vote for the progressives, because they prefer the fascists. It is always "progressives, please no infighting, vote for our conservative guy which we pushed through with lots of establishment party machinery", never "okay, conservatives, please no infighting, we are going to completely support that progressive".The conservatives have been going at this for decades, and the results speak for themselves. Not only does nothing ever get better, but things got constantly get worse, and now we are here.
This in a nutshell.
Look what happened the second a Corbyn entered the picture in the U.K. Now it’s someone more palatable to the centre we’re back to calls for unity and vote Labour to keep the Tories out.
And you know what? Fine! If a candidate’s platform isn’t for you, it’s not for you. But don’t blame and guilt others for having the same attitude to how they use, or don’t, their democratic vote.
It’s pretty clear that, unlike the left who have to continually hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils centrist, in the face of a genuine left candidate and a Trump, many would consider a Trump the lesser evil when presented with that scenario.
I mean ultimately that’s what ‘unelectable’ actually means when we’re down to brass tacks.
|
On June 25 2022 18:10 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2022 13:33 Diavlo wrote:On June 25 2022 10:17 Severedevil wrote:
The Bernie crowd pushed for a popular candidate with popular policies who would've won in 2016. The Democratic establishment pushed for an unpopular candidate who lost in 2016. It takes some truly bonkers mental gymnastics to blame that failure on Bernie backers. That's seems like a weird take to me, either Bernie had enough support to win and the fact that his electorate didn't come to vote for Hillary was part of the reason she lost or he was not more popular than Hillary and his voters are blameless but you can't have both. I think it's perfectly fair to think Bernie would have won and that the DNC skrewed him but part of his base sitting at home pouting and the general discourse that Hillary and Trump were the same definitely played a part in her defeat. The screwed part is the important part, or at least the perception thereof. Bernie enthused a lot of people, some of whom I assume wouldn’t generally be enthusiastic voters anyway. It’s one thing to give your guy a shot, they don’t make it and subsequently you go for that lesser of two evils. It’s quite another for your guy to get screwed then the same party come out to tell you to vote for them, and subsequently get blamed for them losing. I can’t personally vote for Labour based on my location, but the Corbyn debacle is similar. Somebody becomes ‘unelectable’ if you decide they’re unelectable and act to torpedo them continually in the lead in to an election. Then you get your electable candidate who isn’t electable because you’ve pissed off a segment of your base. It’s a sure-fire way to destroy morale, especially amongst the young who may be engaging in party membership and formal politics for the first time. Here’s the crux of the matter really, why is it always the left who get this blame? If someone thinks say, Bernie is unelectable so we can’t nominate him, why is he unelectable? Is it because people won’t come out and vote? Or the centre will decide that Trump is the lesser of two evils in that matchup? Pragmatic calculations, fine but the left shouldn’t shoulder all the moral blame for elections that don’t go one’s way. If merely keeping the Republicans out is the goal and people should fall in line, this goes both ways.
What i never understood was why Hilary, upon seeing the immense support for Bernie, didn't offer him the VP position. That would have been an unbeatable ballot pick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
