AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited January 2017
What we f-ing need is Bernie and Hillary sitting down to have a real talk and explain where they come from, what they wanted, what misgivings they had about each other and what they agree on.
Hillary needs to say openly: "The left needs fewer quinoa dinners with the super-rich and my email solutions were disgustingly careless considering how much was riding on me" and Sanders needs to say openly: "Reproductive rights and fighting all bigotry is just as important to all leftists as cheaper college and breaking up banks and also FUCK FUCKING COMEY GODDAMN".
If not, I fear the US left is dead for more than a decade. So many White voters on the left and right edges of the possible spectrum value their egos or pet issues above everything else and will refuse to vote if not placated, and those who don't have the luxury of voting with their hearts will be assaulted with precision by Sessions and Co.
Absalon on
+2
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
What we f-ing need is Bernie and Hillary sitting down to have a real talk and explain where they come from, what they wanted, what misgivings they had about each other and what they agree on.
Hillary needs to say openly: "The left needs fewer quinoa dinners with the super-rich and my email solutions were disgustingly careless considering how much was riding on me" and Sanders needs to say openly: "Reproductive rights and fighting all bigotry is just as important to all leftists as cheaper college and breaking up banks and also FUCK FUCKING COMEY GODDAMN".
There's no misunderstanding between the two behind all this. They both understand where the other is coming from. They just don't agree on policy or tactics, nor do the camps they represent. A lot of people are saying "the democrats need to forget their differences and come together." That's not going to happen. Their differences are not just wishy-washy aesthetics. They're ideologies that have incompatible components.
We are in a very difficult place right now, because these ideologies aren't just going to meld. They have too many conflicts. One is going to win out, and that will be the path forward.
0
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
I actually like that idea, but I would prefer Bernie address the rigged primary.
I think that's a story that could use some 'splaining.
What we f-ing need is Bernie and Hillary sitting down to have a real talk and explain where they come from, what they wanted, what misgivings they had about each other and what they agree on.
Hillary needs to say openly: "The left needs fewer quinoa dinners with the super-rich and my email solutions were disgustingly careless considering how much was riding on me" and Sanders needs to say openly: "Reproductive rights and fighting all bigotry is just as important to all leftists as cheaper college and breaking up banks and also FUCK FUCKING COMEY GODDAMN".
There's no misunderstanding between the two behind all this. They both understand where the other is coming from. They just don't agree on policy or tactics, nor do the camps they represent. A lot of people are saying "the democrats need to forget their differences and come together." That's not going to happen. Their differences are not just wishy-washy aesthetics. They're ideologies that have incompatible components.
We are in a very difficult place right now, because these ideologies aren't just going to meld. They have too many conflicts. One is going to win out, and that will be the path forward.
I'm surprised at the incompatibility statement. I felt the differences were really ones of priorities. I don't think there's anything in either camp that is distasteful to the other; I thought the importance of various things differed in 'what we should go after first.'
The hard left aren't secret racists, but they do seem to shy away from really pushing on racial justice when the rubber meets the road, downplaying those initiatives in favor of stuff that helps "the average American" (re: white people above the poverty line).
This, unfortunately, basically just describes "white people." It's why King was so frustrated by the white moderate.
Why are leftists of color getting erased from this discussion?
Also of note: many progressives are LGBT. Why do LGBT progressives, who are left behind on a number of issues (unless we are arguing that the fight for LGBT rights is over, which, you know, it's not), get lumped in as anti-social justice? Or else, why do we assume that LGBT progressives are not voting in their own self-interest on social issues?
Because neither of these groups are the largest drivers of the party. Like, they are the ones that need to keep pressure on leadership (or even better, become leadership, which is also slowly happening), or else the leadership will take the path of least resistance. Like the Human Rights Campaign on trans issues, for example. They capitulate when they think the voices aren't there(and their issue is dealt with), so it's the job of lobbying groups and constituencies to make sure the voices are there. The point isn't that we're irredeemably racist forever and nothing can be fixed, the point is we have to work (and work and work and work) at it. And being silent isn't just neutral, it hurts and sets the cause back.
This applies to centrist Democrats just as much as progressives, though, and at that point it's useless as a defining characteristic of the wing of the party. I agree that pressure needs to exist, but I also think it really kind of does? But I mean, if you think Hillary Clinton, champion of the moderate Democrat, would have come around to racial/LGBT equality on her own and without any pressure, I've got a Trump product to sell you.
And yet she was the one who campaigned heavily on that in the general. Moderate Dems may not entirely be from the 90's flavor anymore, Hillary was vastly more left leaning and progressive this time around than she ever was in her political career. However, if the centrists read this as a failure they'll regress further to their 90's selves for a safer bet.
I feel like maybe the whole putting everyone on a single axis is doing much more harm than good.
Because someone like Stein doesn't fall anywhere on any line drawn through Sanders and Clinton, I think.
Clearly we need an N-dimensional matrix where N is the number of issues being considered, and then we can assign labels to various sectors and calculate more accurate political distances.
Everyone will love it.
I'd disagree here, both Stein and Bernie courted the Far Left and are on the Far Left spectrum.
Also of note: many progressives are LGBT. Why do LGBT progressives, who are left behind on a number of issues (unless we are arguing that the fight for LGBT rights is over, which, you know, it's not), get lumped in as anti-social justice? Or else, why do we assume that LGBT progressives are not voting in their own self-interest on social issues?
Because centrist dems don't care for us. They just want to use Republicans to scare us into voting for them.
I'd say that isn't as true as it once was, they've almost nearly merged politically with the liberal/progressive wing (not the Far Left) with the last election.
That is a stick which is potent, it's also true. Until the Iron Throne is taken away they're our party leaders - who else are you going to turn to who stands a chance against the GOP? The Greens?
Until another alternative comes around from another faction who can stand up to the centrists toe to toe, they're our last and best hope for a future in this country.
+1
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited January 2017
I'm a solid Clinton supporter who loath the extreme people who peddled cynicism and Podesta conspiracies (the "web-based", mainly White and mainly naive Sanders puritans who sunk everything and refuse to admit they would be much better off with Hillary in every way) but I hope they still win out.
Why? Because minority voters are more rational and less finicky. They will still turn out for the Appalachian firebrand who focuses on economic leftism/populism and ignores technocratic and social approaches. The White and young non-republicans are less easy to please but are easily seduced by someone who appears avant-garde/one of them and makes them feel special.
What we f-ing need is Bernie and Hillary sitting down to have a real talk and explain where they come from, what they wanted, what misgivings they had about each other and what they agree on.
