Seems like the Democrats could become a labor party, win for the next 40 years and let the long arm of progress take care of the social issues by making sure everyone has the money they need to take care of themselves. Instead of flopping all over themselves to try and compromise with dominionist black pillers.
I don't see why we would assume that. There's little to indicate that Democrats not being a "labour party" (however one wants to define that) is what is causing them problems. And I don't think that would do much to mitigate structural disadvantages either.
It's currently a party that is pro-capital and thinks it can make social gains by letting the market do what they want. That is specifically the bargain that was made by Clinton and has not changed for the last 30 years.
Even if we were to assume this was true (which we shouldn't imo), this doesn't actually answer the question. I see no reason why we should assume that whatever change you are thinking of in terms of "becoming a labour party" is somehow going to secure long-term democratic party rule in the US system. Like, what's the connection here between whatever reformation you have in mind and democratic party gains or losses at the ballot box?
Working class people make up a third of the US population.
Why are you assuming that's meaningful to the question? Based on what? Like, shit, the republican agenda is tax cuts and deregulation for rich people and the education gap between the parties is only growing. You just seem to be assuming it must be true because .... I don't know. There's been no answer given beyond seemingly it just being what you'd prefer they did.
If trying to repair a base in labor doesnt make electoral sense to you I wont convince you.
I think the idea here is flawed on the assumptions of the axis in the US, not on the need to repair the left's relationship with the working class. The assumption that the US operates on a capital/labor axis in politics is inherently flawed. The Democrats are, 100%, the party for pro-labor policies and have been for decades. The issue isn't this, everyone knows who wants to do healthcare/education/minimum wage reform. There isn't a question there. The problem is that the axis of American politics falls under a rural/urban divide and always has been, right back to our foundation.
Current politics, specifically losses of urban areas and rust belt industrial areas, have more to do with changing demographics and the left not taking efforts to actually deliver on these reforms in rural areas. A lot of Indiana lacks highspeed internet, reliable schools, or adequate health care despite being told repeatedly by the left that they do. The reasons for this, in most cases, are interference in getting these resources by state GOP politicians.
In order to repair that gap, I'd suggest the two things that need to happen are 1) properly identifying where the problems are occurring in delivering key resources and making the unmasking of that a major arm of the Democratic party. We need a stronger messaging game about ~how~ the right is fucking over its own people. 2) We need to take more seriously the delivery of key quality of life improvements for suburban and rural America. Everyone should have access to reliable roads, ample health care, schools that aren't rotting and underfunded, high-speed internet, and more. We can't just deliver on these promises where our key demographics are, we have to deliver on them everywhere.
And I'm arguing the way the "pro-labor" party wants to do these things makes them not pro-labor just compassionate capitalism doomed to be self immolated while the other side just says no to the "negotiation" because we haven't had an actual pro labor party since 1992.
Seems like the Democrats could become a labor party, win for the next 40 years and let the long arm of progress take care of the social issues by making sure everyone has the money they need to take care of themselves. Instead of flopping all over themselves to try and compromise with dominionist black pillers.
I don't see why we would assume that. There's little to indicate that Democrats not being a "labour party" (however one wants to define that) is what is causing them problems. And I don't think that would do much to mitigate structural disadvantages either.
It's currently a party that is pro-capital and thinks it can make social gains by letting the market do what they want. That is specifically the bargain that was made by Clinton and has not changed for the last 30 years.
Even if we were to assume this was true (which we shouldn't imo), this doesn't actually answer the question. I see no reason why we should assume that whatever change you are thinking of in terms of "becoming a labour party" is somehow going to secure long-term democratic party rule in the US system. Like, what's the connection here between whatever reformation you have in mind and democratic party gains or losses at the ballot box?
Working class people make up a third of the US population.
Why are you assuming that's meaningful to the question? Based on what? Like, shit, the republican agenda is tax cuts and deregulation for rich people and the education gap between the parties is only growing. You just seem to be assuming it must be true because .... I don't know. There's been no answer given beyond seemingly it just being what you'd prefer they did.
If trying to repair a base in labor doesnt make electoral sense to you I wont convince you.
The question is how do you do that? The hardhats who have been one of the major problems with consolidating labor in the US still remain.
There are a lot of things, campaigning on repealing taft hartly, raising minimum wage, caps on corporate compensation, make capital gains count as income...stop taking moralistic ideological stands that waste political capital while people keep getting poorer and sicker.
Maybe just having the DNC not openly mock the left wing grass roots side of their party would be a start.
And when the hardhats show that they care more about social issues - the thing that helped gut labor in the US - what do you do then? The problem is that you have a solid portion of the working class that are fine with getting fucked over as long as the people they see as lesser get fucked harder.
Like too many people you see "working class" and instinctively add "white" in front of it.
I mean, Pro22 ads flooded everywhere, and was universally portrayed as pro-labor, so we so have to deal with rhat aspect as well.
Yes, you have to deal with an opposition that lies, whats new?
Something Republicans have figured out that Democrats still suck at is understanding that even if a battle is always going to be lost its worth fighting because you can use it to build networks and connections and fighting spirit for the next one.
When the Republicans lose, fewer people suffer. When the Democrats lose, more people suffer. These are different scenarios.
Who was saved from suffering by barely fighting Prop 22?
Resources are finite, so probably wherever the money went instead.
I mean, Pro22 ads flooded everywhere, and was universally portrayed as pro-labor, so we so have to deal with rhat aspect as well.
Yes, you have to deal with an opposition that lies, whats new?
Something Republicans have figured out that Democrats still suck at is understanding that even if a battle is always going to be lost its worth fighting because you can use it to build networks and connections and fighting spirit for the next one.
When the Republicans lose, fewer people suffer. When the Democrats lose, more people suffer. These are different scenarios.
Who was saved from suffering by barely fighting Prop 22?
Resources are finite, so probably wherever the money went instead.
I mean, Pro22 ads flooded everywhere, and was universally portrayed as pro-labor, so we so have to deal with rhat aspect as well.
Yes, you have to deal with an opposition that lies, whats new?
Something Republicans have figured out that Democrats still suck at is understanding that even if a battle is always going to be lost its worth fighting because you can use it to build networks and connections and fighting spirit for the next one.
When the Republicans lose, fewer people suffer. When the Democrats lose, more people suffer. These are different scenarios.
Who was saved from suffering by barely fighting Prop 22?
How much harder would they have needed to fight to win on this one issue and the funding behind it. And what do they gain by dying on this particular hill, only to have it pass anyway?
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
State Parties and the National Party, while related, are not necessarily the same.
Also, Styro was just talking about how Dems should spend in places to create networks and infrastructure for next time.
I mean, Pro22 ads flooded everywhere, and was universally portrayed as pro-labor, so we so have to deal with rhat aspect as well.
Yes, you have to deal with an opposition that lies, whats new?
Something Republicans have figured out that Democrats still suck at is understanding that even if a battle is always going to be lost its worth fighting because you can use it to build networks and connections and fighting spirit for the next one.
