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.
It's also hard to not take Styro at face value for fitting literally any democratic failure gleefully into his pre-existing worldview of the Democrats being a shitty party that doesn't represent its constituents well. A lot of times Styro is 100% right and the Democrats have consistently failed many, many communities over the last two decades and for long before that. But the assumption that because of that every failure is another nail in the coffin and that anyone associated with the Democrats shares the same failings is a tired, bad faith argument that has been repeated in way too many threads for it not to immediately draw an exasperated sigh from me. It's easy to yell from a soapbox about how everything sucks and everyone else fails, but I've yet to see any evidence that Styro et al. have done any meaningful action to contribute to change while the people they tear down, the actual Party, does every day with relentless enthusiasm and thankless efforts.
There is no goalpost that can't be moved to satisfy his praxis. No line that the Democrats could meet that would be greeted with a nod of acknowledgement. We've literally had multiple threads where he sets out a "if they wanted to meet my expectations they would do X" then, about a page or two later X happens, and he calls it not enough, too late to matter, and worthless.
Chasing that is exhausting, unproductive, and turns threads like this into a mire of negativity rather than an examination of where things are, what worked, and where work needs to be done. That last piece isn't "EVERYTHING BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE AWFUL," and when that argument gets shouted over and over and over it really drowns out the actual work that needs to be done.
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."?
People didnt just pour money into Kentucky or wherever out of nowhere. The wider Democrafic political apperatus did a lot to highlight and encourage spending there and for all the uphill fight 22 was, it was nothing on Kentucky. Donations will often follow messaging priorities.
But this highlights my point. If theres 80 million and change to be drummed up for a conservative like McGrath I dont think the issue in a given issue is lack of availability of funding but poor priorization.
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.
It's also hard to not take Styro at face value for fitting literally any democratic failure gleefully into his pre-existing worldview of the Democrats being a shitty party that doesn't represent its constituents well. A lot of times Styro is 100% right and the Democrats have consistently failed many, many communities over the last two decades and for long before that. But the assumption that because of that every failure is another nail in the coffin and that anyone associated with the Democrats shares the same failings is a tired, bad faith argument that has been repeated in way too many threads for it not to immediately draw an exasperated sigh from me. It's easy to yell from a soapbox about how everything sucks and everyone else fails, but I've yet to see any evidence that Styro et al. have done any meaningful action to contribute to change while the people they tear down, the actual Party, does every day with relentless enthusiasm and thankless efforts.
There is no goalpost that can't be moved to satisfy his praxis. No line that the Democrats could meet that would be greeted with a nod of acknowledgement. We've literally had multiple threads where he sets out a "if they wanted to meet my expectations they would do X" then, about a page or two later X happens, and he calls it not enough, too late to matter, and worthless.
Chasing that is exhausting, unproductive, and turns threads like this into a mire of negativity rather than an examination of where things are, what worked, and where work needs to be done. That last piece isn't "EVERYTHING BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE AWFUL," and when that argument gets shouted over and over and over it really drowns out the actual work that needs to be done.
I logged several hundred hours this cycle in paid and pro bono political activity for a wide variety if causes and candidates. Off the top of my head Id say most of them were DNC or DNC aligned.
You people are too into making policy arguments about the people making them.
Frankly I wouldn't really want the national party to pour money into fighting a conservative initiative in a single state that could be overriden by federal legislation?
Like if your two longshots are getting the federal legislature or shooting down prop 22 then go for the fed.
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
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."?
People didnt just pour money into Kentucky or wherever out of nowhere. The wider Democrafic political apperatus did a lot to highlight and encourage spending there and for all the uphill fight 22 was, it was nothing on Kentucky. Donations will often follow messaging priorities.
But this highlights my point. If theres 80 million and change to be drummed up for a conservative like McGrath I dont think the issue in a given issue is lack of availability of funding but poor priorization.
Unseating McConnel could have been a bigger win than unseating Trump.
This is a good piece about where Trump's "red wave" came from - and why the GOP is afraid of losing it:
The main reason appears to be that Republicans really are worried about their electoral prospects after Trump. The record Democratic turnout in the 2020 election — President-elect Joe Biden turned out 14 million more voters than Hillary Clinton in 2016 — caused many Republicans down-ballot from Trump to sweat their re-election prospects. Luckily for them, however, Trump also turned out an eye-popping 10 million new voters, which was enough to save the skins of many GOP candidates, even as Trump lost by slender margins in swing states.
