hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
The problem is that all the prominent ones are old as fuck.
Where are our Rubios, Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, and the like. You would expect the Democratic party to do what the conservatives did and start mass mobilizing. The Tea Party was born within one year of Obama's inauguration.
One. Year.
And those who were savvy could probably start to seeds crop up the two months before his inauguration. Thousands of political offices were filled on the backs of this movement. Cantor and his ilk got in stepping on Tea Party votes. Bright young Republicans swooped in to create the climate we have now.
I have seen no equivalent of this on the left.
That's because you're not looking. There's Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, two Sanders-associated organizations that are dedicated to churning out new talent. A friend of mine has gotten involved with EmergeVA, one of a group of Emerge organizations dedicated to training and electing new Democratic women. Last night I received a call from (and donated to) the DSCC; the theme of the call was about building up a war chest to help attract new Democrats for the 2018 races. My local Dem party has gotten aggressive about interviewing for local races and party positions. There are a host of these operations.
Not Democrats - Democratic women. No thanks men, identity politics more important than electoral politics.
This is exactly the sort of thing that prevents a Dem Tea Party.
yeah because Emerge is literally the only organization trying to train up and elect Democrats
Do I really have to explain pizzagate and it's connection to imageboard culture? Cheese Pizza is the old friend's word for shit that shouldn't be on 4chan. This is what happens when /pol/ reads the rest of 4chan, and now they're freaking out about the Patriotic Nigras.
The election of the next president is not yet a done deal. Electors of conscience can still do the right thing for the good of the country. Presidential electors have the legal right and a constitutional duty to vote their conscience.
If he actually loses because of the EC...man, I don't even know where to begin.
Tensions are already high.
I mean, who would win? I actually don't know what happens (other than civil unrest and riots, presumably), what if he sticks with like 200~ votes, Hillary has more, and Kasich picks up the rest somehow? Does Hillary win? Does it go to the Senate?
If no one received an outright majority, the incoming House votes by state delegation, 26 required to win.
And they must vote between the top three EV recipients. (Whereas electors can vote for anyone they like)
But they will undoubtedly vote for Trump, if he's available. They won't stick their neck out, even if the electors serve up an otherwise strong Republican candidate as an option. (I don't know shit about McMuffin beyond his resume synopsis, but I'd take him in a heartbeat).
So the only way Trump isn't sworn in here is if the electors throw it to Hillary with 270 (and congress doesn't throw out a state to knock her under 270); and that would be a mess.
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
The problem is that all the prominent ones are old as fuck.
Where are our Rubios, Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, and the like. You would expect the Democratic party to do what the conservatives did and start mass mobilizing. The Tea Party was born within one year of Obama's inauguration.
One. Year.
And those who were savvy could probably start to seeds crop up the two months before his inauguration. Thousands of political offices were filled on the backs of this movement. Cantor and his ilk got in stepping on Tea Party votes. Bright young Republicans swooped in to create the climate we have now.
I have seen no equivalent of this on the left.
That's because you're not looking. There's Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, two Sanders-associated organizations that are dedicated to churning out new talent. A friend of mine has gotten involved with EmergeVA, one of a group of Emerge organizations dedicated to training and electing new Democratic women. Last night I received a call from (and donated to) the DSCC; the theme of the call was about building up a war chest to help attract new Democrats for the 2018 races. My local Dem party has gotten aggressive about interviewing for local races and party positions. There are a host of these operations.
Not Democrats - Democratic women. No thanks men, identity politics more important than electoral politics.
This is exactly the sort of thing that prevents a Dem Tea Party.
... Is preventing a Democratic Tea Party a bad thing?
I am not sure I like diffusion of effort. It tends to result in duplicated results and inefficient use of resources.
Not if you have organizations centered around the major cities/regions in a state. Local/regional efforts are sometimes better than statewide ones, particularly for big states like Texas which might as well be four or five different states.
I am not sure I like diffusion of effort. It tends to result in duplicated results and inefficient use of resources.
It's also totally inevitable, because different people with the resources or personal drive and ability to train elected officials have different philosophies, approaches, or
Like, the state parties absolutely do run talent identification and training programs, and those are guided and assisted by the DNC, but I think it'd be kind of silly for Donna Brazile to personally be driving up to Albany County to train me to be the next great county commissioner.
I think there might be a strong case to be made that the DNC itself isn't doing enough for downticket races and that's why Dems have done so poorly at the local and state levels since 2010, but that's not really evidence for LoisLane's argument that nobody's really doing anything.
I am not sure I like diffusion of effort. It tends to result in duplicated results and inefficient use of resources.
Not if you have organizations centered around the major cities/regions in a state. Local/regional efforts are sometimes better than statewide ones, particularly for big states like Texas which might as well be four or five different states.
But how do we overcome coordination of effort problems for statewide races.
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
My right wing sources are one. Hundred. Percent. Sure that Clinton won't let anyone else than her run in 2020. :winky: "That's how megalomaniac and unhinged she is!"
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
The problem is that all the prominent ones are old as fuck.
Where are our Rubios, Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, and the like. You would expect the Democratic party to do what the conservatives did and start mass mobilizing. The Tea Party was born within one year of Obama's inauguration.
One. Year.
And those who were savvy could probably start to seeds crop up the two months before his inauguration. Thousands of political offices were filled on the backs of this movement. Cantor and his ilk got in stepping on Tea Party votes. Bright young Republicans swooped in to create the climate we have now.
I have seen no equivalent of this on the left.
That's because you're not looking. There's Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, two Sanders-associated organizations that are dedicated to churning out new talent. A friend of mine has gotten involved with EmergeVA, one of a group of Emerge organizations dedicated to training and electing new Democratic women. Last night I received a call from (and donated to) the DSCC; the theme of the call was about building up a war chest to help attract new Democrats for the 2018 races. My local Dem party has gotten aggressive about interviewing for local races and party positions. There are a host of these operations.
Not Democrats - Democratic women. No thanks men, identity politics more important than electoral politics.
This is exactly the sort of thing that prevents a Dem Tea Party.
... Is preventing a Democratic Tea Party a bad thing?
Yes. The Republican Tea Party wins seats and has power to influence even the old guard of the GOP. It's only as terrible as it is because the positions are extremely authoritarian and regressive. We have got to stop letting "liberal" be a dirty word. It isn't, and what most progressives want is not true socialism or communism, but liberal progressivism.
Do I really have to explain pizzagate and it's connection to imageboard culture? Cheese Pizza is the old friend's word for shit that shouldn't be on 4chan.
Hal Turner, y'know, the Nazi talk show host? The Patriotic Nigras got their start harassing him? They actually got him taken off the air, causing FOX to brand Anonymous as the Internet Hate Machine?