Hillary needs to say openly: "The left needs fewer quinoa dinners with the super-rich and my email solutions were disgustingly careless considering how much was riding on me" and Sanders needs to say openly: "Reproductive rights and fighting all bigotry is just as important to all leftists as cheaper college and breaking up banks and also FUCK FUCKING COMEY GODDAMN".
If not, I fear the US left is dead for more than a decade. So many White voters on the left and right edges of the possible spectrum value their egos or pet issues above everything else and will refuse to vote if not placated, and those who don't have the luxury of voting with their hearts will be assaulted with precision by Sessions and Co.
Except that Hillary did say that regarding her emails... Like 8 times.
+1
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
What we f-ing need is Bernie and Hillary sitting down to have a real talk and explain where they come from, what they wanted, what misgivings they had about each other and what they agree on.
Hillary needs to say openly: "The left needs fewer quinoa dinners with the super-rich and my email solutions were disgustingly careless considering how much was riding on me" and Sanders needs to say openly: "Reproductive rights and fighting all bigotry is just as important to all leftists as cheaper college and breaking up banks and also FUCK FUCKING COMEY GODDAMN".
If not, I fear the US left is dead for more than a decade. So many White voters on the left and right edges of the possible spectrum value their egos or pet issues above everything else and will refuse to vote if not placated, and those who don't have the luxury of voting with their hearts will be assaulted with precision by Sessions and Co.
Except that Hillary did say that regarding her emails... Like 8 times.
You forget how many usually decent and sane men hate and distrust Clinton more than they do Joffrey Baratheon. They need to hear a trusted Man say it.
Based on the actual primary, the major difference isn't even as much as priorities, it's methodology. We didn't really substantively disagree all that much. Which is why it got so nasty. Ultimately the difference was revolutionary vs. incrementalist. Or outsider vs. insider. Goals are basically the same it's just how we get there.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
One thing I am certain is not the answer is asshole attention seeking lawyer and onetime failed Democratic candidate for the Governor of Michigan, Geoffrey Fieger. Who is running a fucking 2020 ad already.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Can we focus on what we're going to do downballot first? I don't think we'd all be this scared if the Repubs weren't so close to a constitutional majority with majorities in both houses in Congress.
Can we focus on what we're going to do downballot first? I don't think we'd all be this scared if the Repubs weren't so close to a constitutional majority with majorities in both houses in Congress.
They still need a supermajority in Congress to amend the thing, unless they go the convention route, which nobody wants to because maybe we'll accidentally put in an article nationalizing the oil industry. Or making Christianity the state religion for a horror show on the other side of things.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Can we focus on what we're going to do downballot first? I don't think we'd all be this scared if the Repubs weren't so close to a constitutional majority with majorities in both houses in Congress.
This needs be a high priority, but its easier to focus on the presidency since it's merely one role. Who knows what candidates will be running by '16 and '20.
What we f-ing need is Bernie and Hillary sitting down to have a real talk and explain where they come from, what they wanted, what misgivings they had about each other and what they agree on.
Hillary needs to say openly: "The left needs fewer quinoa dinners with the super-rich and my email solutions were disgustingly careless considering how much was riding on me" and Sanders needs to say openly: "Reproductive rights and fighting all bigotry is just as important to all leftists as cheaper college and breaking up banks and also FUCK FUCKING COMEY GODDAMN".
If not, I fear the US left is dead for more than a decade. So many White voters on the left and right edges of the possible spectrum value their egos or pet issues above everything else and will refuse to vote if not placated, and those who don't have the luxury of voting with their hearts will be assaulted with precision by Sessions and Co.
Except that Hillary did say that regarding her emails... Like 8 times.
You forget how many usually decent and sane men hate and distrust Clinton more than they do Joffrey Baratheon. They need to hear a trusted Man say it.
I have a feeling if Elizabeth Warren had run and Bernie had not, she would have gained much of the support Bernie had, if not more. I'm not so sure that misogyny can explain away all of the problems with Hillary quite so easily.
What we f-ing need is Bernie and Hillary sitting down to have a real talk and explain where they come from, what they wanted, what misgivings they had about each other and what they agree on.
Hillary needs to say openly: "The left needs fewer quinoa dinners with the super-rich and my email solutions were disgustingly careless considering how much was riding on me" and Sanders needs to say openly: "Reproductive rights and fighting all bigotry is just as important to all leftists as cheaper college and breaking up banks and also FUCK FUCKING COMEY GODDAMN".
If not, I fear the US left is dead for more than a decade. So many White voters on the left and right edges of the possible spectrum value their egos or pet issues above everything else and will refuse to vote if not placated, and those who don't have the luxury of voting with their hearts will be assaulted with precision by Sessions and Co.
Except that Hillary did say that regarding her emails... Like 8 times.
You forget how many usually decent and sane men hate and distrust Clinton more than they do Joffrey Baratheon. They need to hear a trusted Man say it.
I have a feeling if Elizabeth Warren had run and Bernie had not, she would have gained much of the support Bernie had, if not more. I'm not so sure that misogyny can explain away all of the problems with Hillary quite so easily.
All of them? Of course not.
But it was a big issue. It was the other thing that kept correlating with Trump support along with racism, for instance.
It also generally seems like it's not a good idea to expect all the theoretical support for a woman candidate to translate into real support when they actually run.
What we f-ing need is Bernie and Hillary sitting down to have a real talk and explain where they come from, what they wanted, what misgivings they had about each other and what they agree on.
Hillary needs to say openly: "The left needs fewer quinoa dinners with the super-rich and my email solutions were disgustingly careless considering how much was riding on me" and Sanders needs to say openly: "Reproductive rights and fighting all bigotry is just as important to all leftists as cheaper college and breaking up banks and also FUCK FUCKING COMEY GODDAMN".
If not, I fear the US left is dead for more than a decade. So many White voters on the left and right edges of the possible spectrum value their egos or pet issues above everything else and will refuse to vote if not placated, and those who don't have the luxury of voting with their hearts will be assaulted with precision by Sessions and Co.
Except that Hillary did say that regarding her emails... Like 8 times.
You forget how many usually decent and sane men hate and distrust Clinton more than they do Joffrey Baratheon. They need to hear a trusted Man say it.
I have a feeling if Elizabeth Warren had run and Bernie had not, she would have gained much of the support Bernie had, if not more. I'm not so sure that misogyny can explain away all of the problems with Hillary quite so easily.
She'd have been hit with the misogyny train, as well. She'd have her own problems to deal with, candidates don't need to have every flaw Hillary had to fail against Trump.
Can we focus on what we're going to do downballot first? I don't think we'd all be this scared if the Repubs weren't so close to a constitutional majority with majorities in both houses in Congress.