Trump is a turnout machine for Republicans, who have been desperately casting around for years now for a way to save their party despite demographic changes that make the Democrats more popular among voters. The question of whether there will be Trumpism after Trump now dogs both Republicans who want to replicate their electoral successes under the reality TV president and Democrats who dearly hope this whole disaster was an anomaly.
But for right-leaning voters, I suspect a lot of this distrust flows from a conspiratorial mindset, born from a steady diet of misinformation that has been made all too readily available by the internet. These are the types that populate the audience for Joe Rogan and Alex Jones. These are people who hate Democrats but also feel alienated by the religiosity and elitism of mainstream Republicans, and turn to "alternative" sources of information that are thick with paranoid conspiracy theories. Trump, who indulged the same "alternative facts" that they enjoy, stirred something in them that other Republicans simply couldn't.
In 2014, Pew Research, using extensive data, developed a political typology that sorted Americans into six groups. Two of the Republican-leaning ones are incredibly familiar to political observers, the "steadfast conservatives" and "business conservatives," or, respectively, the religious right and the rich folks who are in it for the tax cuts.
But they also detected an emerging group, which they deemed "young outsiders," who "do not have a strong allegiance to the Republican Party" and, in fact, "tend to dislike both political parties." These voters registered as "socially liberal," insofar as they don't support bans on abortion or gay marriage and, importantly, aren't especially religious.
But the "young outsiders" do share the racism of traditional conservatives. They are easily riled up by the demonization of social spending programs like Obamacare or food stamps They approve of programs, like Medicare, that are viewed as benefiting white people. They're in favor legal marijuana but oppose gun control. And they vote far less often than other conservatives.
I personally believe that the Pew research failed to capture how sexist this group is. The usual proxy questions to measure sexism, such as attitudes towards abortion, simply aren't adequate in this context. I suspect this group, while not as opposed to abortion as other conservatives, is angry about other feminist concerns such as the #MeToo movement, where men's privilege to mistreat women are being attacked.
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."?
People didnt just pour money into Kentucky or wherever out of nowhere. The wider Democrafic political apperatus did a lot to highlight and encourage spending there and for all the uphill fight 22 was, it was nothing on Kentucky. Donations will often follow messaging priorities.
But this highlights my point. If theres 80 million and change to be drummed up for a conservative like McGrath I dont think the issue in a given issue is lack of availability of funding but poor priorization.
You: "Why don't the Dems put more effort into fighting battles, even if they lose? It's the fight that matters."
Also you: "Fuck you for losing, losers."
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.
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."?
People didnt just pour money into Kentucky or wherever out of nowhere. The wider Democrafic political apperatus did a lot to highlight and encourage spending there and for all the uphill fight 22 was, it was nothing on Kentucky. Donations will often follow messaging priorities.
But this highlights my point. If theres 80 million and change to be drummed up for a conservative like McGrath I dont think the issue in a given issue is lack of availability of funding but poor priorization.
Unseating McConnel could have been a bigger win than unseating Trump.
And the money spent on it was wildly in excess of what was wise if other crucial efforts were getting enough attention. The lady got absolutely shellacked.
Im glad Democrats are waking up to down ticket stuff to at least some degree but its combined with the way media works these days to create this kind of regrettable thing where too much emphasis is out on hail mary plays against hated politicans in safe seats.
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."?
People didnt just pour money into Kentucky or wherever out of nowhere. The wider Democrafic political apperatus did a lot to highlight and encourage spending there and for all the uphill fight 22 was, it was nothing on Kentucky. Donations will often follow messaging priorities.
But this highlights my point. If theres 80 million and change to be drummed up for a conservative like McGrath I dont think the issue in a given issue is lack of availability of funding but poor priorization.
You: "Why don't the Dems put more effort into fighting battles, even if they lose? It's the fight that matters."
Also you: "Fuck you for losing, losers."
The fight mattering for its own sake does not mean all fights are equal. Blowing a huge amount of money in Kentucky while efforts like fighting prop 22 starve is still unwise.
Styrofoam Sammich on
+2
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Frankly I wouldn't really want the national party to pour money into fighting a conservative initiative in a single state that could be overriden by federal legislation?
Like if your two longshots are getting the federal legislature or shooting down prop 22 then go for the fed.
Yeah, if we're talking national priorities, unseating McConnell benefits the national scene in a way that fighting Prop 22 doesn't, so it makes a lot more sense as a focus for the national party.