He's telling everyone about what 4chan did to him during the Bush years, so now, pizzagate.
I do not understand what Hal turner has to do with this though. Also can't find anything about PN and Hal Turner(anon in general yes).
Also don't think it was FOX that did that in relation to this
That said, that beings another question into light - forget Hillary, she wasn't operating in a vacuum. What drove them to consider Trump the better politician? What was he selling that Hillary wasn't? And how were they effected by the media?
Honestly I suspect a lot of it is the idea that they felt abandoned, and he was one of the few politicians that directly spoke to their issues. There's an article I've posted a couple of times now where the general feeling of these areas tends to be "I'm poor white trash, nobody cares about me."
Obama reached out to them during the 08 primaries (interestingly enough, Trump and Sanders weren't the first candidates to run on overturning NAFTA). It's a common theme though, Democrats think they're safe, so they campaign there briefly, and then they're not seen again for 4 years.
What the Clinton campaign should have done was get Sanders to do a circuit of these areas given that he was able to speak to their issues too, and was passionate about it. Sending surrogates like Chelsea was a bad idea.
That's what sanders did.
If you look at his message and route post primary, it wasnt what you'd have wanted from him to work as a union rouser. It helped I'm sure, but we could have used him better knowing what was going on. And again, we suffered from accepting a media narrative (which was a lie). That was the republicans greatest strength it turned out. Just don't accept a media angle if it's not the one you want. Answer a different question.
Clinton won the union vote in the primaries. He won the college vote and he won the rural white vote, but not the union vote.
I think she won the support of the 'Unions' in that the organizations backed her. I don't recall seeing whether or not she won the support of the actual union members who voted.
And honestly, regardless of the primary, Sanders is an effective communicator to Unions, and having him rile them up for Hillary would have been effective if he had been working with the perceived full and complete backing of Hillary.
I vaguely remember seeing articles with voter interviews where Union members stated that their Union Reps told them to vote Clinton, but The members turned around and voted Trump.
51% H for union households.
Which is really bad for the party that's supposed to have the support of Unions.
America has a weird history with unions, both parties have messed up with that. Though I'd say the GOP is responsible for a lot of disenpowering the movement and converting those voters via crab bucket thinking. Being in a union has never been totally in sync with being a Democrat. Reagan, for instance. Ran a union in Hollywood before becoming a politician.
There's a huge pedophilia scandal about the UK government right now (not the current one, the '80s) and they didn't bother with elaborate codes and crap. Just private parties and powerful people willing to cover up anything embarrassing. The sad thing is that there are probably politicians in the USA using their power to abuse children, but Republicans would probably be disappointed that the pedos won't perfectly coincide with their favourite bête noirs - there was a minor scandal recently as obscure former Republican speaker, Dennis Hastert, was discovered to be a pedophile.
Which is true and if the right had actually proof I'd give it the time of day. Instead it's fake news and "It feels right." Meanwhile Trump was in lawsuits about abusing minors and admitted on tape to crashing naked beauty queens getting dressed. The latter receives silence and approval from too many people on the right.
Edit: not to mention his cringe behaviour with his daughters.
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
The problem is that all the prominent ones are old as fuck.
Where are our Rubios, Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, and the like. You would expect the Democratic party to do what the conservatives did and start mass mobilizing. The Tea Party was born within one year of Obama's inauguration.
One. Year.
And those who were savvy could probably start to seeds crop up the two months before his inauguration. Thousands of political offices were filled on the backs of this movement. Cantor and his ilk got in stepping on Tea Party votes. Bright young Republicans swooped in to create the climate we have now.
I have seen no equivalent of this on the left.
That's because you're not looking. There's Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, two Sanders-associated organizations that are dedicated to churning out new talent. A friend of mine has gotten involved with EmergeVA, one of a group of Emerge organizations dedicated to training and electing new Democratic women. Last night I received a call from (and donated to) the DSCC; the theme of the call was about building up a war chest to help attract new Democrats for the 2018 races. My local Dem party has gotten aggressive about interviewing for local races and party positions. There are a host of these operations.
Has Sanders or Warren repped these organizations the many, many times they were requested for comment on the *shudder* ascension of Trump? Why is that when I google them I get very hits on actual reputable newspapers and I am not talking about the media giants like NYT? Why can't I find them on my state and local democratic party websites?
I pay way more attention to politics than most people I know and I wouldn't have realized these organizations existed if you hadn't just mentioned them. Yet if you had said something about the tea party I would know immediately where to look and how to reach them.
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
The problem is that all the prominent ones are old as fuck.
Where are our Rubios, Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, and the like. You would expect the Democratic party to do what the conservatives did and start mass mobilizing. The Tea Party was born within one year of Obama's inauguration.
One. Year.
And those who were savvy could probably start to seeds crop up the two months before his inauguration. Thousands of political offices were filled on the backs of this movement. Cantor and his ilk got in stepping on Tea Party votes. Bright young Republicans swooped in to create the climate we have now.
I have seen no equivalent of this on the left.
That's because you're not looking. There's Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, two Sanders-associated organizations that are dedicated to churning out new talent. A friend of mine has gotten involved with EmergeVA, one of a group of Emerge organizations dedicated to training and electing new Democratic women. Last night I received a call from (and donated to) the DSCC; the theme of the call was about building up a war chest to help attract new Democrats for the 2018 races. My local Dem party has gotten aggressive about interviewing for local races and party positions. There are a host of these operations.
Not Democrats - Democratic women. No thanks men, identity politics more important than electoral politics.
This is exactly the sort of thing that prevents a Dem Tea Party.
... Is preventing a Democratic Tea Party a bad thing?
Yes. The Republican Tea Party wins seats and has power to influence even the old guard of the GOP. It's only as terrible as it is because the positions are extremely authoritarian and regressive. We have got to stop letting "liberal" be a dirty word. It isn't, and what most progressives want is not true socialism or communism, but liberal progressivism.
What does one have to do with the other?
The lack of a Democratic version of the Tea Party is not because liberal is a dirty word. It's because there's no major group of organized Democratic voters primarying Democrats out of their seats. That's why the Tea Party or it's ilk has/had power.
Do I really have to explain pizzagate and it's connection to imageboard culture? Cheese Pizza is the old friend's word for shit that shouldn't be on 4chan.
Hal Turner, y'know, the Nazi talk show host? The Patriotic Nigras got their start harassing him? They actually got him taken off the air, causing FOX to brand Anonymous as the Internet Hate Machine?
He's telling everyone about what 4chan did to him during the Bush years, so now, pizzagate.
I do not understand what Hal turner has to do with this though. Also can't find anything about PN and Hal Turner(anon in general yes).