This needs be a high priority, but its easier to focus on the presidency since it's merely one role. Who knows what candidates will be running by '16 and '20.
Also need to win the governors races the next couple years if we're going to get good redistricting after 2020. I would think we pick up New Jersey this year. Hopefully my Democratic Party can get their shit together and we can replace Snyder with someone who is not interesting in poisoning black people.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
What we f-ing need is Bernie and Hillary sitting down to have a real talk and explain where they come from, what they wanted, what misgivings they had about each other and what they agree on.
Hillary needs to say openly: "The left needs fewer quinoa dinners with the super-rich and my email solutions were disgustingly careless considering how much was riding on me" and Sanders needs to say openly: "Reproductive rights and fighting all bigotry is just as important to all leftists as cheaper college and breaking up banks and also FUCK FUCKING COMEY GODDAMN".
If not, I fear the US left is dead for more than a decade. So many White voters on the left and right edges of the possible spectrum value their egos or pet issues above everything else and will refuse to vote if not placated, and those who don't have the luxury of voting with their hearts will be assaulted with precision by Sessions and Co.
Except that Hillary did say that regarding her emails... Like 8 times.
You forget how many usually decent and sane men hate and distrust Clinton more than they do Joffrey Baratheon. They need to hear a trusted Man say it.
I have a feeling if Elizabeth Warren had run and Bernie had not, she would have gained much of the support Bernie had, if not more. I'm not so sure that misogyny can explain away all of the problems with Hillary quite so easily.
She'd have been hit with the misogyny train, as well. She'd have her own problems to deal with, candidates don't need to have every flaw Hillary had to fail against Trump.
She did get hit with the misogyny train. Remember Pocahontas?
Yet she remains the darling of liberals everywhere.
What we f-ing need is Bernie and Hillary sitting down to have a real talk and explain where they come from, what they wanted, what misgivings they had about each other and what they agree on.
Hillary needs to say openly: "The left needs fewer quinoa dinners with the super-rich and my email solutions were disgustingly careless considering how much was riding on me" and Sanders needs to say openly: "Reproductive rights and fighting all bigotry is just as important to all leftists as cheaper college and breaking up banks and also FUCK FUCKING COMEY GODDAMN".
If not, I fear the US left is dead for more than a decade. So many White voters on the left and right edges of the possible spectrum value their egos or pet issues above everything else and will refuse to vote if not placated, and those who don't have the luxury of voting with their hearts will be assaulted with precision by Sessions and Co.
Except that Hillary did say that regarding her emails... Like 8 times.
You forget how many usually decent and sane men hate and distrust Clinton more than they do Joffrey Baratheon. They need to hear a trusted Man say it.
I have a feeling if Elizabeth Warren had run and Bernie had not, she would have gained much of the support Bernie had, if not more. I'm not so sure that misogyny can explain away all of the problems with Hillary quite so easily.
She'd have been hit with the misogyny train, as well. She'd have her own problems to deal with, candidates don't need to have every flaw Hillary had to fail against Trump.
She did get hit with the misogyny train. Remember Pocahontas?
Yet she remains the darling of liberals everywhere.
Can we focus on what we're going to do downballot first? I don't think we'd all be this scared if the Repubs weren't so close to a constitutional majority with majorities in both houses in Congress.
This needs be a high priority, but its easier to focus on the presidency since it's merely one role. Who knows what candidates will be running by '16 and '20.
I really liked it when we started to talk about the dynamics that affect the party at the really local level. I'm from Ohio(specifically Hamilton County), and our local Dem party is pretty nice all things considered. They were also great support for my Civics Teacher when he decided to run for our mayor. I didn't realize this wasn't the case everywhere and want to know if there's anything we can do about it?
Another thing is, how to tackle the disengagement amongst the youth problem. I mean the republicans managed to get their younglings out so why can't we? Or is this another thing where they can find the way but we can't?
Edit:
Look. As a immigrant black woman I will vote for whichever candidate promises to screw me over less, and this happens to be the Dems. I don't like Bernie, and I never will with the way his supporters push him, but if he's the future I'll go with it but let's be clear. I will kick ad scream twice as loud as the worst BernieBro if they leave us behind. Fuck it. The mantle comes with a price.
What we f-ing need is Bernie and Hillary sitting down to have a real talk and explain where they come from, what they wanted, what misgivings they had about each other and what they agree on.
Hillary needs to say openly: "The left needs fewer quinoa dinners with the super-rich and my email solutions were disgustingly careless considering how much was riding on me" and Sanders needs to say openly: "Reproductive rights and fighting all bigotry is just as important to all leftists as cheaper college and breaking up banks and also FUCK FUCKING COMEY GODDAMN".
If not, I fear the US left is dead for more than a decade. So many White voters on the left and right edges of the possible spectrum value their egos or pet issues above everything else and will refuse to vote if not placated, and those who don't have the luxury of voting with their hearts will be assaulted with precision by Sessions and Co.
Except that Hillary did say that regarding her emails... Like 8 times.
You forget how many usually decent and sane men hate and distrust Clinton more than they do Joffrey Baratheon. They need to hear a trusted Man say it.
I have a feeling if Elizabeth Warren had run and Bernie had not, she would have gained much of the support Bernie had, if not more. I'm not so sure that misogyny can explain away all of the problems with Hillary quite so easily.
She'd have been hit with the misogyny train, as well. She'd have her own problems to deal with, candidates don't need to have every flaw Hillary had to fail against Trump.
She did get hit with the misogyny train. Remember Pocahontas?
Yet she remains the darling of liberals everywhere.
She wasn't running against him for president back then, and it takes more than liberals to win - Hillary had the majority of liberals voters sown up, she still lost. The party is more than Liberals R Us. One of the big reasons for her failure is not appeasing the non-liberals in the Rust Belt, I don't think Warren would have done any better on that front.
Can we focus on what we're going to do downballot first? I don't think we'd all be this scared if the Repubs weren't so close to a constitutional majority with majorities in both houses in Congress.
This needs be a high priority, but its easier to focus on the presidency since it's merely one role. Who knows what candidates will be running by '16 and '20.
I mean I really liked it when we started to talk about the dynamics that affect the party at the really local level. I'm from Ohio(specifically Hamilton County), and our local Dem party is pretty nice all things considered. They were also great support for my Civics Teacher when he decided to run for our mayor. I didn't realize this wasn't the case everywhere and want to know if there's anything we can do about it?
Also I haven't seen anyone talking about how to tackle the disengagement amongst the youth problem. I mean the republicans managed to get their younglings out so why can't we? Or is this another thing where they can find the way but we can't?