ElJeffe on
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 see no reason to believe that the Democratic party wasn't doing its best based on the information it has and the demands of members and supporters of the party.
+5
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
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.
It's also hard to not take Styro at face value for fitting literally any democratic failure gleefully into his pre-existing worldview of the Democrats being a shitty party that doesn't represent its constituents well. A lot of times Styro is 100% right and the Democrats have consistently failed many, many communities over the last two decades and for long before that. But the assumption that because of that every failure is another nail in the coffin and that anyone associated with the Democrats shares the same failings is a tired, bad faith argument that has been repeated in way too many threads for it not to immediately draw an exasperated sigh from me. It's easy to yell from a soapbox about how everything sucks and everyone else fails, but I've yet to see any evidence that Styro et al. have done any meaningful action to contribute to change while the people they tear down, the actual Party, does every day with relentless enthusiasm and thankless efforts.
There is no goalpost that can't be moved to satisfy his praxis. No line that the Democrats could meet that would be greeted with a nod of acknowledgement. We've literally had multiple threads where he sets out a "if they wanted to meet my expectations they would do X" then, about a page or two later X happens, and he calls it not enough, too late to matter, and worthless.
Chasing that is exhausting, unproductive, and turns threads like this into a mire of negativity rather than an examination of where things are, what worked, and where work needs to be done. That last piece isn't "EVERYTHING BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE AWFUL," and when that argument gets shouted over and over and over it really drowns out the actual work that needs to be done.
I logged several hundred hours this cycle in paid and pro bono political activity for a wide variety if causes and candidates. Off the top of my head Id say most of them were DNC or DNC aligned.
You people are too into making policy arguments about the people making them.
So what makes your efforts serious, and those fighting Prop 22 a joke?
A big challenge for fighting 22, and this comes up all the time in other fights to, is that to some degree you really want party buy in but the people youre working against have a connection to the supposed labor party stronger than you could ever hope for. Multiple Obama people work for the exploitstors in the gig economy now.
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."?
People didnt just pour money into Kentucky or wherever out of nowhere. The wider Democrafic political apperatus did a lot to highlight and encourage spending there and for all the uphill fight 22 was, it was nothing on Kentucky. Donations will often follow messaging priorities.
But this highlights my point. If theres 80 million and change to be drummed up for a conservative like McGrath I dont think the issue in a given issue is lack of availability of funding but poor priorization.
Unseating McConnel could have been a bigger win than unseating Trump.
And the money spent on it was wildly in excess of what was wise if other crucial efforts were getting enough attention. The lady got absolutely shellacked.
Im glad Democrats are waking up to down ticket stuff to at least some degree but its combined with the way media works these days to create this kind of regrettable thing where too much emphasis is out on hail mary plays against hated politicans in safe seats.
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."?
People didnt just pour money into Kentucky or wherever out of nowhere. The wider Democrafic political apperatus did a lot to highlight and encourage spending there and for all the uphill fight 22 was, it was nothing on Kentucky. Donations will often follow messaging priorities.
But this highlights my point. If theres 80 million and change to be drummed up for a conservative like McGrath I dont think the issue in a given issue is lack of availability of funding but poor priorization.
You: "Why don't the Dems put more effort into fighting battles, even if they lose? It's the fight that matters."
Also you: "Fuck you for losing, losers."
The fight mattering for its own sake does not mean all fights are equal. Blowing a huge amount of money in Kentucky while efforts like fighting prop 22 starve is still unwise.
Except that kicking McConnell out would be a bigger net positive for everyone in the country than defeating prop 22.
And once again here we are. The party should simultaneously fight harder...but only where you think they should.
They should also fight battles even if they are a losing effort...but just the battles you, in hindsight, say are the logical fights. And when they lose, “well fuck you, losers. Why didn’t you do “x” instead”.
There is literally no action that the party can take that won’t either be a wasted effort, or a fight for the wrong thing.
The argument I feel like we've already had and if not we should be having is that the Dems backed a bad candidate against McConnell. Clearly beyond a certain point money doesn't help.
A big challenge for fighting 22, and this comes up all the time in other fights to, is that to some degree you really want party buy in but the people youre working against have a connection to the supposed labor party stronger than you could ever hope for. Multiple Obama people work for the exploitstors in the gig economy now.