Also don't think it was FOX that did that in relation to this
Hal Turner is an old Nazi with a grudge against 4channers, and now that the election is won, a bunch of alties and irony boys are being asked about their Black Panther connections by people who never got the joke, don't like anime, don't like video games, and are increasingly impatient and angry despite the fact that they supposedly won.
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
The problem is that all the prominent ones are old as fuck.
Where are our Rubios, Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, and the like. You would expect the Democratic party to do what the conservatives did and start mass mobilizing. The Tea Party was born within one year of Obama's inauguration.
One. Year.
And those who were savvy could probably start to seeds crop up the two months before his inauguration. Thousands of political offices were filled on the backs of this movement. Cantor and his ilk got in stepping on Tea Party votes. Bright young Republicans swooped in to create the climate we have now.
I have seen no equivalent of this on the left.
That's because you're not looking. There's Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, two Sanders-associated organizations that are dedicated to churning out new talent. A friend of mine has gotten involved with EmergeVA, one of a group of Emerge organizations dedicated to training and electing new Democratic women. Last night I received a call from (and donated to) the DSCC; the theme of the call was about building up a war chest to help attract new Democrats for the 2018 races. My local Dem party has gotten aggressive about interviewing for local races and party positions. There are a host of these operations.
Not Democrats - Democratic women. No thanks men, identity politics more important than electoral politics.
This is exactly the sort of thing that prevents a Dem Tea Party.
1. Men's clubs have existed for how long?
2. Women exclusive groups, professional and social, have Been with us for a long time. It's a safe space for them to share interests, make connections etc. pretty sure they have conservative exclusive groups, too.
I don't see what's to be angry about here.
There are groups who cater to both genders as well.
How would not having these type of groups stop a Dem Tea party from forming?
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
The problem is that all the prominent ones are old as fuck.
Where are our Rubios, Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, and the like. You would expect the Democratic party to do what the conservatives did and start mass mobilizing. The Tea Party was born within one year of Obama's inauguration.
One. Year.
And those who were savvy could probably start to seeds crop up the two months before his inauguration. Thousands of political offices were filled on the backs of this movement. Cantor and his ilk got in stepping on Tea Party votes. Bright young Republicans swooped in to create the climate we have now.
I have seen no equivalent of this on the left.
That's because you're not looking. There's Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, two Sanders-associated organizations that are dedicated to churning out new talent. A friend of mine has gotten involved with EmergeVA, one of a group of Emerge organizations dedicated to training and electing new Democratic women. Last night I received a call from (and donated to) the DSCC; the theme of the call was about building up a war chest to help attract new Democrats for the 2018 races. My local Dem party has gotten aggressive about interviewing for local races and party positions. There are a host of these operations.
Has Sanders or Warren repped these organizations the many, many times they were requested for comment on the *shudder* ascension of Trump? Why is that when I google them I get very hits on actual reputable newspapers and I am not talking about the media giants like NYT? Why can't I find them on my state and local democratic party websites?
I pay way more attention to politics than most people I know and I wouldn't have realized these organizations existed if you hadn't just mentioned them. Yet if you had said something about the tea party I would know immediately where to look and how to reach them.
You literally just posted a link from your local party about how to get involved in politics while complaining about how your local party doesn't give you any resources to get involved in politics.
That said, that beings another question into light - forget Hillary, she wasn't operating in a vacuum. What drove them to consider Trump the better politician? What was he selling that Hillary wasn't? And how were they effected by the media?
Honestly I suspect a lot of it is the idea that they felt abandoned, and he was one of the few politicians that directly spoke to their issues. There's an article I've posted a couple of times now where the general feeling of these areas tends to be "I'm poor white trash, nobody cares about me."
Obama reached out to them during the 08 primaries (interestingly enough, Trump and Sanders weren't the first candidates to run on overturning NAFTA). It's a common theme though, Democrats think they're safe, so they campaign there briefly, and then they're not seen again for 4 years.
What the Clinton campaign should have done was get Sanders to do a circuit of these areas given that he was able to speak to their issues too, and was passionate about it. Sending surrogates like Chelsea was a bad idea.
That's what sanders did.
If you look at his message and route post primary, it wasnt what you'd have wanted from him to work as a union rouser. It helped I'm sure, but we could have used him better knowing what was going on. And again, we suffered from accepting a media narrative (which was a lie). That was the republicans greatest strength it turned out. Just don't accept a media angle if it's not the one you want. Answer a different question.
Clinton won the union vote in the primaries. He won the college vote and he won the rural white vote, but not the union vote.
I think she won the support of the 'Unions' in that the organizations backed her. I don't recall seeing whether or not she won the support of the actual union members who voted.
And honestly, regardless of the primary, Sanders is an effective communicator to Unions, and having him rile them up for Hillary would have been effective if he had been working with the perceived full and complete backing of Hillary.
I vaguely remember seeing articles with voter interviews where Union members stated that their Union Reps told them to vote Clinton, but The members turned around and voted Trump.
51% H for union households.
Which is really bad for the party that's supposed to have the support of Unions.
America has a weird history with unions, both parties have messed up with that. Though I'd say the GOP is responsible for a lot of disenpowering the movement and converting those voters via crab bucket thinking. Being in a union has never been totally in sync with being a Democrat. Reagan, for instance. Ran a union in Hollywood before becoming a politician.
Especially now that some of the blue collar unions are going hard into anti-environmentalist territory. There's political problems with intersectionality and organized labor in particular.
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
The problem is that all the prominent ones are old as fuck.
Where are our Rubios, Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, and the like. You would expect the Democratic party to do what the conservatives did and start mass mobilizing. The Tea Party was born within one year of Obama's inauguration.
One. Year.
And those who were savvy could probably start to seeds crop up the two months before his inauguration. Thousands of political offices were filled on the backs of this movement. Cantor and his ilk got in stepping on Tea Party votes. Bright young Republicans swooped in to create the climate we have now.
I have seen no equivalent of this on the left.
That's because you're not looking. There's Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, two Sanders-associated organizations that are dedicated to churning out new talent. A friend of mine has gotten involved with EmergeVA, one of a group of Emerge organizations dedicated to training and electing new Democratic women. Last night I received a call from (and donated to) the DSCC; the theme of the call was about building up a war chest to help attract new Democrats for the 2018 races. My local Dem party has gotten aggressive about interviewing for local races and party positions. There are a host of these operations.
Not Democrats - Democratic women. No thanks men, identity politics more important than electoral politics.
This is exactly the sort of thing that prevents a Dem Tea Party.
... Is preventing a Democratic Tea Party a bad thing?
Yes. The Republican Tea Party wins seats and has power to influence even the old guard of the GOP. It's only as terrible as it is because the positions are extremely authoritarian and regressive. We have got to stop letting "liberal" be a dirty word. It isn't, and what most progressives want is not true socialism or communism, but liberal progressivism.
