Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Last 2016 Election Thread You'll Ever Wear

17374767879

Posts

  • PriestPriest Registered User regular
    @PantsB

    It sounds like you're saying that more populism is the answer? Twice in your post you cited that people lost because they weren't popular enough. That's how we got Trump. Populism is not the answer.

    And while a united Democrat front would be nice, they need to figure their shit out first. Bernie is attacking the Democrat party because there's some genuinely fucked up shit that led to the problems of this last election. Having a couple key Democrat senators act as a rubber stamp on the conservative agenda right now is one of those problems. Being unwilling to recognize the problems of the last election is another one of those issues.

    Just because a group of ostriches are united doesn't mean their heads aren't in the sand.

    mrondeauoverride367southwick
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Priest wrote: »
    @PantsB

    It sounds like you're saying that more populism is the answer? Twice in your post you cited that people lost because they weren't popular enough. That's how we got Trump. Populism is not the answer.

    And while a united Democrat front would be nice, they need to figure their shit out first. Bernie is attacking the Democrat party because there's some genuinely fucked up shit that led to the problems of this last election. Having a couple key Democrat senators act as a rubber stamp on the conservative agenda right now is one of those problems. Being unwilling to recognize the problems of the last election is another one of those issues.

    Just because a group of ostriches are united doesn't mean their heads aren't in the sand.

    While he's right that the leadership and the campaign made really and decisions I don't think 1) he should be attacking it as bluntly as he is right now (they are his allies, after all) and 2) he misses the point that the election came down to various things working for Trump and not all of them were easy to identify or stop at the last minute.

    You can sit down and talk about problems without getting back into "the whole party is corrupt and stupid" narrative.

    I agree we can't do this with both sides putting their heads in the sand.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Priest wrote: »
    @PantsB

    It sounds like you're saying that more populism is the answer? Twice in your post you cited that people lost because they weren't popular enough. That's how we got Trump. Populism is not the answer.

    And while a united Democrat front would be nice, they need to figure their shit out first. Bernie is attacking the Democrat party because there's some genuinely fucked up shit that led to the problems of this last election. Having a couple key Democrat senators act as a rubber stamp on the conservative agenda right now is one of those problems. Being unwilling to recognize the problems of the last election is another one of those issues.

    Just because a group of ostriches are united doesn't mean their heads aren't in the sand.

    What was that exactly do you think?

    Also Sanders is pushing more populism. Sanders was absolutely a left-wing populist. Sanders, as an example, is a lot more anti-free-trade then say Clinton or the Democratic party.

    Harry DresdenIncenjucarLoisLaneMegaMekkimeKamar
  • ArdolArdol Registered User regular
    My worry is primarily that I don't know how we move past this if our leaders are not willing to step up. It feels as though a large number of people who lean left are now poisoned to the Democratic party via the DNC. And Bernie absolutely has to shoulder a big pile of the blame for that.

    However if I'm asked how I feel about Bernie, I'd say that I like him. I agree with most of what he says and most of the policies he pushes. There is still a spark of anger there, but the anger pales next to the worry. Because if the Democrats don't get their shit together people are going to die unnecessarily, whether from a lack of health care, or other assistance, or climate change or...

    The DNC chair election was ominous as hell, because if everything turns into a proxy fight, we're fucked. The next time something like that raises it's ugly head it needs to be smothered in the crib by every prominent Democratic politician (including Bernie. Hell, every responsible left leaning person should do so). Liberal? Centrist? I don't fucking care. That shit is catnip for the media and they will inflame the situation and make everything much worse. The differences between the two groups (which let's be honest, are pretty fucking blurry) pale in comparison to the Republicans getting elected these days. There's no organized 'establishment' or 'left wing' it's just Democrats self identifying and then tribalism taking over. And that needs to be fought against.

    Disagree on policies? Sure! But leave it there. The personal attacks of 'everyone who disagrees with me is just corrupt/out of touch lefty' etc is toxic as fuck. Otherwise? I've got no idea (gotta do something about all the conspiracy theories that are getting brought over from the Right but that's another thread), but if things continue on this path, well, I'm pretty sure you all have a good idea at this point.

    United we stand, because if we stay divided this will just be the beginning of the fall.

    Harry DresdenIncenjucar
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Seems pointless to relitigate the primary. Arguing over that doesn't allow anyone to glean any useful information for preventing the next Presidential Trump or a second term of having that asshole in the white house.

    Sure it would have been nice he had reigned in some people on his staff that were taking things to far. Also would have been nice if he had worked on some of his messaging, it didn't go over well with minorities and probably resulted in things getting more contentious than they needed be. Also would have been nice if he had started fighting some of the all or nothing shit well before the convention because I think that led to people setting expectations to high or taking the lazy way out. Thing is, I doubt him doing all of that would have stopped other issues from the 2016 general election from handing an entitled and unfit asshole the position.

    -Voter suppression. A number of states that Hilary could have won, had shitty republican governments that manage to implement more bullshit voter suppression methods. Be that laws or petty shit like closing polling places and DMVs. (or just pushing both side's nonsense).
    -The huge chunk of voters in the US, that make a conscious decision to not stay informed and/or participate. Plenty of people get fucked out of their vote, but there are tons of voters that just failed their country out laziness or hubris.
    -Our media being complicit and helping demagogues get power because they cared more about their goddamn rating, rather than being real journalists (seriously, fuck this access noise).
    -Trump managing to tap into people's shitty racism and misogyny.
    -The EC being all sorts of half-assed (dude lost by 3 million votes and the states that put him over only did that by 70K).
    -The democratic party ceding local and state races for over a decade. This made it easier for the GOP to pull off their voter suppression efforts.
    -The Comey's bullshit 10 days out from the election.
    -The 25 year long slander campaign against Hilary.
    -Clinton not being the greatest campaigner. It's an indictment against our system that we require our elected officials to be great campaigners, leaders and policy makers. Sadly, people can get by without the last two requirements. Hell, Trump is only there because the EC is pretty fucked up, dude is not charismatic at all.
    -Clinton dropping the ball and not spending as much time campaigning in the rest belt as she should have.

    I honestly, think any time line that had managed to remove one of those from the list, probably wouldn't be mortified by how shitty the Trump administration is. Going forward, that's what people should be striving to do, make that list either non-existent or much smaller going into future elections. Also getting the democratic party to not concede a bunch of races, also means letting the party be more flexible. That doesn't mean embrace really shitty views, but it does mean realizing that each election requires a unique candidate.

    ArdolCommander ZoomBobkins FlymoShorty
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    .
    Priest wrote: »
    PantsB

    It sounds like you're saying that more populism is the answer? Twice in your post you cited that people lost because they weren't popular enough. That's how we got Trump. Populism is not the answer.

    And while a united Democrat front would be nice, they need to figure their shit out first. Bernie is attacking the Democrat party because there's some genuinely fucked up shit that led to the problems of this last election. Having a couple key Democrat senators act as a rubber stamp on the conservative agenda right now is one of those problems. Being unwilling to recognize the problems of the last election is another one of those issues.