I am willing to bet any amount of money that close to 95% of voters and volunteers didn’t know, or care which members of team Obama work for Uber.
Kicking McConnell to the curb would arguably have been an even greater win than unseating Trump in terms of preserving the Republic. There is no amount of money you can place as a price tag on that.
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."?
People didnt just pour money into Kentucky or wherever out of nowhere. The wider Democrafic political apperatus did a lot to highlight and encourage spending there and for all the uphill fight 22 was, it was nothing on Kentucky. Donations will often follow messaging priorities.
But this highlights my point. If theres 80 million and change to be drummed up for a conservative like McGrath I dont think the issue in a given issue is lack of availability of funding but poor priorization.
Unseating McConnel could have been a bigger win than unseating Trump.
And the money spent on it was wildly in excess of what was wise if other crucial efforts were getting enough attention. The lady got absolutely shellacked.
Im glad Democrats are waking up to down ticket stuff to at least some degree but its combined with the way media works these days to create this kind of regrettable thing where too much emphasis is out on hail mary plays against hated politicans in safe seats.
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."?
People didnt just pour money into Kentucky or wherever out of nowhere. The wider Democrafic political apperatus did a lot to highlight and encourage spending there and for all the uphill fight 22 was, it was nothing on Kentucky. Donations will often follow messaging priorities.
But this highlights my point. If theres 80 million and change to be drummed up for a conservative like McGrath I dont think the issue in a given issue is lack of availability of funding but poor priorization.
You: "Why don't the Dems put more effort into fighting battles, even if they lose? It's the fight that matters."
Also you: "Fuck you for losing, losers."
The fight mattering for its own sake does not mean all fights are equal. Blowing a huge amount of money in Kentucky while efforts like fighting prop 22 starve is still unwise.
Except that kicking McConnell out would be a bigger net positive for everyone in the country than defeating prop 22.
And once again here we are. The party should simultaneously fight harder...but only where you think they should.
They should also fight battles even if they are a losing effort...but just the battles you, in hindsight, say are the logical fights. And when they lose, “well fuck you, losers. Why didn’t you do “x” instead”.
There is literally no action that the party can take that won’t either be a wasted effort, or a fight for the wrong thing.
You recall why I said fighting losing fights is good right? Builds activist networks, sets up for the next fight etc. Im not sure how McGraths long shot run did much in that regard. Are we in a better spot next time to unseat McConnell for those efforts? I dont think so.
Meanwhile labor organization, and the DNCs ties to it are in bad need of repair and the gig economy's war on labor rights isnt going away.
Im glad someone ran against McConnell. Im fine with some out of state money getting dumped in, but 22 should have been more of a priority. If the Party, in its various forms, had done more to bring it up as the national issue that it truly is it night have gotten the financial deluge too.
Some here say "well its not a national issue" or whatever but I think of it like when some state legislature tries to ban abortion. We dont say "well thats just Missouri's fight" because we know its not and national attention from the liberal side of politics gets dumped in. We could do more to foster that kind of attention and subsequent funding on other civil rights issues like labor protections.
A big challenge for fighting 22, and this comes up all the time in other fights to, is that to some degree you really want party buy in but the people youre working against have a connection to the supposed labor party stronger than you could ever hope for. Multiple Obama people work for the exploitstors in the gig economy now.
I am willing to bet any amount of money that close to 95% of voters and volunteers didn’t know, or care which members of team Obama work for Uber.
More to the point, opposition to the gig economy is a relatively recent movement. I can remember most people pointing out how Uber, Airbnb, etc were good for our economy and society not that long ago.
This is a good piece about where Trump's "red wave" came from - and why the GOP is afraid of losing it:
The main reason appears to be that Republicans really are worried about their electoral prospects after Trump. The record Democratic turnout in the 2020 election — President-elect Joe Biden turned out 14 million more voters than Hillary Clinton in 2016 — caused many Republicans down-ballot from Trump to sweat their re-election prospects. Luckily for them, however, Trump also turned out an eye-popping 10 million new voters, which was enough to save the skins of many GOP candidates, even as Trump lost by slender margins in swing states.
Trump is a turnout machine for Republicans, who have been desperately casting around for years now for a way to save their party despite demographic changes that make the Democrats more popular among voters. The question of whether there will be Trumpism after Trump now dogs both Republicans who want to replicate their electoral successes under the reality TV president and Democrats who dearly hope this whole disaster was an anomaly.