Agreed. The Dems need to update all this. No getting lax, everything must be improved.
What we f-ing need is Bernie and Hillary sitting down to have a real talk and explain where they come from, what they wanted, what misgivings they had about each other and what they agree on.
Hillary needs to say openly: "The left needs fewer quinoa dinners with the super-rich and my email solutions were disgustingly careless considering how much was riding on me" and Sanders needs to say openly: "Reproductive rights and fighting all bigotry is just as important to all leftists as cheaper college and breaking up banks and also FUCK FUCKING COMEY GODDAMN".
If not, I fear the US left is dead for more than a decade. So many White voters on the left and right edges of the possible spectrum value their egos or pet issues above everything else and will refuse to vote if not placated, and those who don't have the luxury of voting with their hearts will be assaulted with precision by Sessions and Co.
Except that Hillary did say that regarding her emails... Like 8 times.
You forget how many usually decent and sane men hate and distrust Clinton more than they do Joffrey Baratheon. They need to hear a trusted Man say it.
I have a feeling if Elizabeth Warren had run and Bernie had not, she would have gained much of the support Bernie had, if not more. I'm not so sure that misogyny can explain away all of the problems with Hillary quite so easily.
Agreed. The Dems need to update all this. No getting lax, everything must be improved.
But How? Something I've noticed is that our youth are spread out across a million different causes compared to the Republicans Guns, God, and Money platforms. We need to find a way to consolidate these disparate peoples into our own slogans.
Equality, Prosperity, and Liberty maybe? Just spitballing here.
And we also need to find a way to tailor whatever platform we come up with in the local areas. We need to know which pillars to deemphasize, when we should, how we should, and where we should. All of which is going to cost money. Money we need to get from somewhere.
To those of you who don't want corporations to donate to us, where do you think we should get it?
Small donations are great when you're running for the Presidency but what about your local school board? How excited can we get people to be about that, especially if the candidate isn't charismatic?
But How? Something I've noticed is that our youth are spread out across a million different causes compared to the Republicans Guns, God, and Money platforms. We need to find a way to consolidate these disparate peoples into our own slogans.
Equality, Prosperity, and Liberty maybe? Just spitballing here.
And we also need to find a way to tailor whatever platform we come up with in the local areas. We need to know which pillars to deemphasize, when we should, how we should, and where we should. All of which is going to cost money. Money we need to get from somewhere.
This is a hard question to answer, and something which will take a lot of time to figure out. I'm not sure how go about this, but maybe there are other posters in this thread with solutions?
And yes, money is a definite factor we can't ignore if we want the Dems to have a shot on the national scale.
To those of you who don't want corporations to donate to us, where do you think we should get it?
I've asked this many times, and gotten no answers. That's why I'm writing that line of thought off completely until a solid solution which can match wealthy donors pound for pound is on the table.
Small donations are great when you're running for the Presidency but what about your local school board? How excited can we get people to be about that, especially if the candidate isn't charismatic?
I think that might help on the ground level more than the presidency, as long as it is done properly. Though to do this right requires the centrists to start thinking out of the box, start taking risks and make other changes. This is another difficult task I'm not sure how to fix, and it needs to be done. The Dems really need to work that stuff, maybe we can look at what the GOP are doing for answers?
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
Can we focus on what we're going to do downballot first? I don't think we'd all be this scared if the Repubs weren't so close to a constitutional majority with majorities in both houses in Congress.
So I just went to a meeting of the local Young Democrats. I was pretty pleased, they had some plans brewing for outreach to the insular red areas, involvement with the bigger county thing to work out what areas to target, a union rep, and just tons of ways to get involved.
There's definitely tons to do, and it seems like the best way to get started is just show up.
But How? Something I've noticed is that our youth are spread out across a million different causes compared to the Republicans Guns, God, and Money platforms. We need to find a way to consolidate these disparate peoples into our own slogans.
Equality, Prosperity, and Liberty maybe? Just spitballing here.
And we also need to find a way to tailor whatever platform we come up with in the local areas. We need to know which pillars to deemphasize, when we should, how we should, and where we should. All of which is going to cost money. Money we need to get from somewhere.
This is a hard question to answer, and something which will take a lot of time to figure out. I'm not sure how go about this, but maybe there are other posters in this thread with solutions?
And yes, money is a definite factor we can't ignore if we want the Dems to have a shot on the national scale.
To those of you who don't want corporations to donate to us, where do you think we should get it?
I've asked this many times, and gotten no answers. That's why I'm writing that line of thought off completely until a solid solution which can match wealthy donors pound for pound is on the table.
Small donations are great when you're running for the Presidency but what about your local school board? How excited can we get people to be about that, especially if the candidate isn't charismatic?
I think that might help on the ground level more than the presidency, as long as it is done properly. Though to do this right requires the centrists to start thinking out of the box, start taking risks and make other changes. This is another difficult task I'm not sure how to fix, and it needs to be done. The Dems really need to work that stuff, maybe we can look at what the GOP are doing for answers?
I can not respect for anything except their organizational ability. I don't understand how with most media at least marginally at our side that we haven't been able to combat this. As for the monetary funds, I've been thinking that maybe we should just start running activists for office. They already have a set base, probably have experience fundraising, and havethe purity all the far left desire.
I can not respect for anything except their organizational ability. I don't understand how with most media at least marginally at our side that we haven't been able to combat this. As for the monetary funds, I've been thinking that maybe we should just start running activists for office. They already have a set base, probably have experience fundraising, and havethe purity all the far left desire.
I've been unimpressed from what I've seen with the Far Left on fundraising, sure they make some inroads with donations (which is what modern Dems do regardless, some do this better then others of course) but do they really have the money to stand up to the GOP? That said, I think your idea has merit. Now, the difficulty is if they refuse to take funds from donors from the party structure (rather than just rely on themselves entirely) or if their base will be turned off if they do. They're going to need all the help they can if one of them goes up against a well organized, financially backed Republican. Not every rival they go up against will be poor.
I'm not sure why you think this is the disconnect. I have heard basically this exact thing for quite some time now and have, on multiple occasions, treated racial issues as needing specific attention.
Nobody here, to my knowledge, has specifically advocated for working on economic issues to the exclusion of racial issues, or a colorblind economic overhaul. Quite the opposite, in fact, and often.
I'm well aware of the specific hurdles facing minorities and how racism affects non-white populations in unique, severe ways. This is something that can be baked into messaging on the issue.
The disconnect, in my estimation, appears to be that many do not actually believe this to be possible. Either you are working on economic issues or you are working on racial issues, and never the twain shall meet. To this I say: bollocks and poppycock.