    Just because a group of ostriches are united doesn't mean their heads aren't in the sand.

    No, because populism isn't popular. People say Trump was populist because it was impolite to call him a white nationalist and too obscure to call his economic policy mercantile. Clinton won on voters who valued economic issues, even in the Midwest.

    And Bernie is attacking the Democratic party because that's what he does. He did it in 2014, he did it in 2012, he did it in 2010, he did it in 2008/9. He's not interested in figuring shit out, he's interested in shitting on anything he doesn't get to dictate.

    And which Democratic Senators are acting as rubber stamps when the Republicans control the Senate? They don't need rubber stamps! I mean, Bernie Sanders has voted for a number of Trump's appointees and he's in one of the bluest states in the country. Manchin has an excuse since Trump won WV by 40+% (and Trump would have beaten Sanders in the Democratic primary). The best we get out of that asshole of a state is a vote for Democratic leadership if we get the majority and a vote preventing the Republicans from achieving cloture at will.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No, I'm saying you're living in a goosey conspiracy-filled fantasy world whereyou seem to think that 1. the DNC shadow cabal screwed over Sanders when it reality he just lost and that 2. you can't seem to comprehend why they DNC (which, I hate to break it to you, is not some neutral body) might take umbrage from a candidate (who just so happened couldn't be bothered to even formally join the party until he realized he couldn't make it as an Independent) talking shit about how their fundraising methods were bullshit while Bernie himself was using that money to fund his campaigns.

    I just find it odd that you're shocked and outraged over the suggestion party leadership sabotaged Bernie's campaign when it's exactly the sort of thing you are saying they should be doing.

    There is a difference between sabotaging and having a candidate they prefer over another.

    Either be impartial or don't. But when the supporters of the guy you tipped the scales against find out, it's not going to be pretty. As we saw.

    The DNC bent over backwards to accommodate Bernie. The primary system was "rigged" in his favor. The Dems ran more debates and public appearances than ever.
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Just as a tip:

    Punctuating an argument that the DNC didn't submarine Sanders with a statement that they would totally be within their rights to do so plays straight into the perception that you're arguing against. So unless your just looking for a fight, it's counter productive and should probably stop happening.

    Not sure why. It should have the opposite effect.

    If x was within their right to treat y favorably to z, but decided not to. Then that is deference to z. It's treating z specially and in a favorable light.

    The counter example might be Ted Cruz. Should Ted Cruz have been permitted to run as a democrat, secure DNC funding for that run, and get debates against Clinton? Of fucking course not. Jill Stein?

    The fact that Bernie was treated fairly is literally proof of the DNC catering to its left wing and independents by giving them special treatment any other non-democrats would not get.
    Marathon wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    How does Hillary raising money for herself and the party through the use of a victory fund hurt Sanders in any way? He could have done the exact same thing, but chose not to.

    Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

    You still haven't explained how it hurt Sanders

    The millions of dollars it raised for his opponent?

    Hillary Clinton was not Bernies opponent when it raised that money. Bernie had lost. He had lost hard and the only thing that was stopping it from being "official" was his refusal to concede. At the time the fund started Bernie would have needed to win 80% of the remaining delegates in order to win. And that figures the super delegate math (insomuch as superdelegates never overturn regular delegates and would not have here. )

    The DNC was at that point calling it and concentrating on the actual fight ahead.

    wbBv3fj.png
    Harry DresdenMegaMek
  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    Helsing wrote:
    Here's an aecdote from the facebook of Robert Reich, a former Labour Secretary under Bill Clinton. I guess you could say is on the far left of what might be considered acceptable for establishment Democrats. I think this helps explain how the Democratic party ended up running the campaign that it did.
    I’ve spent much of this week in Washington – talking with friends still in government, former colleagues, high-ranking Democrats, a few Republican pundits, and some members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. It was my first visit to our nation’s capital since Trump became president.

    My verdict:

    Washington is more divided, angry, bewildered, and fearful – than I’ve ever seen it.
    The angry divisions aren’t just Democrats versus Republicans. Rancor is also exploding inside the Republican Party.
    Republicans (and their patrons in big business) no longer believe Trump will give them cover to do what they want to do. They’re becoming afraid Trump is genuinely nuts, and he’ll pull the party down with him.
    Many Republicans are also angry at Paul Ryan, whose replacement bill for Obamacare is considered by almost everyone on Capitol Hill to be incredibly dumb.
    I didn’t talk with anyone inside the White House, but several who have had dealings with it called it a cesspool of intrigue and fear. Apparently everyone working there hates and distrusts everyone else.
    The Washington foreign policy establishment – both Republican and Democrat – is deeply worried about what’s happening to American foreign policy, and the worldwide perception of America being loony and rudderless. They think Trump is legitimizing far-right movements around the world.
    Long-time civil servants are getting ready to bail. If they’re close to retirement they’re already halfway out the door. Many in their 30s and 40s are in panic mode.
    Republican pundits think Bannon is even more unhinged than Trump, seeking to destroy democracy as we’ve known it.
    Despite all this, no one I talked with thought a Trump impeachment likely, at least not any time soon — unless there’s a smoking gun showing Trump’s involvement in Russia’s intrusion into the election.
    Many people asked, bewilderedly, “how did this [Trump] happen?” When I suggest it had a lot to do with the 35-year-long decline of incomes of the bottom 60 percent; the growing sense, ever since the Wall Street bailout, that the game is rigged; and the utter failure of both Republicans and Democrats to reverse these trends – they gave me blank stares.

    If Reich is to be believed then even the most milquetoast left-liberal or populist critiques of the economy and its role in Trump's victory are not just dismissed by the Democratic party's elites but in fact are such alien and bizarre concepts that they elicit reactions of mute incomprehension.

    Edith Upwards on
  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Hillary Clinton was not Bernies opponent when it raised that money. Bernie had lost. He had lost hard and the only thing that was stopping it from being "official" was his refusal to concede. At the time the fund started Bernie would have needed to win 80% of the remaining delegates in order to win.

    That is inaccurate.
    The fund's launch was originally delayed by concerns from the Clinton campaign over the party's control of shared monies,[7] but went forward on September 10, 2015, as a partnership between the Clinton campaign and the United States Democratic Party's Democratic National Committee.[8] The fund is the earliest fundraising coalition formed between a presidential candidate and the national party
    The fund raised about $27 million in 2015 and received "six-figure donations from longtime Clinton allies".[6] Hillary Clinton attended her first Hillary Victory Fund event in early December 2015 with 160 attendees.

    Spaten Optimator on
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    My mistake, thought you were talking about the other DNC fundraising. But yes the DNC did receive money from the Clinton campaign before she had officially won and Bernie was free to give his money to the DNC too.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    My mistake, thought you were talking about the other DNC fundraising. But yes the DNC did receive money from the Clinton campaign before she had officially won and Bernie was free to give his money to the DNC too.

    So the timing is unimportant? Why write a paragraph justifying coordinated fundraising because you thought it happened after a point where Bernie was a lost cause?