What does one have to do with the other?
The lack of a Democratic version of the Tea Party is not because liberal is a dirty word. It's because there's no major group of organized Democratic voters primarying Democrats out of their seats. That's why the Tea Party or it's ilk has/had power.
And there are no liberal Koch brothers equivalent funding AstroTurf groups like that.
Do I really have to explain pizzagate and it's connection to imageboard culture? Cheese Pizza is the old friend's word for shit that shouldn't be on 4chan.
Hal Turner, y'know, the Nazi talk show host? The Patriotic Nigras got their start harassing him? They actually got him taken off the air, causing FOX to brand Anonymous as the Internet Hate Machine?
He's telling everyone about what 4chan did to him during the Bush years, so now, pizzagate.
I do not understand what Hal turner has to do with this though. Also can't find anything about PN and Hal Turner(anon in general yes).
Also don't think it was FOX that did that in relation to this
Do I really have to explain pizzagate and it's connection to imageboard culture? Cheese Pizza is the old friend's word for shit that shouldn't be on 4chan.
Hal Turner, y'know, the Nazi talk show host? The Patriotic Nigras got their start harassing him? They actually got him taken off the air, causing FOX to brand Anonymous as the Internet Hate Machine?
He's telling everyone about what 4chan did to him during the Bush years, so now, pizzagate.
I do not understand what Hal turner has to do with this though. Also can't find anything about PN and Hal Turner(anon in general yes).
Also don't think it was FOX that did that in relation to this
Hal Turner is an old Nazi with a grudge against 4channers, and now that the election is won, a bunch of alties and irony boys are being asked about their Black Panther connections by people who never got the joke, don't like anime, don't like video games, and are increasingly impatient and angry despite the fact that they supposedly won.
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
The problem is that all the prominent ones are old as fuck.
Where are our Rubios, Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, and the like. You would expect the Democratic party to do what the conservatives did and start mass mobilizing. The Tea Party was born within one year of Obama's inauguration.
One. Year.
And those who were savvy could probably start to seeds crop up the two months before his inauguration. Thousands of political offices were filled on the backs of this movement. Cantor and his ilk got in stepping on Tea Party votes. Bright young Republicans swooped in to create the climate we have now.
I have seen no equivalent of this on the left.
That's because you're not looking. There's Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, two Sanders-associated organizations that are dedicated to churning out new talent. A friend of mine has gotten involved with EmergeVA, one of a group of Emerge organizations dedicated to training and electing new Democratic women. Last night I received a call from (and donated to) the DSCC; the theme of the call was about building up a war chest to help attract new Democrats for the 2018 races. My local Dem party has gotten aggressive about interviewing for local races and party positions. There are a host of these operations.
Has Sanders or Warren repped these organizations the many, many times they were requested for comment on the *shudder* ascension of Trump? Why is that when I google them I get very hits on actual reputable newspapers and I am not talking about the media giants like NYT? Why can't I find them on my state and local democratic party websites?
I pay way more attention to politics than most people I know and I wouldn't have realized these organizations existed if you hadn't just mentioned them. Yet if you had said something about the tea party I would know immediately where to look and how to reach them.
The right wing is more organised then the left. Especially the anti-establishment which is essentially almost starting from scratch. As well the right leaning elements in the media having no interest in giving these groups coverage, which would increase their profile for donors, staff and volunteers.
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
The problem is that all the prominent ones are old as fuck.
Where are our Rubios, Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, and the like. You would expect the Democratic party to do what the conservatives did and start mass mobilizing. The Tea Party was born within one year of Obama's inauguration.
One. Year.
And those who were savvy could probably start to seeds crop up the two months before his inauguration. Thousands of political offices were filled on the backs of this movement. Cantor and his ilk got in stepping on Tea Party votes. Bright young Republicans swooped in to create the climate we have now.
I have seen no equivalent of this on the left.
That's because you're not looking. There's Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, two Sanders-associated organizations that are dedicated to churning out new talent. A friend of mine has gotten involved with EmergeVA, one of a group of Emerge organizations dedicated to training and electing new Democratic women. Last night I received a call from (and donated to) the DSCC; the theme of the call was about building up a war chest to help attract new Democrats for the 2018 races. My local Dem party has gotten aggressive about interviewing for local races and party positions. There are a host of these operations.
Not Democrats - Democratic women. No thanks men, identity politics more important than electoral politics.
This is exactly the sort of thing that prevents a Dem Tea Party.
The existence of an organisation that promotes the interests of women does not constitute a threat to men. It's not a zero-sum game. The right's argument that gains for one group necessarily have to come at the expense of another group is one of the most powerful tools in their propaganda arsenal, and the left should never, ever concede even an inch of ground to it.
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
The problem is that all the prominent ones are old as fuck.
Where are our Rubios, Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, and the like. You would expect the Democratic party to do what the conservatives did and start mass mobilizing. The Tea Party was born within one year of Obama's inauguration.
One. Year.
And those who were savvy could probably start to seeds crop up the two months before his inauguration. Thousands of political offices were filled on the backs of this movement. Cantor and his ilk got in stepping on Tea Party votes. Bright young Republicans swooped in to create the climate we have now.
I have seen no equivalent of this on the left.
That's because you're not looking. There's Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, two Sanders-associated organizations that are dedicated to churning out new talent. A friend of mine has gotten involved with EmergeVA, one of a group of Emerge organizations dedicated to training and electing new Democratic women. Last night I received a call from (and donated to) the DSCC; the theme of the call was about building up a war chest to help attract new Democrats for the 2018 races. My local Dem party has gotten aggressive about interviewing for local races and party positions. There are a host of these operations.
Not Democrats - Democratic women. No thanks men, identity politics more important than electoral politics.
This is exactly the sort of thing that prevents a Dem Tea Party.
1. Men's clubs have existed for how long?
2. Women exclusive groups, professional and social, have Been with us for a long time. It's a safe space for them to share interests, make connections etc. pretty sure they have conservative exclusive groups, too.
I don't see what's to be angry about here.
There are groups who cater to both genders as well.
How would not having these type of groups stop a Dem Tea party from forming?
1: irrelevant, it's not a "Women's Club". Apples and oranges - discarded.
2) Irrelevant and deceptive!
- Irrelevant: We aren't talking about Professional or Social groups - apples and oranges again. We're talking about Emerge, a group specifically designed to get women to run for political office.
- Deceptive: comparing a Conservative group to a Women's group is a false equivalence.
My whole point is that the Democratic machine to train new candidates and get new blood into the party is anemic and fractured, which is why they get destroyed in statewide offices. If you're wondering what's to be angry about here, it's that in the middle of talking about opportunity, Solomaxwell inadvertently demonstrated why it all goes wrong by pointing at a group interested in Identity politics rather than strictly electoral politics.