In theory this is true, in reality we don't have a politician available who's able to merge these two ideas into a winning campaign.
Well then I guess we're back to not desiring to ever lead, because if you're going to tell the majority of Americans who are in real economic hardship (the likes of which many of you upper middle class coastal types have never experienced) that they're just fucked forever... well that's that
Doubly so when you look at the issues that younger black and hispanic voters are really concerned about!
This isn't about desire (which we have plenty of), this is about taking stock in the situation with what we have on hand. We don't have the luxury of having an Obama every time we run for president, he was the exception not the norm. We need someone right to send the proper message or it won't matter what we say, they either won't vote or they'll vote for the biggest piece of trash on the planet. So, if you really want this to happen I suggest you start looking for Dem politicians who fit this description or it won't get off the ground.
You think rural types are the only people who have faced financial hardship? People in cities and suburbs do have financial troubles and face homelessness. This goes double with minorities who besides dealing with that have a tougher time either reaching higher mobility or have greater difficulty breaking through unemployment or living in good homes due to discrimination.
There is no such thing as fake economic hardship.
And yeah, many people in the Rust Belt are fucked since their lifestyles have slowly become obsolete, which isn't the Dems fault. I find it amusing when the blame goes around the GOP are the last to make an appearance, when they're the ones pushing bad coal standards and moving manufacturing over seas (Trump being the poster boy), and how the GOP have obstructed the entire government from helping people because they're sore that a black man is in the White House. You were right that Hillary should have tried harder to get her message out to help them as a priority (which she did) - however, were they really interested in hearing her solutions? Because it didn't involve rebuilding the good ol' days because she didn't want to lie to them and wanted to provide methods for them to adapt to this new world. Not to mention this region aren't loyalist Dems to begin with, this isn't California we're courting.
I had an analogy of a doctor and a cancer patient about this upthread, which was apt. The Rust Belt and the cancer patient here.
I'm going to ask you a question: what honestly did you want Hillary to say to the Rust Belt to get them on board?
The younger black and hispanic voters deal with this shit every day, the difference is they don't blame the Dems and vote for Trump. "Economic anxiety" is Tuesday for them.
Dems have fallen behind on local levels more because of organization than messaging, I think--witness how many Congressional candidates underperformed Clinton this time around.
It is a very real problem, and we need to start looking at what Republicans are doing right and start emulating them. Not on their messaging, but on their organizing.
Let the local party organizations run themselves instead of forcing marching orders from the top seems to be a thing they did this time around
I think they may have won in spite of it, but it probably hurt Hillary in some areas (bizarrely deciding not to fork over cash for the stupid campaign shit that the die hard over 50 crowd loves like signs is an example)
An example, here in Kenosha, a deeply blue as fuck town (In 2012 Obama won with 55% of the vote, Hillary tied it with 47%!) I saw more Trump signs than Clinton signs. I know research says they don't matter, but it's disheartening to only see one color all over the place
I agree top down orgs have problems (what doesn't?) but there are numerous problems with decentralizing the Democratic party on the national scale. For instance, who vets who leads these groups? If a group is having trouble how do they coordinate with other groups for support or guidance? Do they have any training for leadership, or will anyone be able to step up? Are they all going to do their own thing from the ground up? Who is going to make sure the best people for the job get the leadership spots? How does funding work? What if a leader completely fails, who answers for that and how do they get replaced? Would the state and national leadership have a say or be able to know when they're failing?
At least top down leaves the leadership in loser hands so if they screw up they are easier to replace. As well as having a tighter communication and resource allotment.
Base case scenario, the Dems can't roll out the entire party infrastructure like this for a national election, it's too risky a move.
edit: That said, I'm not saying we can't use this or at least part of it to convert the Far Left into Dems. Maybe have some decentralized offices during national and state elections in areas where the Far Left is potent, for instance.
Yup the GOP went from being the party of bootstraps to the party of smug white entitlement
Those are technically the same thing, since "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is a physical impossibility and the phrase means just that. If used unironically it almost always translates to "I did it without help (ignoring that they had tons of help, whether direct or institutional) why can't you?"
Yup the GOP went from being the party of bootstraps to the party of smug white entitlement
Those are technically the same thing, since "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is a physical impossibility and the phrase means just that. If used unironically it almost always translates to "I did it without help (ignoring that they had tons of help, whether direct or institutional) why can't you?"
Biden was afflicted with regret. He was sorry that, on the campaign trail, he had spoken so often about Donald Trump’s unfitness for office and not enough about what Hillary Clinton would do for the middle class. He was sorry he didn’t push harder inside the White House for a middle-class tax cut. And he was still torn over his decision not to run for president, a race that he said would have been “brutal” but that he also believed he could have won.
I spoke with Biden intermittently in the months before and after Election Day, and I had no doubt as to why he didn’t jump in. He was still corny, gabby, lovable Uncle Joe, the guy who once said: “Stand up, Chuck! Let ’em see you!” to a man in a wheelchair. But nearly every speech and interview now included some moving mention of his son Beau, who died of brain cancer in 2015, and how much Biden was doing, and intended to continue to do for the rest of his life, to speed the search for cancer cures.
I saw Biden cry in Manchester, N.H., in October when holding an infant that he was told was named after Beau. I saw him near tears in West Mifflin, Pa., the weekend before the election, when he was joined onstage by the former Pittsburgh Steelers Franco Harris and Mel Blount — which reminded him of the footballs the team owner sent to young Beau and his brother, Hunter, in the hospital after they were injured in the 1972 car accident that killed Biden’s first wife and baby girl.
On his deathbed, Beau advised his father to run, but many friends — including President Obama — didn’t think he was up to it emotionally, and the vice president finally agreed. “For all that’s important to me in almost a sacred sense,” he told me mournfully, the decision was unavoidable. “The family was broken, and I was more broken than I thought I was.” How broken? “I don’t know what I’d do if I was in a debate and someone said, ‘You’re doing this because of your son,’ ” he told me one late November day in his West Wing office. “I might have walked over and kicked his ass.”
And yet minutes later, he was standing at his desk, fidgeting and replaying what might have been in 2016. The South Carolina primary would have given him a strong start, he said, citing his internal polls there. “Hard to believe, but I was more popular with blacks than Barack was.”
Is perfectly understandable why he didn't run, but having "Trump wouldn't be President if I sucked it up and ran anyways" in your conscience seems like a heavy weight to carry. In the main point, he's still going to apply pressure to keep the party together:
The big question now is when, and how, they will re-enter the arena. Obama has already said that, unlike George W. Bush, he won’t refrain from commenting on his successor. Biden may go further. Amid discussion of resistance to Trump, he surprised me with talk of 2020, when he’ll turn 78. “I’ll run,” the vice president deadpanned, “if I can walk.” Three days later, he informed the Washington press corps that he wasn’t joking.