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Did anybody know that in 2010, Karl Rove led a massive public campaign to capture state legislatures around the country so that the Republican party would control rights to redraw voting districts for the decennial census? This plan massively succeeded, to the point where Republicans drew four times as many districts as Democrats. Therefore, the fate of the House was sealed for all but the first two years of the Obama administration, and guaranteed for Trump's term. And then we all laughed at him when he blundered on TV in 2012. Sometimes, the presidency is not the most important election. Food for thought for 2020.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    NartwakwanderingEdith UpwardsShortySmrtnik
  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Did anybody know that in 2010, Karl Rove led a massive public campaign to capture state legislatures around the country so that the Republican party would control rights to redraw voting districts for the decennial census? This plan massively succeeded, to the point where Republicans drew four times as many districts as Democrats. Therefore, the fate of the House was sealed for all but the first two years of the Obama administration, and guaranteed for Trump's term. And then we all laughed at him when he blundered on TV in 2012. Sometimes, the presidency is not the most important election. Food for thought for 2020.

    Obama and Eric Holder are on the case with the NDRC for now. After seeing the results after 2010 in Wisconsin up close, I sure as hell hope they're successful.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I just can't get over the realization that the Democratic party tried to speedrun US politics before taking the 4 years required to beat it on standard. On the one hand, good for them, about time the party did something ballsy. On the other hand, how dare they.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    Shorty
  • OptyOpty Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    The left has always had a problem with trying to win power top-down, focusing on the Presidency and nothing more. It's never worked and never will work.

    The way Sanders abused the populist rift in the Democratic party for his own gain was akin to someone lighting a match in a house filled with natural gas for the insurance money. His relatively small actions resulted in catastrophic consequences with a gain for him and a loss for everyone else. All he cares about is himself, the Democratic party be damned.

    Opty on
    Commander Zoom
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    .
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Then stop relitigating the primaries with them. There's literally no value in it.

    People still hung up on this stuff have taken their eyes completely off the ball. And frankly, to the hard core wikileaks crowd it won't matter what Sanders says. They're just in it for the fight at this point.

    Look at this thread. You've dismissed the division of the primary as harmless and overblown for over a year. And when challenged on it you've said you'll take your ball and go home if we're no longer allowed to criticize the party and that it was critical to do so to move the party in the way you want it to be.

    Now we see the obvious divisions, ill will towards the party and myths planted by the Sanders campaign in this thread. But that criticism of that is "valueless.".

    The establishment complaints, the DNC hate, the greivance attitudes, even the hate towards the Clintons is harmful. The party has been divided, and Bernie has kept fueling that divide through subsequent activity like the DNC chair race. And either because of that or not, the attitude is fucking pervasive. Every intraparty election is being treated explicitly or implicitly as a proxy rehash of the primary. It's not that way only for the DNC chair but in basically every state chair election

    WA http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/state-democrats-may-be-looking-to-change-leadership-after-losses/
    OR https://www.oregonoutpost.com/jeanne-atkins-runs-for-dpo-chair/
    CA http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/315040-sanders-backers-take-over-california-democratic-party
    NV https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevada-dems-chair-election-mirrors-national-dnc-chair-election

    It's a fucking issue. And it's patently obvious where the problem is coming from and I don't think it's inappropriate to call it out. And some of that is Bernie himself.

    Ok, serious question. Do you view people being engaged enough to exercise their democratic rights within the party to shift it's direction to be a bad thing for the party? Because if that's the case, we're not going to find much middle ground, I'm afraid.

    Here's the difference between you and me, Pants. You see all of the above as a sign that the party is treating itself apart, while I see it as a sign that it's realigning itself to the political reality using the processes that exist for just that purpose. This is a natural phenomenon. It's not like the Sanders wing is spontaneously generating those state chair races, they were going to happen anyway. Just like the primary.

    I get that intraparty restructuring that has any friction at all makes some people uncomfortable, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in the party and people then moving to address those flaws using the outlets that are specifically provided within the system to do so. Leadership changes happen, and when you throw almost a decade of loses culminating in losing both houses, a ton of state houses and the presidency, the wing of the party that's in charge is going to take some hits. That's just how it is. You're acting like this is the storming of the Bastille when it's the Democratic equivalent of respiration; something that happens normally and relatively peacefully all the time in a functioning system.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    mrondeauwanderingMrMisterEdith UpwardsjoshofalltradesYamiB.Kraintoverride367NobodyShortyFakefauxskyknytMatevchocoboliciousCaptain Marcus
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    Goumindong wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Just as a tip:

    Punctuating an argument that the DNC didn't submarine Sanders with a statement that they would totally be within their rights to do so plays straight into the perception that you're arguing against. So unless your just looking for a fight, it's counter productive and should probably stop happening.

    Not sure why. It should have the opposite effect.

    If x was within their right to treat y favorably to z, but decided not to. Then that is deference to z. It's treating z specially and in a favorable light.

    The counter example might be Ted Cruz. Should Ted Cruz have been permitted to run as a democrat, secure DNC funding for that run, and get debates against Clinton? Of fucking course not. Jill Stein?

    The fact that Bernie was treated fairly is literally proof of the DNC catering to its left wing and independents by giving them special treatment any other non-democrats would not get.

    None of this matters, if you're actually trying to get idea penetration. Basic human psychology still applies, even to Sanders supporters.

    And it should be obvious how trying to prove that the party was being patronizing to the very people you're having the discussion with is going to backfire 10 times out of 10.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    My mistake, thought you were talking about the other DNC fundraising. But yes the DNC did receive money from the Clinton campaign before she had officially won and Bernie was free to give his money to the DNC too.

    So the timing is unimportant? Why write a paragraph justifying coordinated fundraising because you thought it happened after a point where Bernie was a lost cause?

    What exactly is the problem with this kind of fund raising in your opinion?

    Dumb Hero wrote: »
    "Okay, you take 2d4 damage from the ogre's dick impaling your 2inch anus"
    Satan! Look here!
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Just as a tip:

    Punctuating an argument that the DNC didn't submarine Sanders with a statement that they would totally be within their rights to do so plays straight into the perception that you're arguing against. So unless your just looking for a fight, it's counter productive and should probably stop happening.

    Not sure why. It should have the opposite effect.

    If x was within their right to treat y favorably to z, but decided not to. Then that is deference to z. It's treating z specially and in a favorable light.

    The counter example might be Ted Cruz. Should Ted Cruz have been permitted to run as a democrat, secure DNC funding for that run, and get debates against Clinton? Of fucking course not. Jill Stein?

    The fact that Bernie was treated fairly is literally proof of the DNC catering to its left wing and independents by giving them special treatment any other non-democrats would not get.

    None of this matters, if you're actually trying to get idea penetration. Basic human psychology still applies, even to Sanders supporters.

    And it should be obvious how trying to prove that the party was being patronizing to the very people you're having the discussion with is going to backfire 10 times out of 10.

    Except they weren't being patronized, they were given exactly what they wanted and it still remains to be not enough for many supporters and Bernie himself. For too many people it's not the message which matters, but the messenger and Bernie made it 100x more difficult to get them on side. And continues to do so by being an anchor in the unifying process, rather than a bridge to fill that gap of trust.