The Tea Party didn't care if you were a woman, as long as you were a rightwing conservative. What they wanted was not to have men or women take office - they wanted to have Tea Party Conservatives take office, and that's exactly what they got.
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
The problem is that all the prominent ones are old as fuck.
Where are our Rubios, Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, and the like. You would expect the Democratic party to do what the conservatives did and start mass mobilizing. The Tea Party was born within one year of Obama's inauguration.
One. Year.
And those who were savvy could probably start to seeds crop up the two months before his inauguration. Thousands of political offices were filled on the backs of this movement. Cantor and his ilk got in stepping on Tea Party votes. Bright young Republicans swooped in to create the climate we have now.
I have seen no equivalent of this on the left.
That's because you're not looking. There's Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, two Sanders-associated organizations that are dedicated to churning out new talent. A friend of mine has gotten involved with EmergeVA, one of a group of Emerge organizations dedicated to training and electing new Democratic women. Last night I received a call from (and donated to) the DSCC; the theme of the call was about building up a war chest to help attract new Democrats for the 2018 races. My local Dem party has gotten aggressive about interviewing for local races and party positions. There are a host of these operations.
Not Democrats - Democratic women. No thanks men, identity politics more important than electoral politics.
This is exactly the sort of thing that prevents a Dem Tea Party.
The existence of an organisation that promotes the interests of women does not constitute a threat to men. It's not a zero-sum game. The right's argument that gains for one group necessarily have to come at the expense of another group is one of the most powerful tools in their propaganda arsenal, and the left should never, ever concede even an inch of ground to it.
This is feel-good twaddle. Nobody said anything about a Threat to Men, or anything like it. Politics is absolutely a zero-sum game - only one person gets to win per office. The right's argument that gains for Conservative Republicans come at the expense of Moderates and All Democrats is not propaganda, it's fact. The left should wake up and recognize that while they are busy worrying about the genitals of their prospective candidates, their political opposites are murdering them in statewide races across the nation.
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
The problem is that all the prominent ones are old as fuck.
Where are our Rubios, Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, and the like. You would expect the Democratic party to do what the conservatives did and start mass mobilizing. The Tea Party was born within one year of Obama's inauguration.
One. Year.
And those who were savvy could probably start to seeds crop up the two months before his inauguration. Thousands of political offices were filled on the backs of this movement. Cantor and his ilk got in stepping on Tea Party votes. Bright young Republicans swooped in to create the climate we have now.
I have seen no equivalent of this on the left.
That's because you're not looking. There's Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, two Sanders-associated organizations that are dedicated to churning out new talent. A friend of mine has gotten involved with EmergeVA, one of a group of Emerge organizations dedicated to training and electing new Democratic women. Last night I received a call from (and donated to) the DSCC; the theme of the call was about building up a war chest to help attract new Democrats for the 2018 races. My local Dem party has gotten aggressive about interviewing for local races and party positions. There are a host of these operations.
Has Sanders or Warren repped these organizations the many, many times they were requested for comment on the *shudder* ascension of Trump? Why is that when I google them I get very hits on actual reputable newspapers and I am not talking about the media giants like NYT? Why can't I find them on my state and local democratic party websites?
I pay way more attention to politics than most people I know and I wouldn't have realized these organizations existed if you hadn't just mentioned them. Yet if you had said something about the tea party I would know immediately where to look and how to reach them.
You literally just posted a link from your local party about how to get involved in politics while complaining about how your local party doesn't give you any resources to get involved in politics.
You are missing my point. The Tea Party , for its many horrific faults, has been successful in mass mobilizing its supporters in a way that has no analog on the Dem Side?
Who is our Tea Party?
Why don't I hear about them on my local news?
Why do our leaders not hammer home how important it is that we fall behind them?
Why our none of the leaders of the organizations you pointed out not doing media legwork or a reach out?
I am literally on a prestigious college campus and have engaged in protests for sanctuary campuses, improved wages for dining workers, and gender non-conforming bathrooms.
I have friends in both the Republican and Democratic Wings on campus. The Tea Party drum is neverending while those orgs you pointed out don't even have beat.
Now if you could do the nice thing and explain how someone who spends less time involved in politics than someone like me is supposed to find and support these orgs?
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
The problem is that all the prominent ones are old as fuck.
Where are our Rubios, Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, and the like. You would expect the Democratic party to do what the conservatives did and start mass mobilizing. The Tea Party was born within one year of Obama's inauguration.
One. Year.
And those who were savvy could probably start to seeds crop up the two months before his inauguration. Thousands of political offices were filled on the backs of this movement. Cantor and his ilk got in stepping on Tea Party votes. Bright young Republicans swooped in to create the climate we have now.
I have seen no equivalent of this on the left.
That's because you're not looking. There's Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, two Sanders-associated organizations that are dedicated to churning out new talent. A friend of mine has gotten involved with EmergeVA, one of a group of Emerge organizations dedicated to training and electing new Democratic women. Last night I received a call from (and donated to) the DSCC; the theme of the call was about building up a war chest to help attract new Democrats for the 2018 races. My local Dem party has gotten aggressive about interviewing for local races and party positions. There are a host of these operations.
Not Democrats - Democratic women. No thanks men, identity politics more important than electoral politics.
This is exactly the sort of thing that prevents a Dem Tea Party.
The existence of an organisation that promotes the interests of women does not constitute a threat to men. It's not a zero-sum game. The right's argument that gains for one group necessarily have to come at the expense of another group is one of the most powerful tools in their propaganda arsenal, and the left should never, ever concede even an inch of ground to it.
This is feel-good twaddle. Nobody said anything about a Threat to Men, or anything like it. Politics is absolutely a zero-sum game - only one person gets to win per office. The right's argument that gains for Conservative Republicans come at the expense of Moderates and All Democrats is not propaganda, it's fact. The left should wake up and recognize that while they are busy worrying about the genitals of their prospective candidates, their political opposites are murdering them in statewide races across the nation.
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
The problem is that all the prominent ones are old as fuck.
Where are our Rubios, Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, and the like. You would expect the Democratic party to do what the conservatives did and start mass mobilizing. The Tea Party was born within one year of Obama's inauguration.
One. Year.
And those who were savvy could probably start to seeds crop up the two months before his inauguration. Thousands of political offices were filled on the backs of this movement. Cantor and his ilk got in stepping on Tea Party votes. Bright young Republicans swooped in to create the climate we have now.
I have seen no equivalent of this on the left.
That's because you're not looking. There's Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, two Sanders-associated organizations that are dedicated to churning out new talent. A friend of mine has gotten involved with EmergeVA, one of a group of Emerge organizations dedicated to training and electing new Democratic women. Last night I received a call from (and donated to) the DSCC; the theme of the call was about building up a war chest to help attract new Democrats for the 2018 races. My local Dem party has gotten aggressive about interviewing for local races and party positions. There are a host of these operations.
Not Democrats - Democratic women. No thanks men, identity politics more important than electoral politics.
This is exactly the sort of thing that prevents a Dem Tea Party.
1. Men's clubs have existed for how long?
2. Women exclusive groups, professional and social, have Been with us for a long time. It's a safe space for them to share interests, make connections etc. pretty sure they have conservative exclusive groups, too.
I don't see what's to be angry about here.
There are groups who cater to both genders as well.
How would not having these type of groups stop a Dem Tea party from forming?
1: irrelevant, it's not a "Women's Club". Apples and oranges - discarded.
2) Irrelevant and deceptive!
- Irrelevant: We aren't talking about Professional or Social groups - apples and oranges again. We're talking about Emerge, a group specifically designed to get women to run for political office.
- Deceptive: comparing a Conservative group to a Women's group is a false equivalence.
My whole point is that the Democratic machine to train new candidates and get new blood into the party is anemic and fractured, which is why they get destroyed in statewide offices. If you're wondering what's to be angry about here, it's that in the middle of talking about opportunity, Solomaxwell inadvertently demonstrated why it all goes wrong by pointing at a group interested in Identity politics rather than strictly electoral politics.
The Tea Party didn't care if you were a woman, as long as you were a rightwing conservative. What they wanted was not to have men or women take office - they wanted to have Tea Party Conservatives take office, and that's exactly what they got.
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
The problem is that all the prominent ones are old as fuck.
Where are our Rubios, Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, and the like. You would expect the Democratic party to do what the conservatives did and start mass mobilizing. The Tea Party was born within one year of Obama's inauguration.
One. Year.
And those who were savvy could probably start to seeds crop up the two months before his inauguration. Thousands of political offices were filled on the backs of this movement. Cantor and his ilk got in stepping on Tea Party votes. Bright young Republicans swooped in to create the climate we have now.
I have seen no equivalent of this on the left.
That's because you're not looking. There's Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, two Sanders-associated organizations that are dedicated to churning out new talent. A friend of mine has gotten involved with EmergeVA, one of a group of Emerge organizations dedicated to training and electing new Democratic women. Last night I received a call from (and donated to) the DSCC; the theme of the call was about building up a war chest to help attract new Democrats for the 2018 races. My local Dem party has gotten aggressive about interviewing for local races and party positions. There are a host of these operations.
Not Democrats - Democratic women. No thanks men, identity politics more important than electoral politics.
This is exactly the sort of thing that prevents a Dem Tea Party.
1. Men's clubs have existed for how long?
2. Women exclusive groups, professional and social, have Been with us for a long time. It's a safe space for them to share interests, make connections etc. pretty sure they have conservative exclusive groups, too.
I don't see what's to be angry about here.
There are groups who cater to both genders as well.
How would not having these type of groups stop a Dem Tea party from forming?
1: irrelevant, it's not a "Women's Club". Apples and oranges - discarded.
2) Irrelevant and deceptive!
- Irrelevant: We aren't talking about Professional or Social groups - apples and oranges again. We're talking about Emerge, a group specifically designed to get women to run for political office.
- Deceptive: comparing a Conservative group to a Women's group is a false equivalence.
My whole point is that the Democratic machine to train new candidates and get new blood into the party is anemic and fractured, which is why they get destroyed in statewide offices. If you're wondering what's to be angry about here, it's that in the middle of talking about opportunity, Solomaxwell inadvertently demonstrated why it all goes wrong by pointing at a group interested in Identity politics rather than strictly electoral politics.
The Tea Party didn't care if you were a woman, as long as you were a rightwing conservative. What they wanted was not to have men or women take office - they wanted to have Tea Party Conservatives take office, and that's exactly what they got.
1. It is relevant since the topic is about a woman exclusive group. It's a woman's group by default.
2. My point was that these groups have existed in various capacities, this is not a new development. Being a political group it falls under the professional umbrella. They're the same exact concept, the only difference is the purpose.
I'm not comparing anything I'm telling you women centric conservative groups exist, why wouldn't they? Give me some time and I'll come back with examples. Being a conservative group isn't exclusive to a woman or man centric club. I bet the old boys clubs in the past sure werent bastions of liberalism.
So what if the tea party was open to both sexes? That still doesn't explain why the structure of a group would stop them from occurring.
Dems can train candidates with groups however they want, both sexes, one exclusive - it's all game to us.
Identity politics and electoral politics go together, you may disagree but that's how the Dems operate. LGBT, women, Muslim, Sikh etc we want everyone. That's a strength. This gives up sub-groups and groups which take everyone. There is no downside here, a women's group being there does not mean someone can't form a group that's for all genders.
+2
Options
Blameless Cleric An angel made of sapphires each more flawlessly cut than the last Registered Userregular
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
The problem is that all the prominent ones are old as fuck.
Where are our Rubios, Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, and the like. You would expect the Democratic party to do what the conservatives did and start mass mobilizing. The Tea Party was born within one year of Obama's inauguration.
One. Year.
And those who were savvy could probably start to seeds crop up the two months before his inauguration. Thousands of political offices were filled on the backs of this movement. Cantor and his ilk got in stepping on Tea Party votes. Bright young Republicans swooped in to create the climate we have now.
I have seen no equivalent of this on the left.
That's because you're not looking. There's Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, two Sanders-associated organizations that are dedicated to churning out new talent. A friend of mine has gotten involved with EmergeVA, one of a group of Emerge organizations dedicated to training and electing new Democratic women. Last night I received a call from (and donated to) the DSCC; the theme of the call was about building up a war chest to help attract new Democrats for the 2018 races. My local Dem party has gotten aggressive about interviewing for local races and party positions. There are a host of these operations.
Not Democrats - Democratic women. No thanks men, identity politics more important than electoral politics.
This is exactly the sort of thing that prevents a Dem Tea Party.
Harry, you are point-adjacent here. Stop trying to twist around to make sense and listen to what I'm saying. Observe:
Emerge America is the premier training program for Democratic women.
We inspire women to run, we hone their skills to win. Our goal is clear: to increase the number of Democratic women in public office.
Their bold, not mine. When the problem is fracturing and duplication of effort, focusing on slices of the population is counterproductive. This group does not want Democrats to win. If the best candidate in the primary is a man, their money and assistance is off the table.
Conservatives don't care about identity, it is just one of the greatest statistical coincidences in history that their power tends to accumulate overwhelmingly in the hands of white men.
That's the problem, Dems don't have a tea party equivalent, or koches, or Murdocks, or fox newses.
Then what can I do to help make one? How do I gather the support to push for the dem party to grab back its spine? I am not trying to direct my frustration at your or at anyone who has replied to this thread but goddammit I'm pissed as fuck. The liberal spaces I frequent keep delving into these stupid arguments about Bernie vs Hillary, Should we be less identity oriented or not, and other unnecessary bullshit.
When the Repubs lose they mobilize their constituents.
When the Dems lose we cannibalize each other.
It is insane and almost no one is discussing how we can get it to stop.
Edit:
I'm sorry if I come across as emotional and fraught but I really don't know where to turn to.
LoisLane on
+2
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
And that's exactly what I mean when I say that we need to "win" the war on the media. We need to fill the air time with the false equivalency to actively counter Connway, Pierson, and Mr. 'says who'.
That's not really up to the Democratic Party.
I'm sure Dems would love to fill up the airwaves. I'll bet that the host of senators and governors and the lower ranking hoi poilloi would all love to be on TV 24/7. But it's not as easy as just taking a drive up to Fox News in NYC and hopping on with a sympathetic host for a few hours.
Wait, hoi polloi is a thing? I always thought that was just a thing you shouted when you kicked a fascist in the teeth.
Wait that's oi polloi...
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
edited December 2016
Edited for doublepost
Fert.
Metzger Meister on
0
Options
Blameless Cleric An angel made of sapphires each more flawlessly cut than the last Registered Userregular
Harry, you are point-adjacent here. Stop trying to twist around to make sense and listen to what I'm saying. Observe:
Emerge America is the premier training program for Democratic women.
We inspire women to run, we hone their skills to win. Our goal is clear: to increase the number of Democratic women in public office.
Their bold, not mine. When the problem is fracturing and duplication of effort, focusing on slices of the population is counterproductive. This group does not want Democrats to win. If the best candidate in the primary is a man, their money and assistance is off the table.
That is unequivocally a weakness, not a strength.
until we live in a world where men can be realistically expected to consistently look out for the interests of women, allow women into the political sphere, and listen to women's voices, groups that help women get elected and are able to focus their energy there will be absolutely necessary
hint: try to get someone less than seventy years old
Ha! Like we have anyone that young. If we did they'd be making themselves a name by serving as a rallying point against Donald Trump.
It's not like there's any shortage of Dems attacking Trump, and plans for 2020 are already in motion.
Like, right now my tentative support is for Sen Gillibrand, and she's already been making connections with donors and operatives. She hasn't made some big media-centric power play yet, no, but the media already has more than enough to talk about during the transition, and they don't really care about having a train of Dem politicians come on and say "I don't like Trump!" "I too don't like Trump!" "I refuse to back Trump's cabinet nominations because I also don't like Trump!" They might bring up someone like Warren or Sanders who have already achieved fame, but that's about it.
The problem is that all the prominent ones are old as fuck.
Where are our Rubios, Scott Walkers, John Kasichs, and the like. You would expect the Democratic party to do what the conservatives did and start mass mobilizing. The Tea Party was born within one year of Obama's inauguration.
One. Year.
And those who were savvy could probably start to seeds crop up the two months before his inauguration. Thousands of political offices were filled on the backs of this movement. Cantor and his ilk got in stepping on Tea Party votes. Bright young Republicans swooped in to create the climate we have now.
I have seen no equivalent of this on the left.
That's because you're not looking. There's Brand New Congress and Our Revolution, two Sanders-associated organizations that are dedicated to churning out new talent. A friend of mine has gotten involved with EmergeVA, one of a group of Emerge organizations dedicated to training and electing new Democratic women. Last night I received a call from (and donated to) the DSCC; the theme of the call was about building up a war chest to help attract new Democrats for the 2018 races. My local Dem party has gotten aggressive about interviewing for local races and party positions. There are a host of these operations.
Not Democrats - Democratic women. No thanks men, identity politics more important than electoral politics.
This is exactly the sort of thing that prevents a Dem Tea Party.
Read bullet 2 - what you linked is a group that gets Republican women active in politics so they support Republican candidates. It is the opposite of Emerge, a group with a founding principle of not supporting candidates unless they are female.
Posts
yeah because Emerge is literally the only organization trying to train up and elect Democrats
Or several
And they must vote between the top three EV recipients. (Whereas electors can vote for anyone they like)
But they will undoubtedly vote for Trump, if he's available. They won't stick their neck out, even if the electors serve up an otherwise strong Republican candidate as an option. (I don't know shit about McMuffin beyond his resume synopsis, but I'd take him in a heartbeat).
So the only way Trump isn't sworn in here is if the electors throw it to Hillary with 270 (and congress doesn't throw out a state to knock her under 270); and that would be a mess.
... Is preventing a Democratic Tea Party a bad thing?
I am not sure I like diffusion of effort. It tends to result in duplicated results and inefficient use of resources.
Not if you have organizations centered around the major cities/regions in a state. Local/regional efforts are sometimes better than statewide ones, particularly for big states like Texas which might as well be four or five different states.
It's also totally inevitable, because different people with the resources or personal drive and ability to train elected officials have different philosophies, approaches, or
Like, the state parties absolutely do run talent identification and training programs, and those are guided and assisted by the DNC, but I think it'd be kind of silly for Donna Brazile to personally be driving up to Albany County to train me to be the next great county commissioner.
I think there might be a strong case to be made that the DNC itself isn't doing enough for downticket races and that's why Dems have done so poorly at the local and state levels since 2010, but that's not really evidence for LoisLane's argument that nobody's really doing anything.
But how do we overcome coordination of effort problems for statewide races.
"That's how megalomaniac and unhinged she is!"
Yes. The Republican Tea Party wins seats and has power to influence even the old guard of the GOP. It's only as terrible as it is because the positions are extremely authoritarian and regressive. We have got to stop letting "liberal" be a dirty word. It isn't, and what most progressives want is not true socialism or communism, but liberal progressivism.
I do not understand what Hal turner has to do with this though. Also can't find anything about PN and Hal Turner(anon in general yes).
Also don't think it was FOX that did that in relation to this
America has a weird history with unions, both parties have messed up with that. Though I'd say the GOP is responsible for a lot of disenpowering the movement and converting those voters via crab bucket thinking. Being in a union has never been totally in sync with being a Democrat. Reagan, for instance. Ran a union in Hollywood before becoming a politician.
Which is true and if the right had actually proof I'd give it the time of day. Instead it's fake news and "It feels right." Meanwhile Trump was in lawsuits about abusing minors and admitted on tape to crashing naked beauty queens getting dressed. The latter receives silence and approval from too many people on the right.
Edit: not to mention his cringe behaviour with his daughters.
