If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
EDIT: To expand, I believe that when a party puts forward a shit field, is the fault of the party for failing to raise decent candidates that inspire people to vote for them. The GOPe put forward a field that was 100% dog poop, and as punishment, they lost control of the party to Trump. Same principle.
The 'empty bench' narrative is garbage. Trump won. We can pick ANYONE and they can win with the right messaging and support. Honestly, considering our opponents we're probably best picking someone like 5 minutes before the first primary so they have as little time as possible to slander them.
Huh? No. Who we pick matters.
It won't matter who gets picked if they're not backed up with right messaging and support. The party also must be pragmatic enough to adjust to whoever is the nominee too.
Yeah but that's not what was asserted? This doesn't follow from my post.
What was originally stated was we could nominate a theoretical SuperCandidate and that person would lose if the GOP had the right messaging and support. I don't find that a useful way of thinking, since it completely removes any impetus we might have to try and nominate the best candidate possible.
The "bench" is nonsense, media bullshit. First, when Hillary was the expected nominee, it was an evil because people acted like it made her entitled to the nomination (as opposed to her winning the primary), which of course ignored 2008. That's all a bench is. Its the epitome of "establishment" and "political insiders" and "party hacks" and everything that is railed against out of the one side of the mouth of certain circular firing squad types while complaining about insufficient established political insiders in the party.
Its the partisan infighting equivalent of "Boy the food is terrible in this place. And the portions are so small."
Second, its nonsense. Four years before he ran for President, Obama was just becoming a Senator. Bill Clinton was seen as a poor public speaker and just a fairly obscure governor in 1988. The problem is not "the bench" and focusing on it is symptomatic of the actual problem. Democratic, and especially non-affiliated Democratic leaners, focus almost exclusively on the White House and fail to focus on state elections and Congress.
By calling those officials a "bench" is to act like they're waiting to get into the real game, ie the Presidency. Elizabeth Warren is not important because maybe she would run for President someday, she's important because she's an influential Senator. The Democratic party doesn't lack a bench, it lacks sufficient elected officials to control governments, which is the entire purpose of political parties. Its like saying the problem with the Cleveland Browns is they lack games in which they score more points than their opponents. A statement of a problem is not a solution to that problem, and a misstatement of a problem that belies a clear understanding is actually counterproductive.
When Democrats win, they get potential leaders. I'm in Massachusetts. We've got populist liberal Warren. We've got classic Massachusetts liberal Markey. We've got a blue collar moderate Labor guy in Lynch and a more liberal middle class Labor guy in Keating. If you want an outsider with an impeccable resume and liberal views you've got Moulton. If you want a charismatic progressive with a storied name you've got Kennedy.
If you want leaders, elect Democrats and back the party. A leader gains power, gains the very concept of being a leader, through followers. An institution, like a political party, gains power in the same way. They gain power that we give to them. That's civilization. If we criticize something we can make it purer, but that doesn't make it stronger. Knowing when to do each is the key and there's been no wisdom there
That's how parties work - you work your way up, and build backing.
This is true, and it really sucks, because fundraising is the overriding metric for advancement in both parties.
For the GOP, it makes sense. For the Democrats, who profess to wish to get rid of money in politics, it's a structure that rewards hypocrisy.
Democrats want to get rid of like dirty money or Koch style money in politics. Democrats have never had a problem with just money in politics because, like, you need money to do shit as a party. Even Sanders was after money. The difference was small vs large donors.
Pretty much every politician in DC wants to have to fundraise less but, like, it's not a thing you can really do right now.
Political forces aren't single handedly swayed by "Great Men." Trump didn't arise through his great charisma and rhetoric. A look across all of the developed world shows that. Brexit. Le Pen. Geert Wilders. Duterte. Strache. AfD. Hofer. All were fringe a few years ago and now are still ascending into the de facto mainstream.
And in most of the countries, factions of the left are undercutting or breaking off from the traditional left to left-center parties further weakening opposition to those forces. Labour in the UK is an obvious example and yes Sanders is in Corbyn's mold. But the Dutch Labour party was gutted yesterday, losing 80% of its vote. And the Socialist party in France is cratering like Bush in 08. And while the claims will be its about policy, in the US there was stimulus while in the UK there was austerity. In the Netherlands there was strong social liberalism and tolerance while in France there was a pull back on religious tolerance and an increase in fear after terrorist attacks. Denmark is an effective utopia according to Bernie's rhetoric but the #2 party in Denmark now (in terms of votes/seats in Parliament and they're in a coalition government) is a right wing explicitly ethnic nationalist one.
These right wing nationalist forces are not rising as a counter balance to liberal policies or insufficiently liberal policies. They're part of a greater ideological movement that is self-defining. Its a horrible, hateful, stupid ideology born of fear, ignorance and stupidity but its not defined as "not liberal" or "outsider." Maybe its the internet (and wouldn't that fucking suck if this great tool for communication and free expression backfired like this), maybe its a post-Cold War generation coming to power, maybe the Mayans were slightly off, who knows. But pretending that Trumpism is born out of failures of the Democratic party instead of these greater international forces, seems foolish (and in almost every case 20-20 hindsight)
Democrats want to get rid of like dirty money or Koch style money in politics. Democrats have never had a problem with just money in politics because, like, you need money to do shit as a party. Even Sanders was after money. The difference was small vs large donors.
Do you think the DNC should enact rules to discourage candidates from courting large donors and the lobbyists who operate in the gray space afforded them by the Citizens United decision?
Democrats want to get rid of like dirty money or Koch style money in politics. Democrats have never had a problem with just money in politics because, like, you need money to do shit as a party. Even Sanders was after money. The difference was small vs large donors.