    For the party do to better next time requires it to get the Rust belt on side, but at the moment if a centrist is the nominee that divide (which is not only from Bernie's influence, but the GOP's) the Democratic will lose the EC if the presidential plays out like it did before. The party must be prepared and flexible for whoever is that nominee, and the odds are high it won't be a far leftist. The question is - what can the party do to fix this?

    Harry Dresden on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    .
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Then stop relitigating the primaries with them. There's literally no value in it.

    People still hung up on this stuff have taken their eyes completely off the ball. And frankly, to the hard core wikileaks crowd it won't matter what Sanders says. They're just in it for the fight at this point.

    Look at this thread. You've dismissed the division of the primary as harmless and overblown for over a year. And when challenged on it you've said you'll take your ball and go home if we're no longer allowed to criticize the party and that it was critical to do so to move the party in the way you want it to be.

    Now we see the obvious divisions, ill will towards the party and myths planted by the Sanders campaign in this thread. But that criticism of that is "valueless.".

    The establishment complaints, the DNC hate, the greivance attitudes, even the hate towards the Clintons is harmful. The party has been divided, and Bernie has kept fueling that divide through subsequent activity like the DNC chair race. And either because of that or not, the attitude is fucking pervasive. Every intraparty election is being treated explicitly or implicitly as a proxy rehash of the primary. It's not that way only for the DNC chair but in basically every state chair election

    WA http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/state-democrats-may-be-looking-to-change-leadership-after-losses/
    OR https://www.oregonoutpost.com/jeanne-atkins-runs-for-dpo-chair/
    CA http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/315040-sanders-backers-take-over-california-democratic-party
    NV https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevada-dems-chair-election-mirrors-national-dnc-chair-election

    It's a fucking issue. And it's patently obvious where the problem is coming from and I don't think it's inappropriate to call it out. And some of that is Bernie himself.

    Ok, serious question. Do you view people being engaged enough to exercise their democratic rights within the party to shift it's direction to be a bad thing for the party? Because if that's the case, we're not going to find much middle ground, I'm afraid.

    Here's the difference between you and me, Pants. You see all of the above as a sign that the party is treating itself apart, while I see it as a sign that it's realigning itself to the political reality using the processes that exist for just that purpose. This is a natural phenomenon. It's not like the Sanders wing is spontaneously generating those state chair races, they were going to happen anyway. Just like the primary.

    I get that intraparty restructuring that has any friction at all makes some people uncomfortable, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in the party and people then moving to address those flaws using the outlets that are specifically provided within the system to do so. Leadership changes happen, and when you throw almost a decade of loses culminating in losing both houses, a ton of state houses and the presidency, the wing of the party that's in charge is going to take some hits. That's just how it is. You're acting like this is the storming of the Bastille when it's the Democratic equivalent of respiration; something that happens normally and relatively peacefully all the time in a functioning system.

    I don't think those examples were to be upset about party leadership being challenged (that is normal), it's meant to be proof that there is friction going down in the party itself. Which you've been denying upthread. The fallout from the primaries isn't over.

  • SpaffySpaffy Fuck the Zero Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    Priest wrote: »
    @PantsB

    It sounds like you're saying that more populism is the answer? Twice in your post you cited that people lost because they weren't popular enough. That's how we got Trump. Populism is not the answer.

    And while a united Democrat front would be nice, they need to figure their shit out first. Bernie is attacking the Democrat party because there's some genuinely fucked up shit that led to the problems of this last election. Having a couple key Democrat senators act as a rubber stamp on the conservative agenda right now is one of those problems. Being unwilling to recognize the problems of the last election is another one of those issues.

    Just because a group of ostriches are united doesn't mean their heads aren't in the sand.

    Populism doesn't mean 'popularity contest', it means selling the idea that ordinary people are being exploited by by a privileged group, and basing your appeal around it. In many cases it's basically demagogy. The issue in the primaries was that Trump's populism was based around the idea that the DNC / Democratic Party were the privileged elite exploiting the masses, and eventually, so was Bernie's.

    The result is a wave of mistrust for the DNC from being attacked from both the left and right.

    Spaffy on
    ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
    Steam: adamjnet
    SleepSurfpossum
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    .
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Then stop relitigating the primaries with them. There's literally no value in it.

    People still hung up on this stuff have taken their eyes completely off the ball. And frankly, to the hard core wikileaks crowd it won't matter what Sanders says. They're just in it for the fight at this point.

    Look at this thread. You've dismissed the division of the primary as harmless and overblown for over a year. And when challenged on it you've said you'll take your ball and go home if we're no longer allowed to criticize the party and that it was critical to do so to move the party in the way you want it to be.

    Now we see the obvious divisions, ill will towards the party and myths planted by the Sanders campaign in this thread. But that criticism of that is "valueless.".

    The establishment complaints, the DNC hate, the greivance attitudes, even the hate towards the Clintons is harmful. The party has been divided, and Bernie has kept fueling that divide through subsequent activity like the DNC chair race. And either because of that or not, the attitude is fucking pervasive. Every intraparty election is being treated explicitly or implicitly as a proxy rehash of the primary. It's not that way only for the DNC chair but in basically every state chair election

    WA http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/state-democrats-may-be-looking-to-change-leadership-after-losses/
    OR https://www.oregonoutpost.com/jeanne-atkins-runs-for-dpo-chair/
    CA http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/315040-sanders-backers-take-over-california-democratic-party
    NV https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevada-dems-chair-election-mirrors-national-dnc-chair-election

    It's a fucking issue. And it's patently obvious where the problem is coming from and I don't think it's inappropriate to call it out. And some of that is Bernie himself.

    Ok, serious question. Do you view people being engaged enough to exercise their democratic rights within the party to shift it's direction to be a bad thing for the party? Because if that's the case, we're not going to find much middle ground, I'm afraid.

    Here's the difference between you and me, Pants. You see all of the above as a sign that the party is treating itself apart, while I see it as a sign that it's realigning itself to the political reality using the processes that exist for just that purpose. This is a natural phenomenon. It's not like the Sanders wing is spontaneously generating those state chair races, they were going to happen anyway. Just like the primary.

    I get that intraparty restructuring that has any friction at all makes some people uncomfortable, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in the party and people then moving to address those flaws using the outlets that are specifically provided within the system to do so. Leadership changes happen, and when you throw almost a decade of loses culminating in losing both houses, a ton of state houses and the presidency, the wing of the party that's in charge is going to take some hits. That's just how it is. You're acting like this is the storming of the Bastille when it's the Democratic equivalent of respiration; something that happens normally and relatively peacefully all the time in a functioning system.

    I don't think those examples were to be upset about party leadership being challenged (that is normal), it's meant to be proof that there is friction going down in the party itself. Which you've been denying upthread. The fallout from the primaries isn't over.

    I have not been denying the existence of friction. I have been pointing out that the rage against Bernie Sanders is incredibly localized. And using intraparty elections having more than one candidate to show that there's some kind of unbridgable divide within the party simply misunderstands the nature of our party and democracy in general. State party chair turnover happens literally all the time.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    wanderingMrMisterjoshofalltradesoverride367NobodyCptKemzikskyknytMatevBertezBertez
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    .
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Then stop relitigating the primaries with them. There's literally no value in it.

    People still hung up on this stuff have taken their eyes completely off the ball. And frankly, to the hard core wikileaks crowd it won't matter what Sanders says. They're just in it for the fight at this point.

    Look at this thread. You've dismissed the division of the primary as harmless and overblown for over a year. And when challenged on it you've said you'll take your ball and go home if we're no longer allowed to criticize the party and that it was critical to do so to move the party in the way you want it to be.

    Now we see the obvious divisions, ill will towards the party and myths planted by the Sanders campaign in this thread. But that criticism of that is "valueless.".

    The establishment complaints, the DNC hate, the greivance attitudes, even the hate towards the Clintons is harmful. The party has been divided, and Bernie has kept fueling that divide through subsequent activity like the DNC chair race. And either because of that or not, the attitude is fucking pervasive. Every intraparty election is being treated explicitly or implicitly as a proxy rehash of the primary. It's not that way only for the DNC chair but in basically every state chair election

    WA http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/state-democrats-may-be-looking-to-change-leadership-after-losses/
    OR https://www.oregonoutpost.com/jeanne-atkins-runs-for-dpo-chair/
    CA http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/315040-sanders-backers-take-over-california-democratic-party
    NV https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevada-dems-chair-election-mirrors-national-dnc-chair-election

    It's a fucking issue. And it's patently obvious where the problem is coming from and I don't think it's inappropriate to call it out. And some of that is Bernie himself.

    Ok, serious question. Do you view people being engaged enough to exercise their democratic rights within the party to shift it's direction to be a bad thing for the party? Because if that's the case, we're not going to find much middle ground, I'm afraid.

    Here's the difference between you and me, Pants. You see all of the above as a sign that the party is treating itself apart, while I see it as a sign that it's realigning itself to the political reality using the processes that exist for just that purpose. This is a natural phenomenon. It's not like the Sanders wing is spontaneously generating those state chair races, they were going to happen anyway. Just like the primary.

    I get that intraparty restructuring that has any friction at all makes some people uncomfortable, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in the party and people then moving to address those flaws using the outlets that are specifically provided within the system to do so. Leadership changes happen, and when you throw almost a decade of loses culminating in losing both houses, a ton of state houses and the presidency, the wing of the party that's in charge is going to take some hits. That's just how it is. You're acting like this is the storming of the Bastille when it's the Democratic equivalent of respiration; something that happens normally and relatively peacefully all the time in a functioning system.

    I don't think those examples were to be upset about party leadership being challenged (that is normal), it's meant to be proof that there is friction going down in the party itself. Which you've been denying upthread. The fallout from the primaries isn't over.

    I have not been denying the existence of friction. I have been pointing out that the rage against Bernie Sanders is incredibly localized. And using intraparty elections having more than one candidate to show that there's some kind of unbridgable divide within the party simply misunderstands the nature of our party and democracy in general. State party chair turnover happens literally all the time.
    What about when the two lead candidates to head the DNC are incredibly similar, but apparently only one is acceptable, otherwise... I still don't understand what the otherwise was.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    .
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Then stop relitigating the primaries with them. There's literally no value in it.

    People still hung up on this stuff have taken their eyes completely off the ball. And frankly, to the hard core wikileaks crowd it won't matter what Sanders says. They're just in it for the fight at this point.

    Look at this thread. You've dismissed the division of the primary as harmless and overblown for over a year. And when challenged on it you've said you'll take your ball and go home if we're no longer allowed to criticize the party and that it was critical to do so to move the party in the way you want it to be.

    Now we see the obvious divisions, ill will towards the party and myths planted by the Sanders campaign in this thread. But that criticism of that is "valueless.".

    The establishment complaints, the DNC hate, the greivance attitudes, even the hate towards the Clintons is harmful. The party has been divided, and Bernie has kept fueling that divide through subsequent activity like the DNC chair race. And either because of that or not, the attitude is fucking pervasive. Every intraparty election is being treated explicitly or implicitly as a proxy rehash of the primary. It's not that way only for the DNC chair but in basically every state chair election

    WA http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/state-democrats-may-be-looking-to-change-leadership-after-losses/
    OR https://www.oregonoutpost.com/jeanne-atkins-runs-for-dpo-chair/
    CA http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/315040-sanders-backers-take-over-california-democratic-party
    NV https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevada-dems-chair-election-mirrors-national-dnc-chair-election

    It's a fucking issue. And it's patently obvious where the problem is coming from and I don't think it's inappropriate to call it out. And some of that is Bernie himself.

    Ok, serious question. Do you view people being engaged enough to exercise their democratic rights within the party to shift it's direction to be a bad thing for the party? Because if that's the case, we're not going to find much middle ground, I'm afraid.

    Here's the difference between you and me, Pants. You see all of the above as a sign that the party is treating itself apart, while I see it as a sign that it's realigning itself to the political reality using the processes that exist for just that purpose. This is a natural phenomenon. It's not like the Sanders wing is spontaneously generating those state chair races, they were going to happen anyway. Just like the primary.

    I get that intraparty restructuring that has any friction at all makes some people uncomfortable, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in the party and people then moving to address those flaws using the outlets that are specifically provided within the system to do so. Leadership changes happen, and when you throw almost a decade of loses culminating in losing both houses, a ton of state houses and the presidency, the wing of the party that's in charge is going to take some hits. That's just how it is. You're acting like this is the storming of the Bastille when it's the Democratic equivalent of respiration; something that happens normally and relatively peacefully all the time in a functioning system.

    I don't think those examples were to be upset about party leadership being challenged (that is normal), it's meant to be proof that there is friction going down in the party itself. Which you've been denying upthread. The fallout from the primaries isn't over.

    I have not been denying the existence of friction. I have been pointing out that the rage against Bernie Sanders is incredibly localized. And using intraparty elections having more than one candidate to show that there's some kind of unbridgable divide within the party simply misunderstands the nature of our party and democracy in general. State party chair turnover happens literally all the time.
    What about when the two lead candidates to head the DNC are incredibly similar, but apparently only one is acceptable, otherwise... I still don't understand what the otherwise was.

    Look at how all those Democrats burnt their membership cards in the streets, right?

    The progressive wing of the party is still here, weirdly enough. They're now running for a bunch of other leadership positions, in fact. So maybe all that noise was the bog standard posturing that always happens. Just saying.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    MrMisterjoshofalltradesMatev
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    My mistake, thought you were talking about the other DNC fundraising. But yes the DNC did receive money from the Clinton campaign before she had officially won and Bernie was free to give his money to the DNC too.

    So the timing is unimportant? Why write a paragraph justifying coordinated fundraising because you thought it happened after a point where Bernie was a lost cause?