Biden isn’t likely to run, but keeping the door ajar gives him a bigger voice in Democratic Party debates. The one that worries him most is over repositioning to win back Trump voters. He has little patience with Democrats who want to move either left or right. “ ‘We gotta move to the center,’ ‘We gotta move to those white guys,’ ‘We gotta move to those working-class people’ or ‘We gotta double down on the social agenda.’ ” It’s a false choice, he said: “They are totally compatible. I have never said anything to the A.C.L.U. that I wouldn’t say to the Chamber of Commerce.”
This was the vision of the Democratic Party to which Biden had dedicated his career. “Amtrak Joe” famously commuted every day from Wilmington to Washington — three hours round-trip, for 36 years. He told me that as the train neared Baltimore, he habitually peered into the rapidly passing homes close to the tracks — a flip book of middle-class families of various backgrounds who might have recognized themselves in his convention speech. “I wonder what the conversation at the dinner table is,” he told me.
Sometimes he saw his own family in the early 1960s in those houses. He imagines the families’ struggles with everyday expenses: “ ‘Honey, we need a new set of tires, but you gotta get another 20,000 miles out of them.’ That’s the goddamn discussion people are having! That’s their lives!”
Is perfectly understandable why he didn't run, but having "Trump wouldn't be President if I sucked it up and ran anyways" in your conscience seems like a heavy weight to carry.
It's a burden Biden shouldn't bother carrying. 1. We don't know for sure, and 2. he had many flaws which Trump and the GOP would have exploited to the hilt, and who knows what sorts of third party bullshit (ala Comey) they'd have tried with him. He's also repeating Hillary's mistake by underestimating Trump.
Glass half-full/half-empty semantics. You are probably right though, no use crying over spilled milk. Specially while being one of the voices that can answer "now what?".
Is perfectly understandable why he didn't run, but having "Trump wouldn't be President if I sucked it up and ran anyways" in your conscience seems like a heavy weight to carry.
It's a burden Biden shouldn't bother carrying. 1. We don't know for sure, and 2. he had many flaws which Trump and the GOP would have exploited to the hilt, and who knows what sorts of third party bullshit (ala Comey) they'd have tried with him. He's also repeating Hillary's mistake by underestimating Trump.
Clinton also beat Biden in almost every hypothetical polling match up. And he's substantially to Clinton's right and far, far more tied to the financial industry than she is. And the right has failed to villainous him as much as the Clintons only because they haven't felt a need to.
It might be the answer going forward is running more moderate white guys, but I don't think we've actually reached that conclusion yet
Is perfectly understandable why he didn't run, but having "Trump wouldn't be President if I sucked it up and ran anyways" in your conscience seems like a heavy weight to carry.
It's a burden Biden shouldn't bother carrying. 1. We don't know for sure, and 2. he had many flaws which Trump and the GOP would have exploited to the hilt, and who knows what sorts of third party bullshit (ala Comey) they'd have tried with him. He's also repeating Hillary's mistake by underestimating Trump.
Clinton also beat Biden in almost every hypothetical polling match up. And he's substantially to Clinton's right and far, far more tied to the financial industry than she is. And the right has failed to villainous him as much as the Clintons only because they haven't felt a need to.
It might be the answer going forward is running more moderate white guys, but I don't think we've actually reached that conclusion yet
Or at least if we have to do it it should be someone else rather than Biden.
What we f-ing need is Bernie and Hillary sitting down to have a real talk and explain where they come from, what they wanted, what misgivings they had about each other and what they agree on.
Hillary needs to say openly: "The left needs fewer quinoa dinners with the super-rich and my email solutions were disgustingly careless considering how much was riding on me" and Sanders needs to say openly: "Reproductive rights and fighting all bigotry is just as important to all leftists as cheaper college and breaking up banks and also FUCK FUCKING COMEY GODDAMN".
If not, I fear the US left is dead for more than a decade. So many White voters on the left and right edges of the possible spectrum value their egos or pet issues above everything else and will refuse to vote if not placated, and those who don't have the luxury of voting with their hearts will be assaulted with precision by Sessions and Co.
Except that Hillary did say that regarding her emails... Like 8 times.
You forget how many usually decent and sane men hate and distrust Clinton more than they do Joffrey Baratheon. They need to hear a trusted Man say it.
I have a feeling if Elizabeth Warren had run and Bernie had not, she would have gained much of the support Bernie had, if not more. I'm not so sure that misogyny can explain away all of the problems with Hillary quite so easily.
You seem to underestimate the hatred of Elizabeth Warren.
+5
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Republicans will just hate any Democratic candidate, Warren would at least not have the disadvantage of the miasma caused by the 20 year Republican smear campaign on all things Clinton.
Pretty much as irrelevant as irrelevant can be since she didn't want to run, doesn't want to run, and is doing a bang up job in her current gig.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I can not respect for anything except their organizational ability. I don't understand how with most media at least marginally at our side that we haven't been able to combat this. As for the monetary funds, I've been thinking that maybe we should just start running activists for office. They already have a set base, probably have experience fundraising, and havethe purity all the far left desire.
I've been unimpressed from what I've seen with the Far Left on fundraising, sure they make some inroads with donations (which is what modern Dems do regardless, some do this better then others of course) but do they really have the money to stand up to the GOP? That said, I think your idea has merit. Now, the difficulty is if they refuse to take funds from donors from the party structure (rather than just rely on themselves entirely) or if their base will be turned off if they do. They're going to need all the help they can if one of them goes up against a well organized, financially backed Republican. Not every rival they go up against will be poor.
One hopeful thing about the current election is we see that you really just need to have media publicity to win, more than ground game or money. It's further down-ballot where you need money to generate that visibility, but the idea that the Dems need to stay close enough on the good side of the billionaires to just compete is false.
Further, i think there are plenty of business sectors who would be willing to throw in with Democrats, even if we must be cautious about that becoming a cozy long-term relationship (we don't need to replace King Koch with King Musk, for instance), but the GOP is going to be bad for Silicon Valley on net neutrality and probably bringing back an even crazier version of SOPA, they're going to actively fuck with Tesla in trying to suppress electric cars, they're going to try to pass some sort of nationwide "protect the power grid" law that bans anyone who's doing home solar from hooking into the electric grid and fuck with a lot of solar industries, not to mention what they're about to do to the entire healthcare business, which is huge (UPMC is the new steel in Western Pennsylvania).