Do you think the DNC should enact rules to discourage candidates from courting rich donors and the lobbyists who operate in the gray space afforded them by the Citizens United decision?
I think the Democrats should get rid of Citizens United before they decide to unilaterally disarm.
Democrats want to get rid of like dirty money or Koch style money in politics. Democrats have never had a problem with just money in politics because, like, you need money to do shit as a party. Even Sanders was after money. The difference was small vs large donors.
Do you think the DNC should enact rules to discourage candidates from courting rich donors and the lobbyists who operate in the gray space afforded them by the Citizens United decision?
I think the Democrats should get rid of Citizens United before they decide to unilaterally disarm.
So they should maintain a structure that rewards hypocrisy, in other words.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
EDIT: To expand, I believe that when a party puts forward a shit field, is the fault of the party for failing to raise decent candidates that inspire people to vote for them. The GOPe put forward a field that was 100% dog poop, and as punishment, they lost control of the party to Trump. Same principle.
The 'empty bench' narrative is garbage. Trump won. We can pick ANYONE and they can win with the right messaging and support. Honestly, considering our opponents we're probably best picking someone like 5 minutes before the first primary so they have as little time as possible to slander them.
Huh? No. Who we pick matters.
It won't matter who gets picked if they're not backed up with right messaging and support. The party also must be pragmatic enough to adjust to whoever is the nominee too.
Yeah but that's not what was asserted? This doesn't follow from my post.
What was originally stated was we could nominate a theoretical SuperCandidate and that person would lose if the GOP had the right messaging and support. I don't find that a useful way of thinking, since it completely removes any impetus we might have to try and nominate the best candidate possible.
That's the opposite of what I said. The 'they' in my post is our candidate. With the right messaging, we can win with anyone and have no need for a super candidate. Since trump was a terrible candidate, but he had the right messaging for their base.
We can actually copy a lot of trumpian techniques. Like saying that all scandals that your opponents care about don't matter. Embrace them. Have your supporters put them on hats. Laugh at the futility of their rage.
Democrats want to get rid of like dirty money or Koch style money in politics. Democrats have never had a problem with just money in politics because, like, you need money to do shit as a party. Even Sanders was after money. The difference was small vs large donors.
Do you think the DNC should enact rules to discourage candidates from courting rich donors and the lobbyists who operate in the gray space afforded them by the Citizens United decision?
I think the Democrats should get rid of Citizens United before they decide to unilaterally disarm.
So they should maintain a structure that rewards hypocrisy, in other words.
They should win elections. Some vague kind of moral purity without political power gets you a handjob on twitter and a hard Brexit.
Quick story from my neck of the woods: before the 2010 GOP wave, the Democratic-majority legislature in Wisconsin had a chance to eliminate gerrymandering. Redistricting is one of those purity issues, like campaign finance reform. They didn't--why voluntarily disarm when they could redraw the maps themselves? It's politically expedient, like taking the kind of money you say you are against.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
EDIT: To expand, I believe that when a party puts forward a shit field, is the fault of the party for failing to raise decent candidates that inspire people to vote for them. The GOPe put forward a field that was 100% dog poop, and as punishment, they lost control of the party to Trump. Same principle.
The 'empty bench' narrative is garbage. Trump won. We can pick ANYONE and they can win with the right messaging and support. Honestly, considering our opponents we're probably best picking someone like 5 minutes before the first primary so they have as little time as possible to slander them.
Huh? No. Who we pick matters.
It won't matter who gets picked if they're not backed up with right messaging and support. The party also must be pragmatic enough to adjust to whoever is the nominee too.
Yeah but that's not what was asserted? This doesn't follow from my post.
What was originally stated was we could nominate a theoretical SuperCandidate and that person would lose if the GOP had the right messaging and support. I don't find that a useful way of thinking, since it completely removes any impetus we might have to try and nominate the best candidate possible.
That's the opposite of what I said. The 'they' in my post is our candidate. With the right messaging, we can win with anyone and have no need for a super candidate. Since trump was a terrible candidate, but he had the right messaging for their base.
We can actually copy a lot of trumpian techniques. Like saying that all scandals that your opponents care about don't matter. Embrace them. Have your supporters put them on hats. Laugh at the futility of their rage.
The problem on the Democratic side is that, unlike the right, we do care about legitimate scandals. The only character scandal that bothers the right wing voter is pedophilia; the only additional types that right wing politicians will resign over are sex scandals and criminal charges (when they don't resign, because they're shameless, they often succeed at the ballot box, like Trump). But nobody on the left was, say, willing to stick by Anthony Weiner, even when he would have been willing to shrug his scandal off; likewise the Dems find corruption and hypocrisy unacceptable in their candidates. The problem isn't that Dems were willing to believe Benghazi, we laughed at that, it's just that there's no equivalent attitude on the left of "It's Okay if You're a Democrat." And I don't think there should be--as the party of sanity, this is part of who we are, and as the party of everybody who isn't insane, we shouldn't really have an issue finding clean candidates.
Democrats want to get rid of like dirty money or Koch style money in politics. Democrats have never had a problem with just money in politics because, like, you need money to do shit as a party. Even Sanders was after money. The difference was small vs large donors.
Do you think the DNC should enact rules to discourage candidates from courting large donors and the lobbyists who operate in the gray space afforded them by the Citizens United decision?
Dems ceasing to count big donors only guarantees turning them into a regional party and ceding the national and state wide territories to the GOP -who will use that advantage without blinking.
Hillary was going to try to shut down CU but to that first she had to win, and she can't do that without those big donors. No candidate running for president can.