Has Sanders or Warren repped these organizations the many, many times they were requested for comment on the *shudder* ascension of Trump? Why is that when I google them I get very hits on actual reputable newspapers and I am not talking about the media giants like NYT? Why can't I find them on my state and local democratic party websites?
https://ohiodems.org/
http://www.hamiltoncountydems.org/get_involved
I pay way more attention to politics than most people I know and I wouldn't have realized these organizations existed if you hadn't just mentioned them. Yet if you had said something about the tea party I would know immediately where to look and how to reach them.
What does one have to do with the other?
The lack of a Democratic version of the Tea Party is not because liberal is a dirty word. It's because there's no major group of organized Democratic voters primarying Democrats out of their seats. That's why the Tea Party or it's ilk has/had power.
Hal Turner is an old Nazi with a grudge against 4channers, and now that the election is won, a bunch of alties and irony boys are being asked about their Black Panther connections by people who never got the joke, don't like anime, don't like video games, and are increasingly impatient and angry despite the fact that they supposedly won.
1. Men's clubs have existed for how long?
2. Women exclusive groups, professional and social, have Been with us for a long time. It's a safe space for them to share interests, make connections etc. pretty sure they have conservative exclusive groups, too.
I don't see what's to be angry about here.
There are groups who cater to both genders as well.
How would not having these type of groups stop a Dem Tea party from forming?
You literally just posted a link from your local party about how to get involved in politics while complaining about how your local party doesn't give you any resources to get involved in politics.
Especially now that some of the blue collar unions are going hard into anti-environmentalist territory. There's political problems with intersectionality and organized labor in particular.
And there are no liberal Koch brothers equivalent funding AstroTurf groups like that.
Iirc Hal turners book inspired Timothy McVeigh.
Ok but what has that to do with pizzagate?
The right wing is more organised then the left. Especially the anti-establishment which is essentially almost starting from scratch. As well the right leaning elements in the media having no interest in giving these groups coverage, which would increase their profile for donors, staff and volunteers.
The existence of an organisation that promotes the interests of women does not constitute a threat to men. It's not a zero-sum game. The right's argument that gains for one group necessarily have to come at the expense of another group is one of the most powerful tools in their propaganda arsenal, and the left should never, ever concede even an inch of ground to it.
1: irrelevant, it's not a "Women's Club". Apples and oranges - discarded.
2) Irrelevant and deceptive!
- Irrelevant: We aren't talking about Professional or Social groups - apples and oranges again. We're talking about Emerge, a group specifically designed to get women to run for political office.
- Deceptive: comparing a Conservative group to a Women's group is a false equivalence.
My whole point is that the Democratic machine to train new candidates and get new blood into the party is anemic and fractured, which is why they get destroyed in statewide offices. If you're wondering what's to be angry about here, it's that in the middle of talking about opportunity, Solomaxwell inadvertently demonstrated why it all goes wrong by pointing at a group interested in Identity politics rather than strictly electoral politics.
The Tea Party didn't care if you were a woman, as long as you were a rightwing conservative. What they wanted was not to have men or women take office - they wanted to have Tea Party Conservatives take office, and that's exactly what they got.
This is feel-good twaddle. Nobody said anything about a Threat to Men, or anything like it. Politics is absolutely a zero-sum game - only one person gets to win per office. The right's argument that gains for Conservative Republicans come at the expense of Moderates and All Democrats is not propaganda, it's fact. The left should wake up and recognize that while they are busy worrying about the genitals of their prospective candidates, their political opposites are murdering them in statewide races across the nation.
You are missing my point. The Tea Party , for its many horrific faults, has been successful in mass mobilizing its supporters in a way that has no analog on the Dem Side?
Who is our Tea Party?
Why don't I hear about them on my local news?
Why do our leaders not hammer home how important it is that we fall behind them?
Why our none of the leaders of the organizations you pointed out not doing media legwork or a reach out?
I am literally on a prestigious college campus and have engaged in protests for sanctuary campuses, improved wages for dining workers, and gender non-conforming bathrooms.
I have friends in both the Republican and Democratic Wings on campus. The Tea Party drum is neverending while those orgs you pointed out don't even have beat.
Now if you could do the nice thing and explain how someone who spends less time involved in politics than someone like me is supposed to find and support these orgs?
1. It is relevant since the topic is about a woman exclusive group. It's a woman's group by default.
2. My point was that these groups have existed in various capacities, this is not a new development. Being a political group it falls under the professional umbrella. They're the same exact concept, the only difference is the purpose.
I'm not comparing anything I'm telling you women centric conservative groups exist, why wouldn't they? Give me some time and I'll come back with examples. Being a conservative group isn't exclusive to a woman or man centric club. I bet the old boys clubs in the past sure werent bastions of liberalism.
So what if the tea party was open to both sexes? That still doesn't explain why the structure of a group would stop them from occurring.
Dems can train candidates with groups however they want, both sexes, one exclusive - it's all game to us.
Identity politics and electoral politics go together, you may disagree but that's how the Dems operate. LGBT, women, Muslim, Sikh etc we want everyone. That's a strength. This gives up sub-groups and groups which take everyone. There is no downside here, a women's group being there does not mean someone can't form a group that's for all genders.
dad
https://www.nfrw.org/programs
I'd love it if you took a look at my art and my PATREON!
That's the problem, Dems don't have a tea party equivalent, or koches, or Murdocks, or fox newses.
Harry, you are point-adjacent here. Stop trying to twist around to make sense and listen to what I'm saying. Observe:
Their bold, not mine. When the problem is fracturing and duplication of effort, focusing on slices of the population is counterproductive. This group does not want Democrats to win. If the best candidate in the primary is a man, their money and assistance is off the table.
That is unequivocally a weakness, not a strength.
Then what can I do to help make one? How do I gather the support to push for the dem party to grab back its spine? I am not trying to direct my frustration at your or at anyone who has replied to this thread but goddammit I'm pissed as fuck. The liberal spaces I frequent keep delving into these stupid arguments about Bernie vs Hillary, Should we be less identity oriented or not, and other unnecessary bullshit.
When the Repubs lose they mobilize their constituents.
When the Dems lose we cannibalize each other.
It is insane and almost no one is discussing how we can get it to stop.
Edit:
I'm sorry if I come across as emotional and fraught but I really don't know where to turn to.
Wait, hoi polloi is a thing? I always thought that was just a thing you shouted when you kicked a fascist in the teeth.
Wait that's oi polloi...
Fert.
until we live in a world where men can be realistically expected to consistently look out for the interests of women, allow women into the political sphere, and listen to women's voices, groups that help women get elected and are able to focus their energy there will be absolutely necessary
I'd love it if you took a look at my art and my PATREON!
Daughter.
Read bullet 2 - what you linked is a group that gets Republican women active in politics so they support Republican candidates. It is the opposite of Emerge, a group with a founding principle of not supporting candidates unless they are female.