    They didn't coordinate fundraising improperly. They allowed Clinton to give the party money. They offered the same to Sanders but he didn't want to do that. None of it could be spent until after Sanders conceded or the Convention.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    MarathonArdolLoisLaneMegaMek
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited March 20
    Wrong Thread

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »

    Ok, serious question. Do you view people being engaged enough to exercise their democratic rights within the party to shift it's direction to be a bad thing for the party? Because if that's the case, we're not going to find much middle ground, I'm afraid.

    Here's the difference between you and me, Pants. You see all of the above as a sign that the party is treating itself apart, while I see it as a sign that it's realigning itself to the political reality using the processes that exist for just that purpose. This is a natural phenomenon. It's not like the Sanders wing is spontaneously generating those state chair races, they were going to happen anyway. Just like the primary.

    I get that intraparty restructuring that has any friction at all makes some people uncomfortable, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in the party and people then moving to address those flaws using the outlets that are specifically provided within the system to do so. Leadership changes happen, and when you throw almost a decade of loses culminating in losing both houses, a ton of state houses and the presidency, the wing of the party that's in charge is going to take some hits. That's just how it is. You're acting like this is the storming of the Bastille when it's the Democratic equivalent of respiration; something that happens normally and relatively peacefully all the time in a functioning system.

    I don't see that as people being "engaged enough to exercise their democratic rights within the party."

    Its not normal. Its not "natural." It just isn't. I'm pretty sure you're old enough to remember 2001/2 and there wasn't an organized faction within the party that was determined to re-litigate the 2000 Presidential primaries. There just wasn't. Bernie was historic not in his support but in his petulance after losing.

    He lost a primary by 20% when people exercised their democratic rights within the party. Because he and his surrogates have pretty consistently indicated this was due to corruption and bias, there's a substantial faction within the party whose priority is purging anyone they see as an enemy of Bernie. That's not engagement that's counterproductive bullshit.
    OptimusZed wrote: »

    The progressive wing of the party is still here, weirdly enough. They're now running for a bunch of other leadership positions, in fact. So maybe all that noise was the bog standard posturing that always happens. Just saying.

    That's the problem. You think the Bernie wing is the progressive wing. Its not. Clinton won among "very liberal" voters. Perez is just as progressive as Ellison but he's the enemy to the Bernie faction and was called out by Bernie himself because he's not a Bernie guy. Many of the Bernie backed state chair candidates are not more progressive (and sometimes less progressive) than who they are challenging but the alliances are based on perceived Bernie support or whether they've been declared "establishment." That's not healthy.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    MahnmutFencingsaxLoisLaneMegaMek
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Pants, the problem is that you insist on seeing everything through the Clinton v Sanders lens. That perspective makes it very hard to discuss things that are actually happening with you, because it keeps dragging you backward.

    As to your other point, liberal and progressive are not the same thing in the context of the democratic party. Regardless of how much some members of the liberal wing would love everyone to think so right now.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    ShortyEdith UpwardsmrondeauNobodyFakefauxTryCatcherskyknytMatevKraintMrMisterCaptain Marcus
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    And I'm sorry, but if the DNC chair race proves anything it's that the concerns about revolt from the party are incredibly overblown. Can anybody point me to the mass exodus after the supposed avatar of the establishment won that race? Because I'd be very curious to see it, from a purely sociological perspective. The party got comfortable and lazy roughly around the time we elected Obama, and now we're seeing the pendulum swing back the other direction. It's doing so rather quickly because of the circumstances, but this is how national parties with 60 million + members operate.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    mrondeauTryCatcherCptKemzikKraintMrMister
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Pants, the problem is that you insist on seeing everything through the Clinton v Sanders lens. That perspective makes it very hard to discuss things that are actually happening with you, because it keeps dragging you backward.

    As to your other point, liberal and progressive are not the same thing in the context of the democratic party. Regardless of how much some members of the liberal wing would love everyone to think so right now.

    We're talking about the election, and we are all pretty agreed on the whole Trump vs Clinton thing. So we're going to talk about Clinton vs Bernie.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Pants, the problem is that you insist on seeing everything through the Clinton v Sanders lens. That perspective makes it very hard to discuss things that are actually happening with you, because it keeps dragging you backward.

    As to your other point, liberal and progressive are not the same thing in the context of the democratic party. Regardless of how much some members of the liberal wing would love everyone to think so right now.

    We're talking about the election, and we are all pretty agreed on the whole Trump vs Clinton thing. So we're going to talk about Clinton vs Bernie.

    Fine. But talking about what's happening now in the same terms ignores a ton of things that aren't the stupid personality-based conflcts around those two factions.

    Trying to boil down the happenings in the Democratic party into Bernie vs Hillary is so reductive as to be completely worthless. And only serves to perpetuate the stupid conflict that everyone seems to want to pay lip service to ending without actually taking any of the steps to do so themselves.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    ShortyjoshofalltradesMatevmrondeauCptKemzikMrMister
  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Pants, the problem is that you insist on seeing everything through the Clinton v Sanders lens. That perspective makes it very hard to discuss things that are actually happening with you, because it keeps dragging you backward.

    As to your other point, liberal and progressive are not the same thing in the context of the democratic party. Regardless of how much some members of the liberal wing would love everyone to think so right now.

    We're talking about the election, and we are all pretty agreed on the whole Trump vs Clinton thing. So we're going to talk about Clinton vs Bernie.

    Fine. But talking about what's happening now in the same terms ignores a ton of things that aren't the stupid personality-based conflcts around those two factions.

    Trying to boil down the happenings in the Democratic party into Bernie vs Hillary is so reductive as to be completely worthless. And only serves to perpetuate the stupid conflict that everyone seems to want to pay lip service to ending without actually taking any of the steps to do so themselves.

    The reason people look at it through a Sanders vs "establishment" lens is because Perez and Ellison are so similar outside of Elliston being a strong Sanders supporter and Perez being part of the Obama administration. There's not that much of a reason to strongly support one over the other, they're both good choices for similar reasons, with a similar vision for the country and a similar plan about how to get there. And there's certainly not much of a reason for someone to like one and hate the other, as we saw with the people who absolutely loved Ellison but thought Perez was an evil corporatist.

    Ardol
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Pants, the problem is that you insist on seeing everything through the Clinton v Sanders lens. That perspective makes it very hard to discuss things that are actually happening with you, because it keeps dragging you backward.

    As to your other point, liberal and progressive are not the same thing in the context of the democratic party. Regardless of how much some members of the liberal wing would love everyone to think so right now.

    We're talking about the election, and we are all pretty agreed on the whole Trump vs Clinton thing. So we're going to talk about Clinton vs Bernie.

    Fine. But talking about what's happening now in the same terms ignores a ton of things that aren't the stupid personality-based conflcts around those two factions.

    Trying to boil down the happenings in the Democratic party into Bernie vs Hillary is so reductive as to be completely worthless. And only serves to perpetuate the stupid conflict that everyone seems to want to pay lip service to ending without actually taking any of the steps to do so themselves.

    It's only natural that any conflict within the Democratic party will be colossally magnified, so long as confusion serves the purposes of foreign and domestic opposition.

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Pants, the problem is that you insist on seeing everything through the Clinton v Sanders lens. That perspective makes it very hard to discuss things that are actually happening with you, because it keeps dragging you backward.

    As to your other point, liberal and progressive are not the same thing in the context of the democratic party. Regardless of how much some members of the liberal wing would love everyone to think so right now.

    We're talking about the election, and we are all pretty agreed on the whole Trump vs Clinton thing. So we're going to talk about Clinton vs Bernie.

    Fine. But talking about what's happening now in the same terms ignores a ton of things that aren't the stupid personality-based conflcts around those two factions.

    Trying to boil down the happenings in the Democratic party into Bernie vs Hillary is so reductive as to be completely worthless. And only serves to perpetuate the stupid conflict that everyone seems to want to pay lip service to ending without actually taking any of the steps to do so themselves.

    The reason people look at it through a Sanders vs "establishment" lens is because Perez and Ellison are so similar outside of Elliston being a strong Sanders supporter and Perez being part of the Obama administration. There's not that much of a reason to strongly support one over the other, they're both good choices for similar reasons, with a similar vision for the country and a similar plan about how to get there. And there's certainly not much of a reason for someone to like one and hate the other, as we saw with the people who absolutely loved Ellison but thought Perez was an evil corporatist.

    And we didn't see the people who felt it was necessary to run an alternative to Ellison, even though they clearly existed in enough numbers to get him elected.

    Look, we've been through this. There was a whole thread devoted to it. The reality is that the faction of screaming Bernheads is roughly equal in size to the faction that would love to see Sanders ejected from the party and into the political wilderness of an incredibly safe seat in Vermont. Which is to say that both are vanishingly small but have their voices amplified by the internet. Both sides are making themselves increasingly irrelevant to the rest of us by refusing to face front and do the work to move forward.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    BertezBertezMrMisteroverride367
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Pants, the problem is that you insist on seeing everything through the Clinton v Sanders lens. That perspective makes it very hard to discuss things that are actually happening with you, because it keeps dragging you backward.

    As to your other point, liberal and progressive are not the same thing in the context of the democratic party. Regardless of how much some members of the liberal wing would love everyone to think so right now.

    We're talking about the election, and we are all pretty agreed on the whole Trump vs Clinton thing. So we're going to talk about Clinton vs Bernie.

    Fine. But talking about what's happening now in the same terms ignores a ton of things that aren't the stupid personality-based conflcts around those two factions.

    Trying to boil down the happenings in the Democratic party into Bernie vs Hillary is so reductive as to be completely worthless. And only serves to perpetuate the stupid conflict that everyone seems to want to pay lip service to ending without actually taking any of the steps to do so themselves.

    You get that stubborn refusal to admit any wrongdoing on the part of Sanders is also thoroughly unproductive to bridging that void as well right?

    Like there's no way to plausibly say he was massively popular and influential, and yet had no effect on the current state of the game.

    He did some shit, and yes it is having negative consequences, and had immediate negative consequences that while not wholly responsible for our current predicament definitely did us no favors (even if his rhetoric is only responsible for the loss of a few hundred thousand votes that's still enough to unfuck our situation of they are in the right places).

    shrykeLoisLaneMuddypawsArdolMegaMekHarry DresdenEtiowsaKamar
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Pants, the problem is that you insist on seeing everything through the Clinton v Sanders lens. That perspective makes it very hard to discuss things that are actually happening with you, because it keeps dragging you backward.

    As to your other point, liberal and progressive are not the same thing in the context of the democratic party. Regardless of how much some members of the liberal wing would love everyone to think so right now.

    We're talking about the election, and we are all pretty agreed on the whole Trump vs Clinton thing. So we're going to talk about Clinton vs Bernie.

    Fine. But talking about what's happening now in the same terms ignores a ton of things that aren't the stupid personality-based conflcts around those two factions.

    Trying to boil down the happenings in the Democratic party into Bernie vs Hillary is so reductive as to be completely worthless. And only serves to perpetuate the stupid conflict that everyone seems to want to pay lip service to ending without actually taking any of the steps to do so themselves.

    You get that stubborn refusal to admit any wrongdoing on the part of Sanders is also thoroughly unproductive to bridging that void as well right?

    Like there's no way to plausibly say he was massively popular and influential, and yet had no effect on the current state of the game.

    He did some shit, and yes it is having negative consequences, and had immediate negative consequences that while not wholly responsible for our current predicament definitely did us no favors (even if his rhetoric is only responsible for the loss of a few hundred thousand votes that's still enough to unfuck our situation of they are in the right places).

    I have never denied any and all wrongdoing on the part of Sanders. What I have done is question the constant assertion that he's to blame for where we are or indeed the sole genesis of the sentiment he expressed. Because neither of those things are true on anything like the level that gets pushed around here. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I've been much more critical of Sanders than the Clinton Crusader contingent has been of the party power structure's handling of operations for the last decade or so to get us into this mess.

    People were unhappy, in some cases deeply unhappy, with the state of the party well before Bernie Sanders became a household name. This refrain that it's all his fault that the natives are riled up flies in the face of decades of history of intraparty conflict. Did Sanders capitalize on that in ways that helped him? Yes. Did it do irreparable damage to the party? That remains to be seen. The only way the answer to that second question is an unequivocal "yes" is if you consider the party to be solely the people in charge of it circa May 2016. Because it definitely hurt those folks' position as shot callers. Otherwise, data is conclusively inconclusive as to the impact of Sanders' actions on the wider election.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    joshofalltradesShortyFakefauxskyknytMatevmrondeauBertezBertezNobodychocoboliciousYamiB.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Sanders is the populist side of the Democrats more then the Progressive side.

    Solomaxwell6Harry DresdenOptyKamar
  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Pants, the problem is that you insist on seeing everything through the Clinton v Sanders lens. That perspective makes it very hard to discuss things that are actually happening with you, because it keeps dragging you backward.

    As to your other point, liberal and progressive are not the same thing in the context of the democratic party. Regardless of how much some members of the liberal wing would love everyone to think so right now.

    We're talking about the election, and we are all pretty agreed on the whole Trump vs Clinton thing. So we're going to talk about Clinton vs Bernie.

    Fine. But talking about what's happening now in the same terms ignores a ton of things that aren't the stupid personality-based conflcts around those two factions.

    Trying to boil down the happenings in the Democratic party into Bernie vs Hillary is so reductive as to be completely worthless. And only serves to perpetuate the stupid conflict that everyone seems to want to pay lip service to ending without actually taking any of the steps to do so themselves.

    The reason people look at it through a Sanders vs "establishment" lens is because Perez and Ellison are so similar outside of Elliston being a strong Sanders supporter and Perez being part of the Obama administration. There's not that much of a reason to strongly support one over the other, they're both good choices for similar reasons, with a similar vision for the country and a similar plan about how to get there. And there's certainly not much of a reason for someone to like one and hate the other, as we saw with the people who absolutely loved Ellison but thought Perez was an evil corporatist.

    And we didn't see the people who felt it was necessary to run an alternative to Ellison, even though they clearly existed in enough numbers to get him elected.