It's silly to suggest Dems give up something which puts them in the GOP weight class as a party with no proven financial alternative in the wings for them to fall back on. And no, it is not feasible to run every candidate and fund a national political party with donations from average citizens, this goes double in times of crisis where money is scarce which America is heading towards at great speed thanks to Trump. People are going to spend money on food, heating, and shelter before political candidates.
Democrats want to get rid of like dirty money or Koch style money in politics. Democrats have never had a problem with just money in politics because, like, you need money to do shit as a party. Even Sanders was after money. The difference was small vs large donors.
Do you think the DNC should enact rules to discourage candidates from courting rich donors and the lobbyists who operate in the gray space afforded them by the Citizens United decision?
I think the Democrats should get rid of Citizens United before they decide to unilaterally disarm.
So they should maintain a structure that rewards hypocrisy, in other words.
Hypocrisy is better then making America a one nation state under Republican rule.
Being morally pure feels good but it tends to be a poor system if you want to enact your interests in the political arena.
Hypocrisy is better then making America a one nation state under Republican rule.
Hard to argue you have a winning strategy without the senate, house, majority of governorships and state legislatures, a presidency, and probably a couple of supreme court picks.
Democrats want to get rid of like dirty money or Koch style money in politics. Democrats have never had a problem with just money in politics because, like, you need money to do shit as a party. Even Sanders was after money. The difference was small vs large donors.
Do you think the DNC should enact rules to discourage candidates from courting rich donors and the lobbyists who operate in the gray space afforded them by the Citizens United decision?
I think the Democrats should get rid of Citizens United before they decide to unilaterally disarm.
So they should maintain a structure that rewards hypocrisy, in other words.
They should win elections. Some vague kind of moral purity without political power gets you a handjob on twitter and a hard Brexit.
Trump is president.
That's not an answer.
And it's entirely missing the point anyway. CU has little effect on the Presidential race. You know all those lower level offices, House seats and State seats and Governorships and all that? That's where money really pays dividends. That's why guys like Art Pope could essentially buy North Carolina politics as an example.
Politicians have to fundraise like crazy because you need the money to win and the Democratic party gimping themselves while already behind in the money game and in the holding power game is foolish as hell.
Being content with moral purity even if it costs you elections is how you end up being Jeremy Corbyn and the current UK Labour party.
Hypocrisy is better then making America a one nation state under Republican rule.
Hard to argue you have a winning strategy without the senate, house, majority of governorships and state legislatures, a presidency, and probably a couple of supreme court picks.
This is not an argument for your position though because you haven't explained why one leads to the other.
ie - you have not explained why you think courting large donors cost them those seats or why not doing it would let them win those seats
Until you can establish that connection, your posts here make no sense.
Hypocrisy is better then making America a one nation state under Republican rule.
Hard to argue you have a winning strategy without the senate, house, majority of governorships and state legislatures, a presidency, and probably a couple of supreme court picks.
It's the best strategy we have, do you have any better alternatives that guarantee superior results?
edit: That strategy has given us Democratic presidents, control of congress and nominated judges in SCOTUS before. There's a reason we do throw it away lightly.
Try not being hypocrites for once and see how that goes?
When Cory Booker and his fellow compromised senators say Canadians are unable to safely test pharmaceuticals, call them on it on a party level. For example. There are obvious areas where Democrats are unduly influenced by lobbyists. Don't tolerate it.
Hypocrisy is better then making America a one nation state under Republican rule.
Being morally pure feels good but it tends to be a poor system if you want to enact your interests in the political arena.
...are a poison that gnaws and gnaws and gnaws at the legitimacy of the system. The less legitimacy in the system, the higher the voter disenfranchisement (voluntary or systematic) the worse shit can the scum of the political arena get away with.
If there isn't a system reform, regardless of short term costs, the long term costs will be devestating. "Fall of the Roman empire" style degeneracy. Because in the modern climate first-past-the-post is no longer a viable way of operating a democracy. Not in the age of the internet where "alternative facts" (ie, convenient lies that less educated people believe because it's easier than accepting the complicated truth) have free reign and where you can have massive outreach with just a tiny budget.
I'm not saying that Harry Dresdens statement isn't true. But accepting the circumstances that makes it true is, in the long run, to give up. To accept that the road to dystopia is inevitable.
A legitimate democratic system has to be a system where every voter has at least the possibility of promoting a candidate that they can genuinely believe in, and still not fuck over your sides more strategic candidate.
Honestly if anything the last election has shown that both the republicans and democrats are in truth dead. They're relics hanging on because of system inertia, because the US political system is designed by the people in power to make it really hard to get rid of those people in power. The person whose ass occupies the presidential seat changes, but the people backing him do not. And the only people who have the political insanity to fight the system are the type of people who are also insane enough to back Trump through the initial republican primaries.
The system are going to continue to pump out these kinds of candidates. The Strategic voting candidates that everyone hates and RAGE AGAINST THE SYSTEM insanity candidates that everyone hates as well.
tl;dr. Fuck gerrymandering, fuck first-past-the-post and strategic voting. Reform the political system or face the consequences.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
So how do you propose that the political system gets reformatted without involving either the Democrats or the Republicans?
+11
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
We just elected a bunch of nihilists and they're cheerfully (well, angrily) destroying the government and all its supporting institutions. We're already feeling the long term costs of systemic degeneracy. We can't fix that without immediate power. If there was ever a time to screw the long term in favor of short term gains, it's now.
Always choosing "the lesser evil" is bullshit and it's a major flaw of a first-past-the-post system.
Yes, but until the far left can offer a safe guaranteed alternative that's what we're stuck with. Neutralize that angle and you're good, until then it's all that stands between us and a permanent Republican controlled America.
...are a poison that gnaws and gnaws and gnaws at the legitimacy of the system. The less legitimacy in the system, the higher the voter disenfranchisement (voluntary or systematic) the worse shit can the scum of the political arena get away with.