But for right-leaning voters, I suspect a lot of this distrust flows from a conspiratorial mindset, born from a steady diet of misinformation that has been made all too readily available by the internet. These are the types that populate the audience for Joe Rogan and Alex Jones. These are people who hate Democrats but also feel alienated by the religiosity and elitism of mainstream Republicans, and turn to "alternative" sources of information that are thick with paranoid conspiracy theories. Trump, who indulged the same "alternative facts" that they enjoy, stirred something in them that other Republicans simply couldn't.
In 2014, Pew Research, using extensive data, developed a political typology that sorted Americans into six groups. Two of the Republican-leaning ones are incredibly familiar to political observers, the "steadfast conservatives" and "business conservatives," or, respectively, the religious right and the rich folks who are in it for the tax cuts.
But they also detected an emerging group, which they deemed "young outsiders," who "do not have a strong allegiance to the Republican Party" and, in fact, "tend to dislike both political parties." These voters registered as "socially liberal," insofar as they don't support bans on abortion or gay marriage and, importantly, aren't especially religious.
But the "young outsiders" do share the racism of traditional conservatives. They are easily riled up by the demonization of social spending programs like Obamacare or food stamps They approve of programs, like Medicare, that are viewed as benefiting white people. They're in favor legal marijuana but oppose gun control. And they vote far less often than other conservatives.
I personally believe that the Pew research failed to capture how sexist this group is. The usual proxy questions to measure sexism, such as attitudes towards abortion, simply aren't adequate in this context. I suspect this group, while not as opposed to abortion as other conservatives, is angry about other feminist concerns such as the #MeToo movement, where men's privilege to mistreat women are being attacked.
I have a friend who falls just to the fringe of the "young outsiders", I don't know if he voted for Trump, but he didn't vote for Biden. He's ok with Trump losing because "hopefully this will allow work to get done". However he really opposes people getting stuff for "free". He's not overtly racist and he's gotten better over the years as we've (me and other friends) call him out, but you hear it under the surface. It's challenging because he's somebody who you can have a conversation with about politics and the world and he's interested in hearing other views, but the needle just moves very slowly for him.
A big challenge for fighting 22, and this comes up all the time in other fights to, is that to some degree you really want party buy in but the people youre working against have a connection to the supposed labor party stronger than you could ever hope for. Multiple Obama people work for the exploitstors in the gig economy now.
I am willing to bet any amount of money that close to 95% of voters and volunteers didn’t know, or care which members of team Obama work for Uber.
Absolutely true, but not what Im saying. Its hard to win over establishment dems for your working class activism when the guys youre working against have personal connections with the people youre trying to win over.
+3
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.
Well, except in Texas. And Georgia. And Colorado. And Virginia. And so on.
I'm legitimately having issues figuring out the implication here
Democrats are doing exactly what Styro is saying they aren't.
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
Democrats are doing exactly what Styro is saying they aren't.
Youll have to be more clear Im afraid, I wasnt sure what you were referencing either.
0
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.
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.
Popping back here, the point I'm making here is that because people have been working on this assumption makes it true. The parties are built on these assumptions. Their polices demand it. And that axis goes back way long than 30 years. Its the core of American politics since the Continental Congress. We've never been a nation that tilts based on labor and capital like France or the UK, that hasn't ever been the real dichotomy, even in the height of Union power in the US. We have labor making strong showings in both parties, and motivated showings in both parties. Our resource labor in rural America and our industrial/service labor in the urban and edge cities have a lot in common when looked at on a Maxist lens! That said, they don't ever get along due to other, longstanding issues creating a divide between them. Issues of race, of identity, of resource allocations, of religion. The axis of US politics just doesn't allow for a labor party to exist as one of the two primary parties because our labor populations have deep, deep cultural divides that cannot be bridged with slogans and figureheads. For the same reasons, we can't have one capital party because our capital has two very different worldviews of what capitalism should be and should do. One is capitalism through a socialist lens, which appeals to a large swath of the middle and upper-middle classes and those seeking new capital investments on a fair playing field. One is capitalism through a kleptocratic lens, which strongly appeals to those who are already winners, already hold the keys of power and money, and don't want that to change.
If you could unite labor in the US, you would have solved the issues of racism, religious tolerance, LGBT tolerance, wage security, health care, and age security nationwide before you could have done so. Which is to say, impossible.
Enc on
+14
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.
Well, except in Texas. And Georgia. And Colorado. And Virginia. And so on.
I'm legitimately having issues figuring out the implication here
Democrats are doing exactly what Styro is saying they aren't.
Youll have to be more clear Im afraid, I wasnt sure what you were referencing either.
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
Democrats are doing exactly what Styro is saying they aren't.
Youll have to be more clear Im afraid, I wasnt sure what you were referencing either.
Those are states where the Dems are investing in the networks and connections you are talking about. 2 are in the process, and 2 are somewhat better success stories.
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
Democrats are doing exactly what Styro is saying they aren't.
Youll have to be more clear Im afraid, I wasnt sure what you were referencing either.
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
Democrats are doing exactly what Styro is saying they aren't.
Youll have to be more clear Im afraid, I wasnt sure what you were referencing either.
Those are states where the Dems are investing in the networks and connections you are talking about. 2 are in the process, and 2 are somewhat better success stories.
Sure and they're good for their part and in varying degrees. Hopefully a sign of better efforts to come in general.
0
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.
Well, except in Texas. And Georgia. And Colorado. And Virginia. And so on.
I'm legitimately having issues figuring out the implication here
Democrats are doing exactly what Styro is saying they aren't.
Youll have to be more clear Im afraid, I wasnt sure what you were referencing either.
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
Democrats are doing exactly what Styro is saying they aren't.
Youll have to be more clear Im afraid, I wasnt sure what you were referencing either.
Those are states where the Dems are investing in the networks and connections you are talking about. 2 are in the process, and 2 are somewhat better success stories.
Sure and they're good for their part and in varying degrees. Hopefully a sign of better efforts to come in general.
So, one might say, Democrats aren't actually sucking at this right now.
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.
Popping back here, the point I'm making here is that because people have been working on this assumption makes it true. The parties are built on these assumptions. Their polices demand it. And that axis goes back way long than 30 years. Its the core of American politics since the Continental Congress. We've never been a nation that tilts based on labor and capital like France or the UK, that hasn't ever been the real dichotomy, even in the height of Union power in the US. We have labor making strong showings in both parties, and motivated showings in both parties. Our resource labor in rural America and our industrial/service labor in the urban and edge cities have a lot in common when looked at on a Maxist lens! That said, they don't ever get along due to other, longstanding issues creating a divide between them. Issues of race, of identity, of resource allocations, of religion. The axis of US politics just doesn't allow for a labor party to exist as one of the two primary parties because our labor populations have deep, deep cultural divides that cannot be bridged with slogans and figureheads. For the same reasons, we can't have one capital party because our capital has two very different worldviews of what capitalism should be and should do. One is capitalism through a socialist lens, which appeals to a large swath of the middle and upper-middle classes and those seeking new capital investments on a fair playing field. One is capitalism through a kleptocratic lens, which strongly appeals to those who are already winners, already hold the keys of power and money, and don't want that to change.
If you could unite labor in the US, you would have solved the issues of racism, religious tolerance, LGBT tolerance, wage security, health care, and age security nationwide before you could have done so. Which is to say, impossible.
I don't disagree that the ubran/rural divide is a fundamental stress point to our government, but I feel that what you're saying doesn't square with the congressional dominance of new deal democrats over the course of most of the 20th century.
I agree that labor collapsed because of bigotry in the face of shifting demographics and workforce roles, but that doesn't mean it will always fail or isn't worth pursuing in light of people becoming more accepting of others in their reality even if not in their rhetoric.
We had a labor party in America from 1932 to 1992.
I guess I don't know what you're arguing, more of the same because it's working so well?
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
Democrats are doing exactly what Styro is saying they aren't.
Youll have to be more clear Im afraid, I wasnt sure what you were referencing either.
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
Democrats are doing exactly what Styro is saying they aren't.
Youll have to be more clear Im afraid, I wasnt sure what you were referencing either.
Those are states where the Dems are investing in the networks and connections you are talking about. 2 are in the process, and 2 are somewhat better success stories.
Sure and they're good for their part and in varying degrees. Hopefully a sign of better efforts to come in general.
So, one might say, Democrats aren't actually sucking at this right now.
A .125 batting average doesnt mean you are good at it or have never hit the ball.
There are some optimistic signs and outcomes in certain places that should be rewarded and fostered. On the whole the work to be done remains vast.
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.