    Look, we've been through this. There was a whole thread devoted to it. The reality is that the faction of screaming Bernheads is roughly equal in size to the faction that would love to see Sanders ejected from the party and into the political wilderness of an incredibly safe seat in Vermont. Which is to say that both are vanishingly small but have their voices amplified by the internet. Both sides are making themselves increasingly irrelevant to the rest of us by refusing to face front and do the work to move forward.

    First of all, there's a difference between multiple candidates deciding to run vs what was going on in the DNC chair election. There's absolutely nothing wrong with many people running. Nobody's bound to defer to whomever declares first. Even if you're ideologically pretty identical to someone already in the race, you might think that you're a better organizer, that you have better contacts who will help you, that you can devote more of your time to the job. Perhaps you both start planning ahead of time; a campaign (even for a party office) doesn't happen overnight, and you might decide it doesn't make sense to wait while another good candidate mulls things over. Hell, it might be simple ambition, and there's nothing wrong with that either, as long as the ambition isn't channeled into hurting the party.

    The problem is when somebody who gets the support of a substantial minority of the party decides to start attacking a major party member.

    This is, incidentally, also comparable to the presidential primary--as much as people seem to think the only criticism of Bernie is that he had the gall to run against the anointed Hillary, that was never the actual complaint. "Look, we've been through this."

    Second of all, as much as you want to be able to just say that this is old news, you've made your statement already and therefore it's absolute truth and everyone should accept it as such, that's not the way it works. There are plenty of pieces of data showing that his campaign's baseless attacks hurt Hillary. We can't quantify that number, I'm not going to say it single handedly cost her the election or anything, but shifting even a percentage point of the electorate can make a big difference and that'll trickle on down ballot. And the people who want Bernie to be sidelined (myself included) do so only as a reaction to the first group. We don't care that a social democrat is running; anecdotally, I know plenty of people (again, myself included) who are very anti-Bernie but align more with his politics than Hillary's. We care when someone is making a big effort to split the party when he doesn't get his own way.

    And I complain about this with regards to the chair election because it just ingrains that division when the Democratic party should've been unified. Are we going to see Bernie keep popping up for the next few years to complain about establishment candidates (where "establishment" is defined as "didn't side with Bernie in the primary")? If so, that's not going to help our chances in the already tough 2018 senate map, and dropping turnout of the Dem base will hurt state, local, and house elections even where he doesn't get involved. That's not doing anyone any favors.

    IncenjucarHarry Dresden
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    Since it's the only part of your post not based purely on feels, I'm going to focus on this passage;
    There are plenty of pieces of data showing that his campaign's baseless attacks hurt Hillary. We can't quantify that number, I'm not going to say it single handedly cost her the election or anything, but shifting even a percentage point of the electorate can make a big difference and that'll trickle on down ballot.

    You are absolutely right not to think that Sanders hurt Clinton in any significant way, that is in any way that actually cost her the race, because there's no data that says he did. And, as we are consistently reminded by Clinton partisans, she still managed to outperform downballot Democrats in most places. Which pretty much puts a stake in the assertion that Sanders' attacks had a cost downballot, since he didn't go after rank and file Dems at all during the race. So the only way he would have had an impact would be to depress turnout as a whole, but Clinton outperformed those you are painting as vulnerable in this construction anyway. The dots don't connect, here.
    And I complain about this with regards to the chair election because it just ingrains that division when the Democratic party should've been unified. Are we going to see Bernie keep popping up for the next few years to complain about establishment candidates (where "establishment" is defined as "didn't side with Bernie in the primary")? If so, that's not going to help our chances in the already tough 2018 senate map, and dropping turnout of the Dem base will hurt state, local, and house elections even where he doesn't get involved. That's not doing anyone any favors.

    A person who almost 90% of the party views positively isn't ingraining division the party. What he's doing, if he's doing anything, is outlining the direction the party should go in if they want their constituents to be happy with them.

    The idea that someone who is insanely popular within a population is simultaneously dividing that population is frankly ridiculous.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    ShortyMatevmrondeauFakefauxBertezBertezNobodyMrMisterMartini_Philosopheroverride367
  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    The parts of the post based on feelings was about how that was about how you're making baseless assumptions about how we feel. By throwing that out you're basically showing that not only are you fine with making those assumptions, you don't give a fuck when we tell you that those assumptions are wrong. I mean, you're belittling me for correcting you about an assertion that you brought up.
    So the only way he would have had an impact would be to depress turnout as a whole, but Clinton outperformed those you are painting as vulnerable in this construction anyway

    Well, yes. Of course. Here's a simple example: Let's say there is a small state with 8 Clinton Democrats, 2 Bernie Democrats, and 9 Republicans. Bernie attacks Clinton, and his supporters choose not to show up on election day. The actual voters are thus 8 Clinton Democrats and 9 Republicans--Trump wins the state. Downballot, some hard left Berniecrat is running for senate against a moderate Republican. One of the Clinton Democrats decides to cross ballot, and the Republican wins 10-7.

    That's of course an oversimplification; in real life, the 2 Bernie Democrats might identify as progressive or Dem-leaning independents, while perhaps the Clinton Democrats who switched downticket might actually identify as a moderate independent. But add in a bit more shades of voters and the point still applies. If Bernie's people decided to stay home, then it wouldn't be surprising at all to see Clinton outperform downticket Berniecrats. It also wouldn't be surprising to see those downticket Berniecrats outperform Clinton if Bernie's people decided to vote Trump instead of staying at home. There are many mechanisms at play, each of the hundred thirty odd million voters does things a bit different, and it's not as simple as that gotcha you're trying to make.
    because there's no data that says he did

    Well, you're getting into kind of non-falsifiable territory here. There are definitely some non-zero number of people who identify as Democrat or typically vote Democrat, and decided not to vote for Clinton because of Bernie. Some of them even liked her before the primary and then changed their minds. We can see effects, actual polling numbers, showing Clinton's favorability ratings drop throughout the primary, even among Democrats. That's sure as hell not good! So it certainly happened, it's just a matter of numbers. We can't really prove anything (I'm not aware of any polls explicitly asking people if they were planning on voting for Hillary until Bernie, and even if there were the numbers would be too low to be useful and the question relies too much on self-reflection to be useful). But it's silly to say that Bernie is a saint just because the evidence he had a detrimental impact is indirect.

    I mean, it's easy to shift the goalposts and say "No, that didn't happen" or "Okay maybe it happened a little but it was only a few people who had their voice magnified by the internet" until suddenly a candidate loses by a small margin. Bernie doesn't need to have shifted things by twenty percent to have damaged Democratic candidates.
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    The idea that someone who is insanely popular within a population is simultaneously dividing that population is frankly ridiculous.

    What? If you're turning a portion of the population against someone who the population prefers overall, then you're clearly dividing it.

    Like, I'm baffled at how you could possibly make any kind of assertion to the contrary. That's literally what dividing means.

    Solomaxwell6 on
    ArdolHarry Dresden
Sign In or Register to comment.