If there isn't a system reform, regardless of short term costs, the long term costs will be devestating. "Fall of the Roman empire" style degeneracy. Because in the modern climate first-past-the-post is no longer a viable way of operating a democracy. Not in the age of the internet where "alternative facts" (ie, convenient lies that less educated people believe because it's easier than accepting the complicated truth) have free reign and where you can have massive outreach with just a tiny budget.
I'm not saying that Harry Dresdens statement isn't true. But accepting the circumstances that makes it true is, in the long run, to give up. To accept that the road to dystopia is inevitable.
A legitimate democratic system has to be a system where every voter has at least the possibility of promoting a candidate that they can genuinely believe in, and still not fuck over your sides more strategic candidate.
Honestly if anything the last election has shown that both the republicans and democrats are in truth dead. They're relics hanging on because of system inertia, because the US political system is designed by the people in power to make it really hard to get rid of those people in power. The person whose ass occupies the presidential seat changes, but the people backing him do not. And the only people who have the political insanity to fight the system are the type of people who are also insane enough to back Trump through the initial republican primaries.
The system are going to continue to pump out these kinds of candidates. The Strategic voting candidates that everyone hates and RAGE AGAINST THE SYSTEM insanity candidates that everyone hates as well.
tl;dr. Fuck gerrymandering, fuck first-past-the-post and strategic voting. Reform the political system or face the consequences.
Consequences imply a threat, when from what I've seen from the Far Left isn't able to monopolize the Democratic party, let alone stand head to head with the GOP.
What I said isn't giving up, it's accepting reality and doing what needs to be done to get the future we want long term. There are no short cuts.
Try not being hypocrites for once and see how that goes?
When Cory Booker and his fellow compromised senators say Canadians are unable to safely test pharmaceuticals, call them on it on a party level. For example. There are obvious areas where Democrats are unduly influenced by lobbyists. Don't tolerate it.
Think about what you're saying, you're telling us we should all play Russian Roulette with America with literally no plan of attack. You think Trump beating Hillary and the GOP capturing congress this time was bad, that'll look like Disneyworld to what you're proposing.
Unfortunately if Democrats want to stay a national party and not be turned not the Green's in blue shade we need Cory Bookers, and Cory Booker isn't even the worst Democrat we have or have had. We can try to reform the party into being less corrupt or broken without purges or destroying the whole thing.
Unfortunately if Democrats want to stay a national party and not be turned not the Green's in blue shade we need Cory Bookers, and Cory Booker isn't even the worst Democrat we have or have had. We can try to reform the party into being less corrupt or broken without purges or destroying the whole thing.
New Jersey won't turn red if we call on their senators to allow people to buy their meds from Canada.
I'm saying just follow the Democratic platform for real. There's good stuff in there.
Try not being hypocrites for once and see how that goes?
This continues to not be an explanation of why one would lead to the other. You are still missing the key lynchpin of your argument here. Your rebuttal to the claim that Democrats need to work within the system as is was that they lost, but you haven't explained why you think large money donations cost them the election. And if it didn't, then your argument doesn't make any sense.
Also, it's not actually hypocritical to think that large donations shouldn't be allowed but that they currently are and are necessary to compete btw. It's not hypocrisy to work within the system as it exists to change it later. You can say, perhaps, that this won't lead to real change because the people who gained power via the current system won't change it or whatever argument you want to use but that's still not hypocrisy.
Unfortunately if Democrats want to stay a national party and not be turned not the Green's in blue shade we need Cory Bookers, and Cory Booker isn't even the worst Democrat we have or have had. We can try to reform the party into being less corrupt or broken without purges or destroying the whole thing.
New Jersey won't turn red if we call on their senators to allow people to buy their meds from Canada.
I'm saying just follow the Democratic platform for real. There's good stuff in there.
Sure, I don't see anyone disagreeing with you on that - but this side steps what you were proposing on the national scale - unless I was reading you correctly. It's going to takemore to convince me the party needs to drop every tactic we have without a workable plan. Right now I'd settle for a theoretical alternative. But even that isn't going to mean much if tomorrow the Democratic party decided to follow your plan to the letter.
This continues to not be an explanation of why one would lead to the other. You are still missing the key lynchpin of your argument here. Your rebuttal to the claim that Democrats need to work within the system as is was that they lost, but you haven't explained why you think large money donations cost them the election. And if it didn't, then your argument doesn't make any sense.
I don't have an argument. I have a complaint:
This is true, and it really sucks, because fundraising is the overriding metric for advancement in both parties.
For the GOP, it makes sense. For the Democrats, who profess to wish to get rid of money in politics, it's a structure that rewards hypocrisy.
That's it. I don't know and don't care if deferring on campaign finance, redistricting, or allowing people to buy meds from Canada is a good electoral strategy. And neither should the Democrats.
This continues to not be an explanation of why one would lead to the other. You are still missing the key lynchpin of your argument here. Your rebuttal to the claim that Democrats need to work within the system as is was that they lost, but you haven't explained why you think large money donations cost them the election. And if it didn't, then your argument doesn't make any sense.
I don't have an argument. I have a complaint:
This is true, and it really sucks, because fundraising is the overriding metric for advancement in both parties.
For the GOP, it makes sense. For the Democrats, who profess to wish to get rid of money in politics, it's a structure that rewards hypocrisy.
That's it. I don't know and don't care if deferring on campaign finance, redistricting, or allowing people to buy meds from Canada is a good electoral strategy. And neither should the Democrats.
They should if they want to get elected. Maybe once in office they can do something about it? But I'd have to know more about why they're not doing this before agreeing with your tactic.
They should if they want to get elected. Maybe once in office they can do something about it? But I'd have to know more about why they're not doing this before agreeing with your tactic.
Unfortunately if Democrats want to stay a national party and not be turned not the Green's in blue shade we need Cory Bookers, and Cory Booker isn't even the worst Democrat we have or have had. We can try to reform the party into being less corrupt or broken without purges or destroying the whole thing.
New Jersey won't turn red if we call on their senators to allow people to buy their meds from Canada.
I'm saying just follow the Democratic platform for real. There's good stuff in there.
Well, if there is actual interest in that kind of thing, the Far Left needs to actually vote. Until there is victory in doing that kind of thing, no Dem is going to care, because relying on votes that aren't always there is risky.
I guess i don't really believe it's inherently hypocritical to say that we need to get rid of the influence of big donors in politics, but then to currently be accepting donations.
It's an unfortunate reality of the world we live in at the moment. As long as CU is on the books you can't really compete without those kinds of donors.
I guess i don't really believe it's inherently hypocritical to say that we need to get rid of the influence of big donors in politics, but then to currently be accepting donations.
It's an unfortunate reality of the world we live in at the moment. As long as CU is on the books you can't really compete without those kinds of donors.
I'm aware that people are going to want to put as many asterisks on this, but:
Trump did.
But the vision of going from one candidate grabbing the anti-establishment flag to the next is pretty much happening. This time, Trump did. Next, maybe a Dem will. And so on and so on.
TryCatcher on
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Trump is one of the richest men on the planet. That isn't much of a strategy.
I guess i don't really believe it's inherently hypocritical to say that we need to get rid of the influence of big donors in politics, but then to currently be accepting donations.
It's an unfortunate reality of the world we live in at the moment. As long as CU is on the books you can't really compete without those kinds of donors.
I'm aware that people are going to want to put as many asterisks on this, but:
Trump did.
But the vision of going from one candidate grabbing the anti-establishment flag to the next is pretty much happening. This time, Trump did. Next, maybe a Dem will. And so on and so on.
Did he?
Trump's campaign spent plenty of money. Less then Clinton? Yes. He "only" spent like $600+ million. And he had wealthy donors too.
I guess i don't really believe it's inherently hypocritical to say that we need to get rid of the influence of big donors in politics, but then to currently be accepting donations.
It's an unfortunate reality of the world we live in at the moment. As long as CU is on the books you can't really compete without those kinds of donors.
I'm aware that people are going to want to put as many asterisks on this, but:
Trump did.
But the vision of going from one candidate grabbing the anti-establishment flag to the next is pretty much happening. This time, Trump did. Next, maybe a Dem will. And so on and so on.
Did he?
Trump's campaign spent plenty of money. Less then Clinton? Yes. He "only" spent like $600+ million. And he had wealthy donors too.
Let's not fucking kid ourselves here.
Also, Trump was able to spend less than Clinton because he's a media darling and the MSM couldn't go five minutes without talking about him. Plus multiple outlets, such as Briebart, FOX, and NBC, were his de facto advertising networks for free.
I guess i don't really believe it's inherently hypocritical to say that we need to get rid of the influence of big donors in politics, but then to currently be accepting donations.
It's an unfortunate reality of the world we live in at the moment. As long as CU is on the books you can't really compete without those kinds of donors.
I'm aware that people are going to want to put as many asterisks on this, but:
Trump did.
But the vision of going from one candidate grabbing the anti-establishment flag to the next is pretty much happening. This time, Trump did. Next, maybe a Dem will. And so on and so on.
Did he?
Trump's campaign spent plenty of money. Less then Clinton? Yes. He "only" spent like $600+ million. And he had wealthy donors too.
He didn't win the money race, but Donald Trump will be the next president of the U.S. In the primaries and general election, he defied conventional wisdom, besting better financed candidates by dominating the air waves for free. Trump also put to use his own cash, as well as the assets and infrastructure of his businesses, in unprecedented fashion. He donated $66 million of his own money, flew across the country in his private jet, and used his resorts to stage campaign events. At the same time, the billionaire was able to draw about $280 million from small donors giving $200 or less. Super-PACs, which can take contributions unlimited in size, were similarly skewed toward his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Ultimately, Trump won the presidency despite having raised less than any major party presidential nominee since John McCain in 2008, the last to accept federal funds to pay for his general election contest.
Clinton and her super-PACs raised a total of $1.2 billion, less than President Barack Obama raised in 2012. Her sophisticated fundraising operation included a small army of wealthy donors who wrote seven-figure checks, hundreds of bundlers who raised $100,000 or more from their own networks, and a small-dollar donor operation modeled on the one used by Obama in 2012. She spent heavily on television advertising and her get-out-the-vote operation, but in the end, her fundraising edge wasn't enough to overcome Trump's ability to dominate headlines and the airwaves.
Spending money on covering the MSM isn't worth that much when the MSM is held in contempt for much of the electorate. In particular, there's this bit:
While Trump was the biggest single donor to his own cause, his small donor fundraising operation was his biggest source of campaign cash. Clinton had an aggressive small-dollar donor operation as well, but her biggest source was larger donations, many of which came via the networks of her hundreds of bundlers.
So yeah, this is it, candidates that rely on Super PAC money rather than small donations will be rejected from now on as being insufficiently pure.
Trump was an international celebrity who conned tv networks into giving him free coverage. That's not something that's easily reproducible, so for just about every other candidate, you need money.
Calling the DNC hypocrites over donations is frankly silly. It's one thing to say that say, F1 cars should be restricted to drive slower, it's another thing to say you will purposely drive slower than everyone else during the race. It's not hypocrisy to say that the rules should be changed, but also play by the rules of the game as they are now.