There's a lot of inroads for corporate partnership without selling out to Wall Street, although the issue is labor relations and all of these guys are bad on that front (UPMC is in a big unionization fight with SEIU presently).
What we f-ing need is Bernie and Hillary sitting down to have a real talk and explain where they come from, what they wanted, what misgivings they had about each other and what they agree on.
Hillary needs to say openly: "The left needs fewer quinoa dinners with the super-rich and my email solutions were disgustingly careless considering how much was riding on me" and Sanders needs to say openly: "Reproductive rights and fighting all bigotry is just as important to all leftists as cheaper college and breaking up banks and also FUCK FUCKING COMEY GODDAMN".
If not, I fear the US left is dead for more than a decade. So many White voters on the left and right edges of the possible spectrum value their egos or pet issues above everything else and will refuse to vote if not placated, and those who don't have the luxury of voting with their hearts will be assaulted with precision by Sessions and Co.
Except that Hillary did say that regarding her emails... Like 8 times.
You forget how many usually decent and sane men hate and distrust Clinton more than they do Joffrey Baratheon. They need to hear a trusted Man say it.
I have a feeling if Elizabeth Warren had run and Bernie had not, she would have gained much of the support Bernie had, if not more. I'm not so sure that misogyny can explain away all of the problems with Hillary quite so easily.
You seem to underestimate the hatred of Elizabeth Warren.
First they said she was Unamerican because she was part Native American.
Then they said she was Unamerican for falsely claiming to be part Native American.
Posts
Hillary needs to say openly: "The left needs fewer quinoa dinners with the super-rich and my email solutions were disgustingly careless considering how much was riding on me" and Sanders needs to say openly: "Reproductive rights and fighting all bigotry is just as important to all leftists as cheaper college and breaking up banks and also FUCK FUCKING COMEY GODDAMN".
If not, I fear the US left is dead for more than a decade. So many White voters on the left and right edges of the possible spectrum value their egos or pet issues above everything else and will refuse to vote if not placated, and those who don't have the luxury of voting with their hearts will be assaulted with precision by Sessions and Co.
There's no misunderstanding between the two behind all this. They both understand where the other is coming from. They just don't agree on policy or tactics, nor do the camps they represent. A lot of people are saying "the democrats need to forget their differences and come together." That's not going to happen. Their differences are not just wishy-washy aesthetics. They're ideologies that have incompatible components.
We are in a very difficult place right now, because these ideologies aren't just going to meld. They have too many conflicts. One is going to win out, and that will be the path forward.
I think that's a story that could use some 'splaining.
I'm surprised at the incompatibility statement. I felt the differences were really ones of priorities. I don't think there's anything in either camp that is distasteful to the other; I thought the importance of various things differed in 'what we should go after first.'
Any examples of ideas you thing are incompatible?
And yet she was the one who campaigned heavily on that in the general. Moderate Dems may not entirely be from the 90's flavor anymore, Hillary was vastly more left leaning and progressive this time around than she ever was in her political career. However, if the centrists read this as a failure they'll regress further to their 90's selves for a safer bet.
I'd disagree here, both Stein and Bernie courted the Far Left and are on the Far Left spectrum.
I'd say that isn't as true as it once was, they've almost nearly merged politically with the liberal/progressive wing (not the Far Left) with the last election.
That is a stick which is potent, it's also true. Until the Iron Throne is taken away they're our party leaders - who else are you going to turn to who stands a chance against the GOP? The Greens?
Until another alternative comes around from another faction who can stand up to the centrists toe to toe, they're our last and best hope for a future in this country.
Why? Because minority voters are more rational and less finicky. They will still turn out for the Appalachian firebrand who focuses on economic leftism/populism and ignores technocratic and social approaches. The White and young non-republicans are less easy to please but are easily seduced by someone who appears avant-garde/one of them and makes them feel special.
Except that Hillary did say that regarding her emails... Like 8 times.
You forget how many usually decent and sane men hate and distrust Clinton more than they do Joffrey Baratheon. They need to hear a trusted Man say it.
They still need a supermajority in Congress to amend the thing, unless they go the convention route, which nobody wants to because maybe we'll accidentally put in an article nationalizing the oil industry. Or making Christianity the state religion for a horror show on the other side of things.
This needs be a high priority, but its easier to focus on the presidency since it's merely one role. Who knows what candidates will be running by '16 and '20.
I have a feeling if Elizabeth Warren had run and Bernie had not, she would have gained much of the support Bernie had, if not more. I'm not so sure that misogyny can explain away all of the problems with Hillary quite so easily.
All of them? Of course not.
But it was a big issue. It was the other thing that kept correlating with Trump support along with racism, for instance.
It also generally seems like it's not a good idea to expect all the theoretical support for a woman candidate to translate into real support when they actually run.
She'd have been hit with the misogyny train, as well. She'd have her own problems to deal with, candidates don't need to have every flaw Hillary had to fail against Trump.
Also need to win the governors races the next couple years if we're going to get good redistricting after 2020. I would think we pick up New Jersey this year. Hopefully my Democratic Party can get their shit together and we can replace Snyder with someone who is not interesting in poisoning black people.
She did get hit with the misogyny train. Remember Pocahontas?
Yet she remains the darling of liberals everywhere.
That's the racism train.
I really liked it when we started to talk about the dynamics that affect the party at the really local level. I'm from Ohio(specifically Hamilton County), and our local Dem party is pretty nice all things considered. They were also great support for my Civics Teacher when he decided to run for our mayor. I didn't realize this wasn't the case everywhere and want to know if there's anything we can do about it?
Another thing is, how to tackle the disengagement amongst the youth problem. I mean the republicans managed to get their younglings out so why can't we? Or is this another thing where they can find the way but we can't?
Edit:
Look. As a immigrant black woman I will vote for whichever candidate promises to screw me over less, and this happens to be the Dems. I don't like Bernie, and I never will with the way his supporters push him, but if he's the future I'll go with it but let's be clear. I will kick ad scream twice as loud as the worst BernieBro if they leave us behind. Fuck it. The mantle comes with a price.
She wasn't running against him for president back then, and it takes more than liberals to win - Hillary had the majority of liberals voters sown up, she still lost. The party is more than Liberals R Us. One of the big reasons for her failure is not appeasing the non-liberals in the Rust Belt, I don't think Warren would have done any better on that front.
Agreed. The Dems need to update all this. No getting lax, everything must be improved.
But How? Something I've noticed is that our youth are spread out across a million different causes compared to the Republicans Guns, God, and Money platforms. We need to find a way to consolidate these disparate peoples into our own slogans.
Equality, Prosperity, and Liberty maybe? Just spitballing here.