When the Republicans lose, fewer people suffer. When the Democrats lose, more people suffer. These are different scenarios.
Who was saved from suffering by barely fighting Prop 22?
Again, this seems like a real shitty thing for you to say, frankly. I know lots of people who fought tooth and nail re-phone banking, online messaging, and more. Lots of folks fought fucking hard and resources were granted by the state party for that fight. Political parties with many races and initiatives they have to split limited donated funds on versus a massive mega-corp syndicate making billions a year... its not even in the same ballgame. You saying the people who did fight hard, and did all they could with ever resource available, only half-heartedly fought is insulting and reeks of bad faith arguments to align reality to your pre-existing worldview that the Democrats and everyone supporting them are ineffectual and terrible.
I'm not sure what could have been done better against the sheer volume of noise and money thrown into the Prop 22 fight, but it was a good attempt at fixing a problem with a ballot imitative that probably should have been fixed by a tax legislation instead.
+12
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I mean, Pro22 ads flooded everywhere, and was universally portrayed as pro-labor, so we so have to deal with rhat aspect as well.
Yes, you have to deal with an opposition that lies, whats new?
Something Republicans have figured out that Democrats still suck at is understanding that even if a battle is always going to be lost its worth fighting because you can use it to build networks and connections and fighting spirit for the next one.
When the Republicans lose, fewer people suffer. When the Democrats lose, more people suffer. These are different scenarios.
Who was saved from suffering by barely fighting Prop 22?
Again, this seems like a real shitty thing for you to say, frankly. I know lots of people who fought tooth and nail re-phone banking, online messaging, and more. Lots of folks fought fucking hard and resources were granted by the state party for that fight. Political parties with many races and initiatives they have to split limited donated funds on versus a massive mega-corp syndicate making billions a year... its not even in the same ballgame. You saying the people who did fight hard, and did all they could with ever resource available, only half-heartedly fought is insulting and reeks of bad faith arguments to align reality to your pre-existing worldview that the Democrats and everyone supporting them are ineffectual and terrible.
I'm not sure what could have been done better against the sheer volume of noise and money thrown into the Prop 22 fight, but it was a good attempt at fixing a problem with a ballot imitative that probably should have been fixed by a tax legislation instead.
It was fixed with tax legislation. The prop was so they could essentially undo it.
+8
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Seems like the Democrats could become a labor party, win for the next 40 years and let the long arm of progress take care of the social issues by making sure everyone has the money they need to take care of themselves. Instead of flopping all over themselves to try and compromise with dominionist black pillers.
I don't see why we would assume that. There's little to indicate that Democrats not being a "labour party" (however one wants to define that) is what is causing them problems. And I don't think that would do much to mitigate structural disadvantages either.
It's currently a party that is pro-capital and thinks it can make social gains by letting the market do what they want. That is specifically the bargain that was made by Clinton and has not changed for the last 30 years.
Even if we were to assume this was true (which we shouldn't imo), this doesn't actually answer the question. I see no reason why we should assume that whatever change you are thinking of in terms of "becoming a labour party" is somehow going to secure long-term democratic party rule in the US system. Like, what's the connection here between whatever reformation you have in mind and democratic party gains or losses at the ballot box?
Working class people make up a third of the US population.
Why are you assuming that's meaningful to the question? Based on what? Like, shit, the republican agenda is tax cuts and deregulation for rich people and the education gap between the parties is only growing. You just seem to be assuming it must be true because .... I don't know. There's been no answer given beyond seemingly it just being what you'd prefer they did.
If trying to repair a base in labor doesnt make electoral sense to you I wont convince you.
I think the idea here is flawed on the assumptions of the axis in the US, not on the need to repair the left's relationship with the working class. The assumption that the US operates on a capital/labor axis in politics is inherently flawed. The Democrats are, 100%, the party for pro-labor policies and have been for decades. The issue isn't this, everyone knows who wants to do healthcare/education/minimum wage reform. There isn't a question there. The problem is that the axis of American politics falls under a rural/urban divide and always has been, right back to our foundation.
Current politics, specifically losses of urban areas and rust belt industrial areas, have more to do with changing demographics and the left not taking efforts to actually deliver on these reforms in rural areas. A lot of Indiana lacks highspeed internet, reliable schools, or adequate health care despite being told repeatedly by the left that they do. The reasons for this, in most cases, are interference in getting these resources by state GOP politicians.
In order to repair that gap, I'd suggest the two things that need to happen are 1) properly identifying where the problems are occurring in delivering key resources and making the unmasking of that a major arm of the Democratic party. We need a stronger messaging game about ~how~ the right is fucking over its own people. 2) We need to take more seriously the delivery of key quality of life improvements for suburban and rural America. Everyone should have access to reliable roads, ample health care, schools that aren't rotting and underfunded, high-speed internet, and more. We can't just deliver on these promises where our key demographics are, we have to deliver on them everywhere.
And I'm arguing the way the "pro-labor" party wants to do these things makes them not pro-labor just compassionate capitalism doomed to be self immolated while the other side just says no to the "negotiation" because we haven't had an actual pro labor party since 1992.
Again, the political axis of the US doesn't work on labor/capital, and so long as we have first past the post that won't ever change. Its urban capital and rural capital. That's what you got to work with. 3rd parties can't survive in our political structure.
That's not a great situation to have, but its the one you gotta work with.
I mean, Pro22 ads flooded everywhere, and was universally portrayed as pro-labor, so we so have to deal with rhat aspect as well.
Yes, you have to deal with an opposition that lies, whats new?
Something Republicans have figured out that Democrats still suck at is understanding that even if a battle is always going to be lost its worth fighting because you can use it to build networks and connections and fighting spirit for the next one.
When the Republicans lose, fewer people suffer. When the Democrats lose, more people suffer. These are different scenarios.
Who was saved from suffering by barely fighting Prop 22?
Again, this seems like a real shitty thing for you to say, frankly. I know lots of people who fought tooth and nail re-phone banking, online messaging, and more. Lots of folks fought fucking hard and resources were granted by the state party for that fight. Political parties with many races and initiatives they have to split limited donated funds on versus a massive mega-corp syndicate making billions a year... its not even in the same ballgame. You saying the people who did fight hard, and did all they could with ever resource available, only half-heartedly fought is insulting and reeks of bad faith arguments to align reality to your pre-existing worldview that the Democrats and everyone supporting them are ineffectual and terrible.
I'm not sure what could have been done better against the sheer volume of noise and money thrown into the Prop 22 fight, but it was a good attempt at fixing a problem with a ballot imitative that probably should have been fixed by a tax legislation instead.
It was fixed with tax legislation. The prop was so they could essentially undo it.
ie - it turns out direct democracy can be really bad
I mean, Pro22 ads flooded everywhere, and was universally portrayed as pro-labor, so we so have to deal with rhat aspect as well.
Yes, you have to deal with an opposition that lies, whats new?
Something Republicans have figured out that Democrats still suck at is understanding that even if a battle is always going to be lost its worth fighting because you can use it to build networks and connections and fighting spirit for the next one.
When the Republicans lose, fewer people suffer. When the Democrats lose, more people suffer. These are different scenarios.
Who was saved from suffering by barely fighting Prop 22?
How much harder would they have needed to fight to win on this one issue and the funding behind it. And what do they gain by dying on this particular hill, only to have it pass anyway?
Maybe 22 was always going to pass, but like I said, sometimes you fight a losing battle because it leaves you in a better spot for the next one than surrendering would.
Prop 22 isnt going away. Its coming to other states and the federal government. This year was an opportunity squandered to start rebuilding activist machinery for that fight that never should have been allowed to fall apart in the first place
The GOP wants an exclusive club of evil rich ballsacks- their club
Dems want everyone to have an opportunity to be in the evil rich ballsack club
A hell of a lot of people don’t care a whole lot about being a evil rich ballsack and really just want to know if they can afford to see the doctor or eat
The GOP wants an exclusive club of evil rich ballsacks- their club
Dems want everyone to have an opportunity to be in the evil rich ballsack club
A hell of a lot of people don’t care a whole lot about being a evil rich ballsack and really just want to know if they can afford to see the doctor or eat
Way, way too many people mostly just want to make sure that their neighbor can't afford a doctor or eat.
Seems like the Democrats could become a labor party, win for the next 40 years and let the long arm of progress take care of the social issues by making sure everyone has the money they need to take care of themselves. Instead of flopping all over themselves to try and compromise with dominionist black pillers.
I don't see why we would assume that. There's little to indicate that Democrats not being a "labour party" (however one wants to define that) is what is causing them problems. And I don't think that would do much to mitigate structural disadvantages either.
It's currently a party that is pro-capital and thinks it can make social gains by letting the market do what they want. That is specifically the bargain that was made by Clinton and has not changed for the last 30 years.
Even if we were to assume this was true (which we shouldn't imo), this doesn't actually answer the question. I see no reason why we should assume that whatever change you are thinking of in terms of "becoming a labour party" is somehow going to secure long-term democratic party rule in the US system. Like, what's the connection here between whatever reformation you have in mind and democratic party gains or losses at the ballot box?
Working class people make up a third of the US population.
Why are you assuming that's meaningful to the question? Based on what? Like, shit, the republican agenda is tax cuts and deregulation for rich people and the education gap between the parties is only growing. You just seem to be assuming it must be true because .... I don't know. There's been no answer given beyond seemingly it just being what you'd prefer they did.
If trying to repair a base in labor doesnt make electoral sense to you I wont convince you.
I think the idea here is flawed on the assumptions of the axis in the US, not on the need to repair the left's relationship with the working class. The assumption that the US operates on a capital/labor axis in politics is inherently flawed. The Democrats are, 100%, the party for pro-labor policies and have been for decades. The issue isn't this, everyone knows who wants to do healthcare/education/minimum wage reform. There isn't a question there. The problem is that the axis of American politics falls under a rural/urban divide and always has been, right back to our foundation.
Current politics, specifically losses of urban areas and rust belt industrial areas, have more to do with changing demographics and the left not taking efforts to actually deliver on these reforms in rural areas. A lot of Indiana lacks highspeed internet, reliable schools, or adequate health care despite being told repeatedly by the left that they do. The reasons for this, in most cases, are interference in getting these resources by state GOP politicians.
In order to repair that gap, I'd suggest the two things that need to happen are 1) properly identifying where the problems are occurring in delivering key resources and making the unmasking of that a major arm of the Democratic party. We need a stronger messaging game about ~how~ the right is fucking over its own people. 2) We need to take more seriously the delivery of key quality of life improvements for suburban and rural America. Everyone should have access to reliable roads, ample health care, schools that aren't rotting and underfunded, high-speed internet, and more. We can't just deliver on these promises where our key demographics are, we have to deliver on them everywhere.
And I'm arguing the way the "pro-labor" party wants to do these things makes them not pro-labor just compassionate capitalism doomed to be self immolated while the other side just says no to the "negotiation" because we haven't had an actual pro labor party since 1992.
Again, the political axis of the US doesn't work on labor/capital, and so long as we have first past the post that won't ever change. Its urban capital and rural capital. That's what you got to work with. 3rd parties can't survive in our political structure.
That's not a great situation to have, but its the one you gotta work with.
And I'm arguing that just because people have been working on this assumption for the last 30 years doesn't mean its true.
I mean, Pro22 ads flooded everywhere, and was universally portrayed as pro-labor, so we so have to deal with rhat aspect as well.
Yes, you have to deal with an opposition that lies, whats new?
Something Republicans have figured out that Democrats still suck at is understanding that even if a battle is always going to be lost its worth fighting because you can use it to build networks and connections and fighting spirit for the next one.
When the Republicans lose, fewer people suffer. When the Democrats lose, more people suffer. These are different scenarios.
Who was saved from suffering by barely fighting Prop 22?
How much harder would they have needed to fight to win on this one issue and the funding behind it. And what do they gain by dying on this particular hill, only to have it pass anyway?
Maybe 22 was always going to pass, but like I said, sometimes you fight a losing battle because it leaves you in a better spot for the next one than surrendering would.
Prop 22 isnt going away. Its coming to other states and the federal government. This year was an opportunity squandered to start rebuilding activist machinery for that fight that never should have been allowed to fall apart in the first place
I reject the framing out of hand because you’re substituting cynicism for insight yet again by identifying it as “surrendering”. It’s already been pointed out that many people fought this hard, despite not getting the outcome they wanted.
You’re already showing how little they have to gain by fighting a losing battle. Because despite hard work against it, some people see that a bad thing happened anyway and say the party surrendered and didn’t even try.
The GOP wants an exclusive club of evil rich ballsacks- their club
Dems want everyone to have an opportunity to be in the evil rich ballsack club
A hell of a lot of people don’t care a whole lot about being a evil rich ballsack and really just want to know if they can afford to see the doctor or eat
Way, way too many people mostly just want to make sure that their neighbor can't afford a doctor or eat.
Oh yeah for sure we have a really shitty crab bucket society that not only makes people think it’s necessary for others to lose so they can win, but rewards people for it
Seems like the Democrats could become a labor party, win for the next 40 years and let the long arm of progress take care of the social issues by making sure everyone has the money they need to take care of themselves. Instead of flopping all over themselves to try and compromise with dominionist black pillers.
I don't see why we would assume that. There's little to indicate that Democrats not being a "labour party" (however one wants to define that) is what is causing them problems. And I don't think that would do much to mitigate structural disadvantages either.
It's currently a party that is pro-capital and thinks it can make social gains by letting the market do what they want. That is specifically the bargain that was made by Clinton and has not changed for the last 30 years.
Even if we were to assume this was true (which we shouldn't imo), this doesn't actually answer the question. I see no reason why we should assume that whatever change you are thinking of in terms of "becoming a labour party" is somehow going to secure long-term democratic party rule in the US system. Like, what's the connection here between whatever reformation you have in mind and democratic party gains or losses at the ballot box?
Working class people make up a third of the US population.
Why are you assuming that's meaningful to the question? Based on what? Like, shit, the republican agenda is tax cuts and deregulation for rich people and the education gap between the parties is only growing. You just seem to be assuming it must be true because .... I don't know. There's been no answer given beyond seemingly it just being what you'd prefer they did.
If trying to repair a base in labor doesnt make electoral sense to you I wont convince you.
The question is how do you do that? The hardhats who have been one of the major problems with consolidating labor in the US still remain.
There are a lot of things, campaigning on repealing taft hartly, raising minimum wage, caps on corporate compensation, make capital gains count as income...stop taking moralistic ideological stands that waste political capital while people keep getting poorer and sicker.
Maybe just having the DNC not openly mock the left wing grass roots side of their party would be a start.
And when the hardhats show that they care more about social issues - the thing that helped gut labor in the US - what do you do then? The problem is that you have a solid portion of the working class that are fine with getting fucked over as long as the people they see as lesser get fucked harder.
Like too many people you see "working class" and instinctively add "white" in front of it.
Are you saying that working class minorities are incapable of caring about social political issues over labor issues? The 47% of Hispanic/LatinX voters that went for Trump in FL might disagree with you.
Seems like the Democrats could become a labor party, win for the next 40 years and let the long arm of progress take care of the social issues by making sure everyone has the money they need to take care of themselves. Instead of flopping all over themselves to try and compromise with dominionist black pillers.
I don't see why we would assume that. There's little to indicate that Democrats not being a "labour party" (however one wants to define that) is what is causing them problems. And I don't think that would do much to mitigate structural disadvantages either.
It's currently a party that is pro-capital and thinks it can make social gains by letting the market do what they want. That is specifically the bargain that was made by Clinton and has not changed for the last 30 years.
Even if we were to assume this was true (which we shouldn't imo), this doesn't actually answer the question. I see no reason why we should assume that whatever change you are thinking of in terms of "becoming a labour party" is somehow going to secure long-term democratic party rule in the US system. Like, what's the connection here between whatever reformation you have in mind and democratic party gains or losses at the ballot box?
Working class people make up a third of the US population.
Why are you assuming that's meaningful to the question? Based on what? Like, shit, the republican agenda is tax cuts and deregulation for rich people and the education gap between the parties is only growing. You just seem to be assuming it must be true because .... I don't know. There's been no answer given beyond seemingly it just being what you'd prefer they did.
If trying to repair a base in labor doesnt make electoral sense to you I wont convince you.
The question is how do you do that? The hardhats who have been one of the major problems with consolidating labor in the US still remain.
There are a lot of things, campaigning on repealing taft hartly, raising minimum wage, caps on corporate compensation, make capital gains count as income...stop taking moralistic ideological stands that waste political capital while people keep getting poorer and sicker.
Maybe just having the DNC not openly mock the left wing grass roots side of their party would be a start.
And when the hardhats show that they care more about social issues - the thing that helped gut labor in the US - what do you do then? The problem is that you have a solid portion of the working class that are fine with getting fucked over as long as the people they see as lesser get fucked harder.
Like too many people you see "working class" and instinctively add "white" in front of it.
If you're assuming "The Dems getting working class people on board will lead to 40 years of Dem victories"- the premise that started this argument- you need the entire working class. That whole 33%. Because most of the non-white working class already votes Dem out of self preservation if nothing else.
Otherwise, you get...pretty much what we already have? It's not an argument not to improve the appeal, mind, just to know that's it isn't going to usher in landslide after landslide.
The GOP wants an exclusive club of evil rich ballsacks- their club
Dems want everyone to have an opportunity to be in the evil rich ballsack club
A hell of a lot of people don’t care a whole lot about being a evil rich ballsack and really just want to know if they can afford to see the doctor or eat
Way, way too many people mostly just want to make sure that their neighbor can't afford a doctor or eat.
Also one more point but this is why I am and always have been and probably always will be a dem, even if I fucking hate them
Seems like the Democrats could become a labor party, win for the next 40 years and let the long arm of progress take care of the social issues by making sure everyone has the money they need to take care of themselves. Instead of flopping all over themselves to try and compromise with dominionist black pillers.
I don't see why we would assume that. There's little to indicate that Democrats not being a "labour party" (however one wants to define that) is what is causing them problems. And I don't think that would do much to mitigate structural disadvantages either.
It's currently a party that is pro-capital and thinks it can make social gains by letting the market do what they want. That is specifically the bargain that was made by Clinton and has not changed for the last 30 years.
Even if we were to assume this was true (which we shouldn't imo), this doesn't actually answer the question. I see no reason why we should assume that whatever change you are thinking of in terms of "becoming a labour party" is somehow going to secure long-term democratic party rule in the US system. Like, what's the connection here between whatever reformation you have in mind and democratic party gains or losses at the ballot box?
Working class people make up a third of the US population.
Why are you assuming that's meaningful to the question? Based on what? Like, shit, the republican agenda is tax cuts and deregulation for rich people and the education gap between the parties is only growing. You just seem to be assuming it must be true because .... I don't know. There's been no answer given beyond seemingly it just being what you'd prefer they did.
If trying to repair a base in labor doesnt make electoral sense to you I wont convince you.
I think the idea here is flawed on the assumptions of the axis in the US, not on the need to repair the left's relationship with the working class. The assumption that the US operates on a capital/labor axis in politics is inherently flawed. The Democrats are, 100%, the party for pro-labor policies and have been for decades. The issue isn't this, everyone knows who wants to do healthcare/education/minimum wage reform. There isn't a question there. The problem is that the axis of American politics falls under a rural/urban divide and always has been, right back to our foundation.
Current politics, specifically losses of urban areas and rust belt industrial areas, have more to do with changing demographics and the left not taking efforts to actually deliver on these reforms in rural areas. A lot of Indiana lacks highspeed internet, reliable schools, or adequate health care despite being told repeatedly by the left that they do. The reasons for this, in most cases, are interference in getting these resources by state GOP politicians.
In order to repair that gap, I'd suggest the two things that need to happen are 1) properly identifying where the problems are occurring in delivering key resources and making the unmasking of that a major arm of the Democratic party. We need a stronger messaging game about ~how~ the right is fucking over its own people. 2) We need to take more seriously the delivery of key quality of life improvements for suburban and rural America. Everyone should have access to reliable roads, ample health care, schools that aren't rotting and underfunded, high-speed internet, and more. We can't just deliver on these promises where our key demographics are, we have to deliver on them everywhere.
And I'm arguing the way the "pro-labor" party wants to do these things makes them not pro-labor just compassionate capitalism doomed to be self immolated while the other side just says no to the "negotiation" because we haven't had an actual pro labor party since 1992.
Again, the political axis of the US doesn't work on labor/capital, and so long as we have first past the post that won't ever change. Its urban capital and rural capital. That's what you got to work with. 3rd parties can't survive in our political structure.
That's not a great situation to have, but its the one you gotta work with.
And I'm arguing that just because people have been working on this assumption for the last 30 years doesn't mean its true.
On what are you basing this idea that the Democrats becoming a "labour party" (with whatever definition of that you are thinking of) would be a huge electoral boon for them?
I mean, Pro22 ads flooded everywhere, and was universally portrayed as pro-labor, so we so have to deal with rhat aspect as well.
Yes, you have to deal with an opposition that lies, whats new?
Something Republicans have figured out that Democrats still suck at is understanding that even if a battle is always going to be lost its worth fighting because you can use it to build networks and connections and fighting spirit for the next one.
When the Republicans lose, fewer people suffer. When the Democrats lose, more people suffer. These are different scenarios.
Who was saved from suffering by barely fighting Prop 22?
How much harder would they have needed to fight to win on this one issue and the funding behind it. And what do they gain by dying on this particular hill, only to have it pass anyway?
Maybe 22 was always going to pass, but like I said, sometimes you fight a losing battle because it leaves you in a better spot for the next one than surrendering would.
Prop 22 isnt going away. Its coming to other states and the federal government. This year was an opportunity squandered to start rebuilding activist machinery for that fight that never should have been allowed to fall apart in the first place
I reject the framing out of hand because you’re substituting cynicism for insight yet again by identifying it as “surrendering”. It’s already been pointed out that many people fought this hard, despite not getting the outcome they wanted.
You’re already showing how little they have to gain by fighting a losing battle. Because despite hard work against it, some people see that a bad thing happened anyway and say the party surrendered and didn’t even try.
People and labor fought hard. Im not talking about the labor unions. Im talking about top down party priorities and messaging.
Seems like the Democrats could become a labor party, win for the next 40 years and let the long arm of progress take care of the social issues by making sure everyone has the money they need to take care of themselves. Instead of flopping all over themselves to try and compromise with dominionist black pillers.
I don't see why we would assume that. There's little to indicate that Democrats not being a "labour party" (however one wants to define that) is what is causing them problems. And I don't think that would do much to mitigate structural disadvantages either.
It's currently a party that is pro-capital and thinks it can make social gains by letting the market do what they want. That is specifically the bargain that was made by Clinton and has not changed for the last 30 years.
Even if we were to assume this was true (which we shouldn't imo), this doesn't actually answer the question. I see no reason why we should assume that whatever change you are thinking of in terms of "becoming a labour party" is somehow going to secure long-term democratic party rule in the US system. Like, what's the connection here between whatever reformation you have in mind and democratic party gains or losses at the ballot box?
Working class people make up a third of the US population.
Why are you assuming that's meaningful to the question? Based on what? Like, shit, the republican agenda is tax cuts and deregulation for rich people and the education gap between the parties is only growing. You just seem to be assuming it must be true because .... I don't know. There's been no answer given beyond seemingly it just being what you'd prefer they did.
If trying to repair a base in labor doesnt make electoral sense to you I wont convince you.
The question is how do you do that? The hardhats who have been one of the major problems with consolidating labor in the US still remain.
There are a lot of things, campaigning on repealing taft hartly, raising minimum wage, caps on corporate compensation, make capital gains count as income...stop taking moralistic ideological stands that waste political capital while people keep getting poorer and sicker.
Maybe just having the DNC not openly mock the left wing grass roots side of their party would be a start.
And when the hardhats show that they care more about social issues - the thing that helped gut labor in the US - what do you do then? The problem is that you have a solid portion of the working class that are fine with getting fucked over as long as the people they see as lesser get fucked harder.
Like too many people you see "working class" and instinctively add "white" in front of it.
No, I see the gains that the GOP made among black and Latine/Hispanic males as being part of the same dynamic that brought the mainly white hardhats of the 60s and 70s under the conservative banner. And as has been pointed out several times in this thread, you see similar rhetoric used between these groups.
Seems like the Democrats could become a labor party, win for the next 40 years and let the long arm of progress take care of the social issues by making sure everyone has the money they need to take care of themselves. Instead of flopping all over themselves to try and compromise with dominionist black pillers.
I don't see why we would assume that. There's little to indicate that Democrats not being a "labour party" (however one wants to define that) is what is causing them problems. And I don't think that would do much to mitigate structural disadvantages either.
It's currently a party that is pro-capital and thinks it can make social gains by letting the market do what they want. That is specifically the bargain that was made by Clinton and has not changed for the last 30 years.
Even if we were to assume this was true (which we shouldn't imo), this doesn't actually answer the question. I see no reason why we should assume that whatever change you are thinking of in terms of "becoming a labour party" is somehow going to secure long-term democratic party rule in the US system. Like, what's the connection here between whatever reformation you have in mind and democratic party gains or losses at the ballot box?
Working class people make up a third of the US population.
Why are you assuming that's meaningful to the question? Based on what? Like, shit, the republican agenda is tax cuts and deregulation for rich people and the education gap between the parties is only growing. You just seem to be assuming it must be true because .... I don't know. There's been no answer given beyond seemingly it just being what you'd prefer they did.
If trying to repair a base in labor doesnt make electoral sense to you I wont convince you.
I think the idea here is flawed on the assumptions of the axis in the US, not on the need to repair the left's relationship with the working class. The assumption that the US operates on a capital/labor axis in politics is inherently flawed. The Democrats are, 100%, the party for pro-labor policies and have been for decades. The issue isn't this, everyone knows who wants to do healthcare/education/minimum wage reform. There isn't a question there. The problem is that the axis of American politics falls under a rural/urban divide and always has been, right back to our foundation.
Current politics, specifically losses of urban areas and rust belt industrial areas, have more to do with changing demographics and the left not taking efforts to actually deliver on these reforms in rural areas. A lot of Indiana lacks highspeed internet, reliable schools, or adequate health care despite being told repeatedly by the left that they do. The reasons for this, in most cases, are interference in getting these resources by state GOP politicians.
In order to repair that gap, I'd suggest the two things that need to happen are 1) properly identifying where the problems are occurring in delivering key resources and making the unmasking of that a major arm of the Democratic party. We need a stronger messaging game about ~how~ the right is fucking over its own people. 2) We need to take more seriously the delivery of key quality of life improvements for suburban and rural America. Everyone should have access to reliable roads, ample health care, schools that aren't rotting and underfunded, high-speed internet, and more. We can't just deliver on these promises where our key demographics are, we have to deliver on them everywhere.
And I'm arguing the way the "pro-labor" party wants to do these things makes them not pro-labor just compassionate capitalism doomed to be self immolated while the other side just says no to the "negotiation" because we haven't had an actual pro labor party since 1992.
Again, the political axis of the US doesn't work on labor/capital, and so long as we have first past the post that won't ever change. Its urban capital and rural capital. That's what you got to work with. 3rd parties can't survive in our political structure.
That's not a great situation to have, but its the one you gotta work with.
And I'm arguing that just because people have been working on this assumption for the last 30 years doesn't mean its true.
Ok. Do you have evidence that disproves it significant enough to convince more than the 74 million people who voted for Biden? Because, if not, the assumption doesn't matter.
It really can't be expressed enough that increased income, health care, and rights are not the overwhelming priorities of labor in the contemporary United States.
+4
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
It really can't be expressed enough that increased income, health care, and rights are not the overwhelming priorities of labor in the contemporary United States.
What do you think the priorities are, beyond those?
I mean, Pro22 ads flooded everywhere, and was universally portrayed as pro-labor, so we so have to deal with rhat aspect as well.
Yes, you have to deal with an opposition that lies, whats new?
Something Republicans have figured out that Democrats still suck at is understanding that even if a battle is always going to be lost its worth fighting because you can use it to build networks and connections and fighting spirit for the next one.
When the Republicans lose, fewer people suffer. When the Democrats lose, more people suffer. These are different scenarios.
Who was saved from suffering by barely fighting Prop 22?
How much harder would they have needed to fight to win on this one issue and the funding behind it. And what do they gain by dying on this particular hill, only to have it pass anyway?
Maybe 22 was always going to pass, but like I said, sometimes you fight a losing battle because it leaves you in a better spot for the next one than surrendering would.
Prop 22 isnt going away. Its coming to other states and the federal government. This year was an opportunity squandered to start rebuilding activist machinery for that fight that never should have been allowed to fall apart in the first place
What do you even mean by this?
Prop 22 is the status quo. It was undoing new legislation in CA that was trying to fix the issues with companies defining everyone as independent contractors when they're actually employees.
It's something that can actually get fixed at the federal level, even with just an EO if it came to it, the existing laws defining the employee/contractor relationships just need to be enforced.
Aioua on
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
+1
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Seems like the Democrats could become a labor party, win for the next 40 years and let the long arm of progress take care of the social issues by making sure everyone has the money they need to take care of themselves. Instead of flopping all over themselves to try and compromise with dominionist black pillers.
I don't see why we would assume that. There's little to indicate that Democrats not being a "labour party" (however one wants to define that) is what is causing them problems. And I don't think that would do much to mitigate structural disadvantages either.
How much of a fight did the Democratic Party put up over Prop 22?
my sense, from what I've seen posted here and elsewhere, is that they put up a decent one; they just got massively outspent by Uber and Lyft's saturation bombing of the media.
The Party itself did very little. Opposition was largely left up to unions/labor activists and whatever ad hoc organization the left could get together.
California had a shit ton of high profile propositions on the ballot and Dems were also trying to defend a lot of congressional seats, while Prop 22 had a massive funding edge and a disinformation campaign on its side, and was looking like a foregone conclusion whatever the Dems did.
That's not really a good litmus test.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I mean, Pro22 ads flooded everywhere, and was universally portrayed as pro-labor, so we so have to deal with rhat aspect as well.
Yes, you have to deal with an opposition that lies, whats new?
Something Republicans have figured out that Democrats still suck at is understanding that even if a battle is always going to be lost its worth fighting because you can use it to build networks and connections and fighting spirit for the next one.
When the Republicans lose, fewer people suffer. When the Democrats lose, more people suffer. These are different scenarios.
Who was saved from suffering by barely fighting Prop 22?
How much harder would they have needed to fight to win on this one issue and the funding behind it. And what do they gain by dying on this particular hill, only to have it pass anyway?
Maybe 22 was always going to pass, but like I said, sometimes you fight a losing battle because it leaves you in a better spot for the next one than surrendering would.
Prop 22 isnt going away. Its coming to other states and the federal government. This year was an opportunity squandered to start rebuilding activist machinery for that fight that never should have been allowed to fall apart in the first place
I reject the framing out of hand because you’re substituting cynicism for insight yet again by identifying it as “surrendering”. It’s already been pointed out that many people fought this hard, despite not getting the outcome they wanted.
You’re already showing how little they have to gain by fighting a losing battle. Because despite hard work against it, some people see that a bad thing happened anyway and say the party surrendered and didn’t even try.
People and labor fought hard. Im not talking about the labor unions. Im talking about top down party priorities and messaging.
My point still stands. The party is dealing with finite time and resources and in this case were fighting an opponent with nearly unlimited resources.
How much would the party have gained in they made this priority #1 and it still lost? What threshold would they have needed to meet, honestly, before you would have said “well, they sure tried, respect”.
My guess is that line does not exist.
I continue to not accept your assertion that you know just who was fighting against this. Just because you’ve concluded that “people and labor” fought it doesn’t make it so, and many of the “people” fighting it were Democrats.
Marathon on
+3
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I mean, Pro22 ads flooded everywhere, and was universally portrayed as pro-labor, so we so have to deal with rhat aspect as well.
Yes, you have to deal with an opposition that lies, whats new?
Something Republicans have figured out that Democrats still suck at is understanding that even if a battle is always going to be lost its worth fighting because you can use it to build networks and connections and fighting spirit for the next one.
When the Republicans lose, fewer people suffer. When the Democrats lose, more people suffer. These are different scenarios.
Who was saved from suffering by barely fighting Prop 22?
How much harder would they have needed to fight to win on this one issue and the funding behind it. And what do they gain by dying on this particular hill, only to have it pass anyway?
Maybe 22 was always going to pass, but like I said, sometimes you fight a losing battle because it leaves you in a better spot for the next one than surrendering would.
Prop 22 isnt going away. Its coming to other states and the federal government. This year was an opportunity squandered to start rebuilding activist machinery for that fight that never should have been allowed to fall apart in the first place
What do you even mean by this?
Prop 22 is the status quo. It was undoing new legislation in CA that was trying to fix the issues with companies defining everyone as independent contractors when they're actually employees.
It's something that can actually get fixed at the federal level, even with just an EO if it came to it, the laws defining the employee/contractor relationships as they exists just need to be enforced.
I think he is referring to how the gig economy companies have expressed an interest in passing similar things in other states to protect their business model.
It really can't be expressed enough that increased income, health care, and rights are not the overwhelming priorities of labor in the contemporary United States.
What do you think the priorities are, beyond those?
It varies by group, since labor is not monolithic. A lot of it is about traditional values, or literally just wanting to continue to work the job they have now even though that job is going away. A lot of it is the usual corporate/plantation brainwashing. A lot of it is libertarian "no taxes, no regulations, asbestos is great" stuff, a lot of it is cultural identity before class identity.
I mean, Pro22 ads flooded everywhere, and was universally portrayed as pro-labor, so we so have to deal with rhat aspect as well.
Yes, you have to deal with an opposition that lies, whats new?
Something Republicans have figured out that Democrats still suck at is understanding that even if a battle is always going to be lost its worth fighting because you can use it to build networks and connections and fighting spirit for the next one.
When the Republicans lose, fewer people suffer. When the Democrats lose, more people suffer. These are different scenarios.
Who was saved from suffering by barely fighting Prop 22?
How much harder would they have needed to fight to win on this one issue and the funding behind it. And what do they gain by dying on this particular hill, only to have it pass anyway?
Maybe 22 was always going to pass, but like I said, sometimes you fight a losing battle because it leaves you in a better spot for the next one than surrendering would.
Prop 22 isnt going away. Its coming to other states and the federal government. This year was an opportunity squandered to start rebuilding activist machinery for that fight that never should have been allowed to fall apart in the first place
What do you even mean by this?
Prop 22 is the status quo. It was undoing new legislation in CA that was trying to fix the issues with companies defining everyone as independent contractors when they're actually employees.
It's something that can actually get fixed at the federal level, even with just an EO if it came to it, the existing laws defining the employee/contractor relationships just need to be enforced.
Codifying into law their otherwise illegal mixture of freelance contractor and employee. They havent been coy about it. Right after 22 passed they said they viewed it as a model for future efforts.
It will be disasterous for labor if they succeed and we're not ready as things stand.
One thing that organized parties do is calculate the ROI of any given action.
They may also have determined that there would be backlash from people over "Democrats raised the price of uber!"
If the party is trying to calculate ROI on spending this year was full of high profile failures
The worst of which were by the people you place so much emphasis on, not by the party that you're blaming. All that money sunk into unseating Collins or McConnell came from grassroots donations all over the country; people donating because they were enthusiastic about a very specific thing. Is your stance that party leadership should have tried to step in and hijack the money donated for those purposes, said "Nah, it's better on these other things you don't care as much about but is a better RoI."?
It really can't be expressed enough that increased income, health care, and rights are not the overwhelming priorities of labor in the contemporary United States.
What do you think the priorities are, beyond those?
It varies by group, since labor is not monolithic. A lot of it is about traditional values, or literally just wanting to continue to work the job they have now even though that job is going away. A lot of it is the usual corporate/plantation brainwashing. A lot of it is libertarian "no taxes, no regulations, asbestos is great" stuff, a lot of it is cultural identity before class identity.
Also a lot of just wanting to not have to give a shit about all of this in the first place.
+6
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
The Democrats are going to have difficulty finding an identity as long as they're the only viable "not fascism" party.
Im not convinced being the "not fascism party" is actually effective antifascism.
Maybe not, but that's not terribly relevant. If you are a voter who's turned off by GOP fascist bullshit, you have two options: vote for the Dems, or don't meaningfully vote.
That makes the Dem tent even bigger.
You can rage about how you don't want moderate conservatives infiltrating the democratic party or influencing democratic primaries, but it's going to happen until the GOP either kicks out the fascists, or the party splits.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It really can't be expressed enough that increased income, health care, and rights are not the overwhelming priorities of labor in the contemporary United States.
What do you think the priorities are, beyond those?
It varies by group, since labor is not monolithic. A lot of it is about traditional values, or literally just wanting to continue to work the job they have now even though that job is going away. A lot of it is the usual corporate/plantation brainwashing. A lot of it is libertarian "no taxes, no regulations, asbestos is great" stuff, a lot of it is cultural identity before class identity.
Also a lot of just wanting to not have to give a shit about all of this in the first place.
I mean, Pro22 ads flooded everywhere, and was universally portrayed as pro-labor, so we so have to deal with rhat aspect as well.
Yes, you have to deal with an opposition that lies, whats new?
Something Republicans have figured out that Democrats still suck at is understanding that even if a battle is always going to be lost its worth fighting because you can use it to build networks and connections and fighting spirit for the next one.
Well, except in Texas. And Georgia. And Colorado. And Virginia. And so on.
I'm legitimately having issues figuring out the implication here
Seems like the Democrats could become a labor party, win for the next 40 years and let the long arm of progress take care of the social issues by making sure everyone has the money they need to take care of themselves. Instead of flopping all over themselves to try and compromise with dominionist black pillers.
I don't see why we would assume that. There's little to indicate that Democrats not being a "labour party" (however one wants to define that) is what is causing them problems. And I don't think that would do much to mitigate structural disadvantages either.
It's currently a party that is pro-capital and thinks it can make social gains by letting the market do what they want. That is specifically the bargain that was made by Clinton and has not changed for the last 30 years.
Even if we were to assume this was true (which we shouldn't imo), this doesn't actually answer the question. I see no reason why we should assume that whatever change you are thinking of in terms of "becoming a labour party" is somehow going to secure long-term democratic party rule in the US system. Like, what's the connection here between whatever reformation you have in mind and democratic party gains or losses at the ballot box?
Working class people make up a third of the US population.
Why are you assuming that's meaningful to the question? Based on what? Like, shit, the republican agenda is tax cuts and deregulation for rich people and the education gap between the parties is only growing. You just seem to be assuming it must be true because .... I don't know. There's been no answer given beyond seemingly it just being what you'd prefer they did.
If trying to repair a base in labor doesnt make electoral sense to you I wont convince you.
I think the idea here is flawed on the assumptions of the axis in the US, not on the need to repair the left's relationship with the working class. The assumption that the US operates on a capital/labor axis in politics is inherently flawed. The Democrats are, 100%, the party for pro-labor policies and have been for decades. The issue isn't this, everyone knows who wants to do healthcare/education/minimum wage reform. There isn't a question there. The problem is that the axis of American politics falls under a rural/urban divide and always has been, right back to our foundation.
Current politics, specifically losses of urban areas and rust belt industrial areas, have more to do with changing demographics and the left not taking efforts to actually deliver on these reforms in rural areas. A lot of Indiana lacks highspeed internet, reliable schools, or adequate health care despite being told repeatedly by the left that they do. The reasons for this, in most cases, are interference in getting these resources by state GOP politicians.
In order to repair that gap, I'd suggest the two things that need to happen are 1) properly identifying where the problems are occurring in delivering key resources and making the unmasking of that a major arm of the Democratic party. We need a stronger messaging game about ~how~ the right is fucking over its own people. 2) We need to take more seriously the delivery of key quality of life improvements for suburban and rural America. Everyone should have access to reliable roads, ample health care, schools that aren't rotting and underfunded, high-speed internet, and more. We can't just deliver on these promises where our key demographics are, we have to deliver on them everywhere.
And I'm arguing the way the "pro-labor" party wants to do these things makes them not pro-labor just compassionate capitalism doomed to be self immolated while the other side just says no to the "negotiation" because we haven't had an actual pro labor party since 1992.
Again, the political axis of the US doesn't work on labor/capital, and so long as we have first past the post that won't ever change. Its urban capital and rural capital. That's what you got to work with. 3rd parties can't survive in our political structure.
That's not a great situation to have, but its the one you gotta work with.
And I'm arguing that just because people have been working on this assumption for the last 30 years doesn't mean its true.
Ok. Do you have evidence that disproves it significant enough to convince more than the 74 million people who voted for Biden? Because, if not, the assumption doesn't matter.
If I could convince 74 million people of anything I'd probably be president right now.
Posts
And I'm arguing the way the "pro-labor" party wants to do these things makes them not pro-labor just compassionate capitalism doomed to be self immolated while the other side just says no to the "negotiation" because we haven't had an actual pro labor party since 1992.
Like too many people you see "working class" and instinctively add "white" in front of it.
Resources are finite, so probably wherever the money went instead.
So... that run against McConnel.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
How much harder would they have needed to fight to win on this one issue and the funding behind it. And what do they gain by dying on this particular hill, only to have it pass anyway?
Also, Styro was just talking about how Dems should spend in places to create networks and infrastructure for next time.
They may also have determined that there would be backlash from people over "Democrats raised the price of uber!"
Again, this seems like a real shitty thing for you to say, frankly. I know lots of people who fought tooth and nail re-phone banking, online messaging, and more. Lots of folks fought fucking hard and resources were granted by the state party for that fight. Political parties with many races and initiatives they have to split limited donated funds on versus a massive mega-corp syndicate making billions a year... its not even in the same ballgame. You saying the people who did fight hard, and did all they could with ever resource available, only half-heartedly fought is insulting and reeks of bad faith arguments to align reality to your pre-existing worldview that the Democrats and everyone supporting them are ineffectual and terrible.
I'm not sure what could have been done better against the sheer volume of noise and money thrown into the Prop 22 fight, but it was a good attempt at fixing a problem with a ballot imitative that probably should have been fixed by a tax legislation instead.
It was fixed with tax legislation. The prop was so they could essentially undo it.
Again, the political axis of the US doesn't work on labor/capital, and so long as we have first past the post that won't ever change. Its urban capital and rural capital. That's what you got to work with. 3rd parties can't survive in our political structure.
That's not a great situation to have, but its the one you gotta work with.
ie - it turns out direct democracy can be really bad
Maybe 22 was always going to pass, but like I said, sometimes you fight a losing battle because it leaves you in a better spot for the next one than surrendering would.
Prop 22 isnt going away. Its coming to other states and the federal government. This year was an opportunity squandered to start rebuilding activist machinery for that fight that never should have been allowed to fall apart in the first place
Dems want everyone to have an opportunity to be in the evil rich ballsack club
A hell of a lot of people don’t care a whole lot about being a evil rich ballsack and really just want to know if they can afford to see the doctor or eat
Way, way too many people mostly just want to make sure that their neighbor can't afford a doctor or eat.
If the party is trying to calculate ROI on spending this year was full of high profile failures
And I'm arguing that just because people have been working on this assumption for the last 30 years doesn't mean its true.
I reject the framing out of hand because you’re substituting cynicism for insight yet again by identifying it as “surrendering”. It’s already been pointed out that many people fought this hard, despite not getting the outcome they wanted.
You’re already showing how little they have to gain by fighting a losing battle. Because despite hard work against it, some people see that a bad thing happened anyway and say the party surrendered and didn’t even try.
Oh yeah for sure we have a really shitty crab bucket society that not only makes people think it’s necessary for others to lose so they can win, but rewards people for it
Which may suggest they should focus on even fewer fights.
Are you saying that working class minorities are incapable of caring about social political issues over labor issues? The 47% of Hispanic/LatinX voters that went for Trump in FL might disagree with you.
If you're assuming "The Dems getting working class people on board will lead to 40 years of Dem victories"- the premise that started this argument- you need the entire working class. That whole 33%. Because most of the non-white working class already votes Dem out of self preservation if nothing else.
Otherwise, you get...pretty much what we already have? It's not an argument not to improve the appeal, mind, just to know that's it isn't going to usher in landslide after landslide.
Also one more point but this is why I am and always have been and probably always will be a dem, even if I fucking hate them
On what are you basing this idea that the Democrats becoming a "labour party" (with whatever definition of that you are thinking of) would be a huge electoral boon for them?
People and labor fought hard. Im not talking about the labor unions. Im talking about top down party priorities and messaging.
No, I see the gains that the GOP made among black and Latine/Hispanic males as being part of the same dynamic that brought the mainly white hardhats of the 60s and 70s under the conservative banner. And as has been pointed out several times in this thread, you see similar rhetoric used between these groups.
Ok. Do you have evidence that disproves it significant enough to convince more than the 74 million people who voted for Biden? Because, if not, the assumption doesn't matter.
What do you think the priorities are, beyond those?
What do you even mean by this?
Prop 22 is the status quo. It was undoing new legislation in CA that was trying to fix the issues with companies defining everyone as independent contractors when they're actually employees.
It's something that can actually get fixed at the federal level, even with just an EO if it came to it, the existing laws defining the employee/contractor relationships just need to be enforced.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
California had a shit ton of high profile propositions on the ballot and Dems were also trying to defend a lot of congressional seats, while Prop 22 had a massive funding edge and a disinformation campaign on its side, and was looking like a foregone conclusion whatever the Dems did.
That's not really a good litmus test.
My point still stands. The party is dealing with finite time and resources and in this case were fighting an opponent with nearly unlimited resources.
How much would the party have gained in they made this priority #1 and it still lost? What threshold would they have needed to meet, honestly, before you would have said “well, they sure tried, respect”.
My guess is that line does not exist.
I continue to not accept your assertion that you know just who was fighting against this. Just because you’ve concluded that “people and labor” fought it doesn’t make it so, and many of the “people” fighting it were Democrats.
I think he is referring to how the gig economy companies have expressed an interest in passing similar things in other states to protect their business model.
It varies by group, since labor is not monolithic. A lot of it is about traditional values, or literally just wanting to continue to work the job they have now even though that job is going away. A lot of it is the usual corporate/plantation brainwashing. A lot of it is libertarian "no taxes, no regulations, asbestos is great" stuff, a lot of it is cultural identity before class identity.
Codifying into law their otherwise illegal mixture of freelance contractor and employee. They havent been coy about it. Right after 22 passed they said they viewed it as a model for future efforts.
It will be disasterous for labor if they succeed and we're not ready as things stand.
The worst of which were by the people you place so much emphasis on, not by the party that you're blaming. All that money sunk into unseating Collins or McConnell came from grassroots donations all over the country; people donating because they were enthusiastic about a very specific thing. Is your stance that party leadership should have tried to step in and hijack the money donated for those purposes, said "Nah, it's better on these other things you don't care as much about but is a better RoI."?
Also a lot of just wanting to not have to give a shit about all of this in the first place.
Maybe not, but that's not terribly relevant. If you are a voter who's turned off by GOP fascist bullshit, you have two options: vote for the Dems, or don't meaningfully vote.
That makes the Dem tent even bigger.
You can rage about how you don't want moderate conservatives infiltrating the democratic party or influencing democratic primaries, but it's going to happen until the GOP either kicks out the fascists, or the party splits.
Not to mention "My team, right or wrong."
I'm legitimately having issues figuring out the implication here
If I could convince 74 million people of anything I'd probably be president right now.