Try not being hypocrites for once and see how that goes?
When Cory Booker and his fellow compromised senators say Canadians are unable to safely test pharmaceuticals, call them on it on a party level. For example. There are obvious areas where Democrats are unduly influenced by lobbyists. Don't tolerate it.
Had to call this one out because it gets brought up as a criticism a lot. The amendment was advertised as being an import drugs from Canada amendment, and Canada was even mentioned in the name, but the actual text isn't specifically about Canada; it just refers to "the importation" of prescription drugs. Even when Canada is mentioned in the name, it's qualified with "and Other Countries." Yes, Canada probably has safe pharmaceuticals. Does South Sudan? Booker's argument that there needs to be more safety guarantees does make sense when all foreign countries are lumped together. Mentioning Canada specifically was only a marketing ploy.
And that's ignoring the cost lowering amendment that was proposed as an alternative, and which Booker supported.
Solomaxwell6 on
+9
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Democrats want to get rid of like dirty money or Koch style money in politics. Democrats have never had a problem with just money in politics because, like, you need money to do shit as a party. Even Sanders was after money. The difference was small vs large donors.
Do you think the DNC should enact rules to discourage candidates from courting rich donors and the lobbyists who operate in the gray space afforded them by the Citizens United decision?
I think the Democrats should get rid of Citizens United before they decide to unilaterally disarm.
So they should maintain a structure that rewards hypocrisy, in other words.
What he's saying is that we shouldn't bring a pillow to what is now a gunfight until we switch the rules back to using pillows only.
Democrats and liberals didnt want CU, they didnt implement it, but for now it_is_legal and will absolutely be used by the GOP.
It sucks, but that's the way things are until we can change them, and we can't do that by subscribing ourselves to Is/Ought fallacies regarding the use of CU to the same advantage that Republicans do.
Americans as a whole do not have the education, curiosity, compassion, will, ethics, or personal freedom (voter suppression) to elect a candidate strictly on their value to a better world.
Leadership is not gained strictly through personal merit, but by the ability to affect the attitudes and actions of others, and money does a lot to shore up an individual's personal influence.
Even decent people are going to lean toward the mediocre candidate with the exciting, vacuous rallies in big venues rather than toward the would-be philosopher king who has quiet talks about policy at the local library.
Posts
This is true, and it really sucks, because fundraising is the overriding metric for advancement in both parties.
For the GOP, it makes sense. For the Democrats, who profess to wish to get rid of money in politics, it's a structure that rewards hypocrisy.
The "bench" is nonsense, media bullshit. First, when Hillary was the expected nominee, it was an evil because people acted like it made her entitled to the nomination (as opposed to her winning the primary), which of course ignored 2008. That's all a bench is. Its the epitome of "establishment" and "political insiders" and "party hacks" and everything that is railed against out of the one side of the mouth of certain circular firing squad types while complaining about insufficient established political insiders in the party.
Its the partisan infighting equivalent of "Boy the food is terrible in this place. And the portions are so small."
Second, its nonsense. Four years before he ran for President, Obama was just becoming a Senator. Bill Clinton was seen as a poor public speaker and just a fairly obscure governor in 1988. The problem is not "the bench" and focusing on it is symptomatic of the actual problem. Democratic, and especially non-affiliated Democratic leaners, focus almost exclusively on the White House and fail to focus on state elections and Congress.
By calling those officials a "bench" is to act like they're waiting to get into the real game, ie the Presidency. Elizabeth Warren is not important because maybe she would run for President someday, she's important because she's an influential Senator. The Democratic party doesn't lack a bench, it lacks sufficient elected officials to control governments, which is the entire purpose of political parties. Its like saying the problem with the Cleveland Browns is they lack games in which they score more points than their opponents. A statement of a problem is not a solution to that problem, and a misstatement of a problem that belies a clear understanding is actually counterproductive.
When Democrats win, they get potential leaders. I'm in Massachusetts. We've got populist liberal Warren. We've got classic Massachusetts liberal Markey. We've got a blue collar moderate Labor guy in Lynch and a more liberal middle class Labor guy in Keating. If you want an outsider with an impeccable resume and liberal views you've got Moulton. If you want a charismatic progressive with a storied name you've got Kennedy.
If you want leaders, elect Democrats and back the party. A leader gains power, gains the very concept of being a leader, through followers. An institution, like a political party, gains power in the same way. They gain power that we give to them. That's civilization. If we criticize something we can make it purer, but that doesn't make it stronger. Knowing when to do each is the key and there's been no wisdom there
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Democrats want to get rid of like dirty money or Koch style money in politics. Democrats have never had a problem with just money in politics because, like, you need money to do shit as a party. Even Sanders was after money. The difference was small vs large donors.
Pretty much every politician in DC wants to have to fundraise less but, like, it's not a thing you can really do right now.
Political forces aren't single handedly swayed by "Great Men." Trump didn't arise through his great charisma and rhetoric. A look across all of the developed world shows that. Brexit. Le Pen. Geert Wilders. Duterte. Strache. AfD. Hofer. All were fringe a few years ago and now are still ascending into the de facto mainstream.
And in most of the countries, factions of the left are undercutting or breaking off from the traditional left to left-center parties further weakening opposition to those forces. Labour in the UK is an obvious example and yes Sanders is in Corbyn's mold. But the Dutch Labour party was gutted yesterday, losing 80% of its vote. And the Socialist party in France is cratering like Bush in 08. And while the claims will be its about policy, in the US there was stimulus while in the UK there was austerity. In the Netherlands there was strong social liberalism and tolerance while in France there was a pull back on religious tolerance and an increase in fear after terrorist attacks. Denmark is an effective utopia according to Bernie's rhetoric but the #2 party in Denmark now (in terms of votes/seats in Parliament and they're in a coalition government) is a right wing explicitly ethnic nationalist one.
These right wing nationalist forces are not rising as a counter balance to liberal policies or insufficiently liberal policies. They're part of a greater ideological movement that is self-defining. Its a horrible, hateful, stupid ideology born of fear, ignorance and stupidity but its not defined as "not liberal" or "outsider." Maybe its the internet (and wouldn't that fucking suck if this great tool for communication and free expression backfired like this), maybe its a post-Cold War generation coming to power, maybe the Mayans were slightly off, who knows. But pretending that Trumpism is born out of failures of the Democratic party instead of these greater international forces, seems foolish (and in almost every case 20-20 hindsight)
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Do you think the DNC should enact rules to discourage candidates from courting large donors and the lobbyists who operate in the gray space afforded them by the Citizens United decision?
I think the Democrats should get rid of Citizens United before they decide to unilaterally disarm.
So they should maintain a structure that rewards hypocrisy, in other words.
That's the opposite of what I said. The 'they' in my post is our candidate. With the right messaging, we can win with anyone and have no need for a super candidate. Since trump was a terrible candidate, but he had the right messaging for their base.
We can actually copy a lot of trumpian techniques. Like saying that all scandals that your opponents care about don't matter. Embrace them. Have your supporters put them on hats. Laugh at the futility of their rage.
They should win elections. Some vague kind of moral purity without political power gets you a handjob on twitter and a hard Brexit.
Trump is president.
Quick story from my neck of the woods: before the 2010 GOP wave, the Democratic-majority legislature in Wisconsin had a chance to eliminate gerrymandering. Redistricting is one of those purity issues, like campaign finance reform. They didn't--why voluntarily disarm when they could redraw the maps themselves? It's politically expedient, like taking the kind of money you say you are against.
I voted for Hillary.
The problem on the Democratic side is that, unlike the right, we do care about legitimate scandals. The only character scandal that bothers the right wing voter is pedophilia; the only additional types that right wing politicians will resign over are sex scandals and criminal charges (when they don't resign, because they're shameless, they often succeed at the ballot box, like Trump). But nobody on the left was, say, willing to stick by Anthony Weiner, even when he would have been willing to shrug his scandal off; likewise the Dems find corruption and hypocrisy unacceptable in their candidates. The problem isn't that Dems were willing to believe Benghazi, we laughed at that, it's just that there's no equivalent attitude on the left of "It's Okay if You're a Democrat." And I don't think there should be--as the party of sanity, this is part of who we are, and as the party of everybody who isn't insane, we shouldn't really have an issue finding clean candidates.
Dems ceasing to count big donors only guarantees turning them into a regional party and ceding the national and state wide territories to the GOP -who will use that advantage without blinking.
Hillary was going to try to shut down CU but to that first she had to win, and she can't do that without those big donors. No candidate running for president can.
It's silly to suggest Dems give up something which puts them in the GOP weight class as a party with no proven financial alternative in the wings for them to fall back on. And no, it is not feasible to run every candidate and fund a national political party with donations from average citizens, this goes double in times of crisis where money is scarce which America is heading towards at great speed thanks to Trump. People are going to spend money on food, heating, and shelter before political candidates.
Hypocrisy is better then making America a one nation state under Republican rule.
Being morally pure feels good but it tends to be a poor system if you want to enact your interests in the political arena.
Hard to argue you have a winning strategy without the senate, house, majority of governorships and state legislatures, a presidency, and probably a couple of supreme court picks.
And it's entirely missing the point anyway. CU has little effect on the Presidential race. You know all those lower level offices, House seats and State seats and Governorships and all that? That's where money really pays dividends. That's why guys like Art Pope could essentially buy North Carolina politics as an example.
Politicians have to fundraise like crazy because you need the money to win and the Democratic party gimping themselves while already behind in the money game and in the holding power game is foolish as hell.
Being content with moral purity even if it costs you elections is how you end up being Jeremy Corbyn and the current UK Labour party.
That's not how you want to end up btw.
This is not an argument for your position though because you haven't explained why one leads to the other.
ie - you have not explained why you think courting large donors cost them those seats or why not doing it would let them win those seats
Until you can establish that connection, your posts here make no sense.
It's the best strategy we have, do you have any better alternatives that guarantee superior results?
edit: That strategy has given us Democratic presidents, control of congress and nominated judges in SCOTUS before. There's a reason we do throw it away lightly.
When Cory Booker and his fellow compromised senators say Canadians are unable to safely test pharmaceuticals, call them on it on a party level. For example. There are obvious areas where Democrats are unduly influenced by lobbyists. Don't tolerate it.
A system that promotes statements like
...are a poison that gnaws and gnaws and gnaws at the legitimacy of the system. The less legitimacy in the system, the higher the voter disenfranchisement (voluntary or systematic) the worse shit can the scum of the political arena get away with.
If there isn't a system reform, regardless of short term costs, the long term costs will be devestating. "Fall of the Roman empire" style degeneracy. Because in the modern climate first-past-the-post is no longer a viable way of operating a democracy. Not in the age of the internet where "alternative facts" (ie, convenient lies that less educated people believe because it's easier than accepting the complicated truth) have free reign and where you can have massive outreach with just a tiny budget.
I'm not saying that Harry Dresdens statement isn't true. But accepting the circumstances that makes it true is, in the long run, to give up. To accept that the road to dystopia is inevitable.
A legitimate democratic system has to be a system where every voter has at least the possibility of promoting a candidate that they can genuinely believe in, and still not fuck over your sides more strategic candidate.
Honestly if anything the last election has shown that both the republicans and democrats are in truth dead. They're relics hanging on because of system inertia, because the US political system is designed by the people in power to make it really hard to get rid of those people in power. The person whose ass occupies the presidential seat changes, but the people backing him do not. And the only people who have the political insanity to fight the system are the type of people who are also insane enough to back Trump through the initial republican primaries.
The system are going to continue to pump out these kinds of candidates. The Strategic voting candidates that everyone hates and RAGE AGAINST THE SYSTEM insanity candidates that everyone hates as well.
tl;dr. Fuck gerrymandering, fuck first-past-the-post and strategic voting. Reform the political system or face the consequences.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Yes, but until the far left can offer a safe guaranteed alternative that's what we're stuck with. Neutralize that angle and you're good, until then it's all that stands between us and a permanent Republican controlled America.
Consequences imply a threat, when from what I've seen from the Far Left isn't able to monopolize the Democratic party, let alone stand head to head with the GOP.
What I said isn't giving up, it's accepting reality and doing what needs to be done to get the future we want long term. There are no short cuts.
Think about what you're saying, you're telling us we should all play Russian Roulette with America with literally no plan of attack. You think Trump beating Hillary and the GOP capturing congress this time was bad, that'll look like Disneyworld to what you're proposing.
Unfortunately if Democrats want to stay a national party and not be turned not the Green's in blue shade we need Cory Bookers, and Cory Booker isn't even the worst Democrat we have or have had. We can try to reform the party into being less corrupt or broken without purges or destroying the whole thing.
New Jersey won't turn red if we call on their senators to allow people to buy their meds from Canada.
I'm saying just follow the Democratic platform for real. There's good stuff in there.
This continues to not be an explanation of why one would lead to the other. You are still missing the key lynchpin of your argument here. Your rebuttal to the claim that Democrats need to work within the system as is was that they lost, but you haven't explained why you think large money donations cost them the election. And if it didn't, then your argument doesn't make any sense.
Also, it's not actually hypocritical to think that large donations shouldn't be allowed but that they currently are and are necessary to compete btw. It's not hypocrisy to work within the system as it exists to change it later. You can say, perhaps, that this won't lead to real change because the people who gained power via the current system won't change it or whatever argument you want to use but that's still not hypocrisy.
Sure, I don't see anyone disagreeing with you on that - but this side steps what you were proposing on the national scale - unless I was reading you correctly. It's going to takemore to convince me the party needs to drop every tactic we have without a workable plan. Right now I'd settle for a theoretical alternative. But even that isn't going to mean much if tomorrow the Democratic party decided to follow your plan to the letter.
I don't have an argument. I have a complaint:
That's it. I don't know and don't care if deferring on campaign finance, redistricting, or allowing people to buy meds from Canada is a good electoral strategy. And neither should the Democrats.
They should if they want to get elected. Maybe once in office they can do something about it? But I'd have to know more about why they're not doing this before agreeing with your tactic.
Here you go.
Well, if there is actual interest in that kind of thing, the Far Left needs to actually vote. Until there is victory in doing that kind of thing, no Dem is going to care, because relying on votes that aren't always there is risky.
It's an unfortunate reality of the world we live in at the moment. As long as CU is on the books you can't really compete without those kinds of donors.
I'm aware that people are going to want to put as many asterisks on this, but:
Trump did.
But the vision of going from one candidate grabbing the anti-establishment flag to the next is pretty much happening. This time, Trump did. Next, maybe a Dem will. And so on and so on.
Did he?
Trump's campaign spent plenty of money. Less then Clinton? Yes. He "only" spent like $600+ million. And he had wealthy donors too.
Let's not fucking kid ourselves here.
Also, Trump was able to spend less than Clinton because he's a media darling and the MSM couldn't go five minutes without talking about him. Plus multiple outlets, such as Briebart, FOX, and NBC, were his de facto advertising networks for free.
Well, let's see the numbers:
Spending money on covering the MSM isn't worth that much when the MSM is held in contempt for much of the electorate. In particular, there's this bit: So yeah, this is it, candidates that rely on Super PAC money rather than small donations will be rejected from now on as being insufficiently pure.
Calling the DNC hypocrites over donations is frankly silly. It's one thing to say that say, F1 cars should be restricted to drive slower, it's another thing to say you will purposely drive slower than everyone else during the race. It's not hypocrisy to say that the rules should be changed, but also play by the rules of the game as they are now.
@Spaten Optimator
Had to call this one out because it gets brought up as a criticism a lot. The amendment was advertised as being an import drugs from Canada amendment, and Canada was even mentioned in the name, but the actual text isn't specifically about Canada; it just refers to "the importation" of prescription drugs. Even when Canada is mentioned in the name, it's qualified with "and Other Countries." Yes, Canada probably has safe pharmaceuticals. Does South Sudan? Booker's argument that there needs to be more safety guarantees does make sense when all foreign countries are lumped together. Mentioning Canada specifically was only a marketing ploy.
And that's ignoring the cost lowering amendment that was proposed as an alternative, and which Booker supported.
What he's saying is that we shouldn't bring a pillow to what is now a gunfight until we switch the rules back to using pillows only.
Democrats and liberals didnt want CU, they didnt implement it, but for now it_is_legal and will absolutely be used by the GOP.
It sucks, but that's the way things are until we can change them, and we can't do that by subscribing ourselves to Is/Ought fallacies regarding the use of CU to the same advantage that Republicans do.
Leadership is not gained strictly through personal merit, but by the ability to affect the attitudes and actions of others, and money does a lot to shore up an individual's personal influence.
Even decent people are going to lean toward the mediocre candidate with the exciting, vacuous rallies in big venues rather than toward the would-be philosopher king who has quiet talks about policy at the local library.