And we also need to find a way to tailor whatever platform we come up with in the local areas. We need to know which pillars to deemphasize, when we should, how we should, and where we should. All of which is going to cost money. Money we need to get from somewhere.
To those of you who don't want corporations to donate to us, where do you think we should get it?
Small donations are great when you're running for the Presidency but what about your local school board? How excited can we get people to be about that, especially if the candidate isn't charismatic?
This is a hard question to answer, and something which will take a lot of time to figure out. I'm not sure how go about this, but maybe there are other posters in this thread with solutions?
And yes, money is a definite factor we can't ignore if we want the Dems to have a shot on the national scale.
I've asked this many times, and gotten no answers. That's why I'm writing that line of thought off completely until a solid solution which can match wealthy donors pound for pound is on the table.
I think that might help on the ground level more than the presidency, as long as it is done properly. Though to do this right requires the centrists to start thinking out of the box, start taking risks and make other changes. This is another difficult task I'm not sure how to fix, and it needs to be done. The Dems really need to work that stuff, maybe we can look at what the GOP are doing for answers?
There's definitely tons to do, and it seems like the best way to get started is just show up.
I've been unimpressed from what I've seen with the Far Left on fundraising, sure they make some inroads with donations (which is what modern Dems do regardless, some do this better then others of course) but do they really have the money to stand up to the GOP? That said, I think your idea has merit. Now, the difficulty is if they refuse to take funds from donors from the party structure (rather than just rely on themselves entirely) or if their base will be turned off if they do. They're going to need all the help they can if one of them goes up against a well organized, financially backed Republican. Not every rival they go up against will be poor.
This isn't about desire (which we have plenty of), this is about taking stock in the situation with what we have on hand. We don't have the luxury of having an Obama every time we run for president, he was the exception not the norm. We need someone right to send the proper message or it won't matter what we say, they either won't vote or they'll vote for the biggest piece of trash on the planet. So, if you really want this to happen I suggest you start looking for Dem politicians who fit this description or it won't get off the ground.
You think rural types are the only people who have faced financial hardship? People in cities and suburbs do have financial troubles and face homelessness. This goes double with minorities who besides dealing with that have a tougher time either reaching higher mobility or have greater difficulty breaking through unemployment or living in good homes due to discrimination.
There is no such thing as fake economic hardship.
And yeah, many people in the Rust Belt are fucked since their lifestyles have slowly become obsolete, which isn't the Dems fault. I find it amusing when the blame goes around the GOP are the last to make an appearance, when they're the ones pushing bad coal standards and moving manufacturing over seas (Trump being the poster boy), and how the GOP have obstructed the entire government from helping people because they're sore that a black man is in the White House. You were right that Hillary should have tried harder to get her message out to help them as a priority (which she did) - however, were they really interested in hearing her solutions? Because it didn't involve rebuilding the good ol' days because she didn't want to lie to them and wanted to provide methods for them to adapt to this new world. Not to mention this region aren't loyalist Dems to begin with, this isn't California we're courting.
I had an analogy of a doctor and a cancer patient about this upthread, which was apt. The Rust Belt and the cancer patient here.
I'm going to ask you a question: what honestly did you want Hillary to say to the Rust Belt to get them on board?
The younger black and hispanic voters deal with this shit every day, the difference is they don't blame the Dems and vote for Trump. "Economic anxiety" is Tuesday for them.
I agree top down orgs have problems (what doesn't?) but there are numerous problems with decentralizing the Democratic party on the national scale. For instance, who vets who leads these groups? If a group is having trouble how do they coordinate with other groups for support or guidance? Do they have any training for leadership, or will anyone be able to step up? Are they all going to do their own thing from the ground up? Who is going to make sure the best people for the job get the leadership spots? How does funding work? What if a leader completely fails, who answers for that and how do they get replaced? Would the state and national leadership have a say or be able to know when they're failing?
At least top down leaves the leadership in loser hands so if they screw up they are easier to replace. As well as having a tighter communication and resource allotment.
Base case scenario, the Dems can't roll out the entire party infrastructure like this for a national election, it's too risky a move.
edit: That said, I'm not saying we can't use this or at least part of it to convert the Far Left into Dems. Maybe have some decentralized offices during national and state elections in areas where the Far Left is potent, for instance.
Those are technically the same thing, since "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is a physical impossibility and the phrase means just that. If used unironically it almost always translates to "I did it without help (ignoring that they had tons of help, whether direct or institutional) why can't you?"
Irony is a dangerous freight to carry.
Is perfectly understandable why he didn't run, but having "Trump wouldn't be President if I sucked it up and ran anyways" in your conscience seems like a heavy weight to carry. In the main point, he's still going to apply pressure to keep the party together:
It's a burden Biden shouldn't bother carrying. 1. We don't know for sure, and 2. he had many flaws which Trump and the GOP would have exploited to the hilt, and who knows what sorts of third party bullshit (ala Comey) they'd have tried with him. He's also repeating Hillary's mistake by underestimating Trump.
Clinton also beat Biden in almost every hypothetical polling match up. And he's substantially to Clinton's right and far, far more tied to the financial industry than she is. And the right has failed to villainous him as much as the Clintons only because they haven't felt a need to.
It might be the answer going forward is running more moderate white guys, but I don't think we've actually reached that conclusion yet
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Or at least if we have to do it it should be someone else rather than Biden.
You seem to underestimate the hatred of Elizabeth Warren.
Pretty much as irrelevant as irrelevant can be since she didn't want to run, doesn't want to run, and is doing a bang up job in her current gig.
One hopeful thing about the current election is we see that you really just need to have media publicity to win, more than ground game or money. It's further down-ballot where you need money to generate that visibility, but the idea that the Dems need to stay close enough on the good side of the billionaires to just compete is false.
Further, i think there are plenty of business sectors who would be willing to throw in with Democrats, even if we must be cautious about that becoming a cozy long-term relationship (we don't need to replace King Koch with King Musk, for instance), but the GOP is going to be bad for Silicon Valley on net neutrality and probably bringing back an even crazier version of SOPA, they're going to actively fuck with Tesla in trying to suppress electric cars, they're going to try to pass some sort of nationwide "protect the power grid" law that bans anyone who's doing home solar from hooking into the electric grid and fuck with a lot of solar industries, not to mention what they're about to do to the entire healthcare business, which is huge (UPMC is the new steel in Western Pennsylvania).
There's a lot of inroads for corporate partnership without selling out to Wall Street, although the issue is labor relations and all of these guys are bad on that front (UPMC is in a big unionization fight with SEIU presently).
First they said she was Unamerican because she was part Native American.
Then they said she was Unamerican for falsely claiming to be part Native American.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube