|
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 23:15 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2022 18:10 WombaT 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. 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.
I think that would have been a great move for so many reasons, from attempting to unify the Bernie and Hillary supporters to actually having a charismatic and well-known runningmate instead of Tim frickin' Kaine.
|
United States24799 Posts
They probably wanted someone from the "South" but that likely wasn't the right call.
Also DPB I was agreeing with you before, sorry if that wasn't clear.
|
On June 25 2022 23:24 micronesia wrote:
They probably wanted someone from the "South" but that likely wasn't the right call.
Also DPB I was agreeing with you before, sorry if that wasn't clear.
Oh okay, I understand now 
|
|
|
On June 25 2022 23:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2022 23:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2022 23:15 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 25 2022 18:10 WombaT 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. 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. I think that would have been a great move for so many reasons, from attempting to unify the Bernie and Hillary supporters to actually having a charismatic and well-known runningmate instead of Tim frickin' Kaine. It seemed like they were way way to confident and trying to pick who they thought was going to be the best candidate after 8 years of hillary rather then win this election.
They were too focused on playing it safe. They wanted to ruffle as few feathers as possible and ended up inspiring even less to vote in the process.
|
Northern Ireland27346 Posts
On June 25 2022 23:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2022 23:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2022 23:15 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 25 2022 18:10 WombaT 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. 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. I think that would have been a great move for so many reasons, from attempting to unify the Bernie and Hillary supporters to actually having a charismatic and well-known runningmate instead of Tim frickin' Kaine. It seemed like they were way way to confident and trying to pick who they thought was going to be the best candidate after 8 years of hillary rather then win this election.
And they picked… Tim Kane?
If you’d asked me prior to him being mentioned I legitimately could not have recalled who Clinton’s running mate even was. Truly awe inspiring.
|
It seems like they searched around for someone, anyone who is less charismatic than Hillary so that she could maintain the spotlight between the two, and Kaine was what they found.
|
|
|
I did like Tim Kane. Maybe not someone who would become president but he did seem like a very decent human beeing.
Clinton Sanders would not have worked i think. The difference between the two was to big and Sanders is to strong of a personality to play the support role. It would also be a risk for the more traditional voters. Then they might as well have gone with Sanders as the candidate.
|
On June 26 2022 01:45 LegalLord wrote:
It seems like they searched around for someone, anyone who is less charismatic than Hillary so that she could maintain the spotlight between the two, and Kaine was what they found.
lol this makes me think of Biden/Harris as well, although it's a tough competition. But I think lack of charisma could easily be forgiven if they were to act boldly for the good of the country.
|
On June 26 2022 02:19 pmh wrote:
I did like Tim Kane. Maybe not someone who would become president but he did seem like a very decent human beeing.
Clinton Sanders would not have worked i think. The difference between the two was to big and Sanders is to strong of a personality to play the support role. It would also be a risk for the more traditional voters. Then they might as well have gone with Sanders as the candidate.
I think after Hillary won the primary, having Bernie as her runningmate - with her still at the top of the ticket - would have been a reasonable enough structure for moderate/traditional/establishment Democratic voters to still be fine with voting for them (since they'd still be voting for President Hillary Clinton). I agree with you that Bernie has a strong personality, but I think he did an admirable job trying to rally his supporters - in both 2016 and 2020 - to vote for Hillary and then Biden.
|
The only compromise that the DNC does is that the other side has to compromise their position, and vote for a bitter pill that adds insult to injury by snubbing progressive running mates and sometimes goes as far as adding buffoons like Kamala Harris to the ticket instead.
|
On June 25 2022 23:12 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2022 18:16 Simberto wrote: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. 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.
You can make that argument once the left wins a primary and the conservatives do not vote for the emerging candidate. I get that the odds aren't fair but it really does not make sense for the conservative democrats to compromise as long as their candidates win the primaries.
|
under all this you have to remember that pretty much every poll and every "expert" said Hillary was a massive favorite the whole time. Choosing the safe bet in Tim Kaine was smart, choosing someone anodyne was to maintain an advantage they thought they had. Besides the fact that I don't think Bernie would have accepted the VP slot, bringing on someone like him only has risks.
I'm also a little curious because to me it seems almost as likely that many of the progs now what-ifing would have called bernie a sellout and then refused to vote for the ticket anyways. democrats should have been, and still should be, more interested in how they lost so many Obama-Trump voters (which is what actually swung the election) and how even after 4 years of Trump they are on the on the downswing with so many different minority groups. both parties are coalitions, but the democrats have been seeing theirs start to crack. as ive stated before many times, it's not clear that a failure to deliver super lefty ideas is the cause.
|
Northern Ireland27346 Posts
On June 26 2022 03:04 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2022 23:12 WombaT wrote:On June 25 2022 18:16 Simberto wrote: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. 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. You can make that argument once the left wins a primary and the conservatives do not vote for the emerging candidate. I get that the odds aren't fair but it really does not make sense for the conservative democrats to compromise as long as their candidates win the primaries.
I would be amazed if in the hypothetical scenario where a Sanders type was a Presidential candidate that that didn’t happen, to some degree. Granted I’m extrapolating a fair bit from Corbyn over here and there would be differences too, but yes this hasn’t happened yet.
Fine, don’t compromise and build a broader coalition and keep losing and whining about it.
It’s a very zero sum approach, either the left has to win primaries and they get their platform running or they get close to fuck all.
It’s an innate problem when the Democratic Party would be about 4 separate parties if we’re going by European/other Western standards.
It’s unrealistic in the extreme to expect the wider Dems to turn into a Bernie Sanders style platform, but if the left are part of your wider umbrella you have to include them in some fashion, or ignore them entirely and accept you’ll lose some votes. You can’t do the opposite and then wonder why they’re not turning out.
Compromise being the operative word,
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, well Hilary lost and Bernie lost and now we have a couple of rapists in the SCOTUS majority trying to repeal every "progressive" (read "humane") decision since like 1900 and the only available (legal) course of action is to hope that they die sooner rather than later (which isn't particularly healthy). So what to do about it?
|
On June 26 2022 04:49 Arghmyliver wrote:
Ok, well Hilary lost and Bernie lost and now we have a couple of rapists in the SCOTUS majority trying to repeal every "progressive" (read "humane") decision since like 1900 and the only available (legal) course of action is to hope that they die sooner rather than later (which isn't particularly healthy). So what to do about it?
Build a massive electoral movement premised in part on packing the courts, or tear everything down and try to start again. That's about it at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