Popping back here, the point I'm making here is that because people have been working on this assumption makes it true. The parties are built on these assumptions. Their polices demand it. And that axis goes back way long than 30 years. Its the core of American politics since the Continental Congress. We've never been a nation that tilts based on labor and capital like France or the UK, that hasn't ever been the real dichotomy, even in the height of Union power in the US. We have labor making strong showings in both parties, and motivated showings in both parties. Our resource labor in rural America and our industrial/service labor in the urban and edge cities have a lot in common when looked at on a Maxist lens! That said, they don't ever get along due to other, longstanding issues creating a divide between them. Issues of race, of identity, of resource allocations, of religion. The axis of US politics just doesn't allow for a labor party to exist as one of the two primary parties because our labor populations have deep, deep cultural divides that cannot be bridged with slogans and figureheads. For the same reasons, we can't have one capital party because our capital has two very different worldviews of what capitalism should be and should do. One is capitalism through a socialist lens, which appeals to a large swath of the middle and upper-middle classes and those seeking new capital investments on a fair playing field. One is capitalism through a kleptocratic lens, which strongly appeals to those who are already winners, already hold the keys of power and money, and don't want that to change.
If you could unite labor in the US, you would have solved the issues of racism, religious tolerance, LGBT tolerance, wage security, health care, and age security nationwide before you could have done so. Which is to say, impossible.
I don't disagree that the ubran/rural divide is a fundamental stress point to our government, but I feel that what you're saying doesn't square with the congressional dominance of new deal democrats over the course of most of the 20th century.
I agree that labor collapsed because of bigotry in the face of shifting demographics and workforce roles, but that doesn't mean it will always fail or isn't worth pursuing in light of people becoming more accepting of others in their reality even if not in their rhetoric.
We had a labor party in America from 1932 to 1992.
I guess I don't know what you're arguing, more of the same because it's working so well?
Yes, we had a labor party over that time - that notoriously made deals to privilege white workers in order to get policy passed, and whose decline coincided with the party becoming more supportive of civil rights. Again, hardhats - socially conservative labor workers - have been a major part of why labor in the US collapsed as a political force, as the movement literally attacked their allies in support of the people who wanted to break labor. And those same social dynamics haven't gone away.
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.
Popping back here, the point I'm making here is that because people have been working on this assumption makes it true. The parties are built on these assumptions. Their polices demand it. And that axis goes back way long than 30 years. Its the core of American politics since the Continental Congress. We've never been a nation that tilts based on labor and capital like France or the UK, that hasn't ever been the real dichotomy, even in the height of Union power in the US. We have labor making strong showings in both parties, and motivated showings in both parties. Our resource labor in rural America and our industrial/service labor in the urban and edge cities have a lot in common when looked at on a Maxist lens! That said, they don't ever get along due to other, longstanding issues creating a divide between them. Issues of race, of identity, of resource allocations, of religion. The axis of US politics just doesn't allow for a labor party to exist as one of the two primary parties because our labor populations have deep, deep cultural divides that cannot be bridged with slogans and figureheads. For the same reasons, we can't have one capital party because our capital has two very different worldviews of what capitalism should be and should do. One is capitalism through a socialist lens, which appeals to a large swath of the middle and upper-middle classes and those seeking new capital investments on a fair playing field. One is capitalism through a kleptocratic lens, which strongly appeals to those who are already winners, already hold the keys of power and money, and don't want that to change.
If you could unite labor in the US, you would have solved the issues of racism, religious tolerance, LGBT tolerance, wage security, health care, and age security nationwide before you could have done so. Which is to say, impossible.
I don't disagree that the ubran/rural divide is a fundamental stress point to our government, but I feel that what you're saying doesn't square with the congressional dominance of new deal democrats over the course of most of the 20th century.
I agree that labor collapsed because of bigotry in the face of shifting demographics and workforce roles, but that doesn't mean it will always fail or isn't worth pursuing in light of people becoming more accepting of others in their reality even if not in their rhetoric.
We had a labor party in America from 1932 to 1992.
I guess I don't know what you're arguing, more of the same because it's working so well?
I'm arguing that a labor party, bound as such, will inevitably only hold half of that labor at most. You might get a labor party which aligns conservative socially and get ~some~ of the rural labor groups, or one that aligns liberal socially and get ~some~ the urban groups. What happens in the end, and what happened for all of the Labor Party's history, is that whichever group goes toward that party loses on all fronts. If Labor aligns with a socially liberal front, it will cause the Democratic party to hemmorage votes and neither will win, but it itself will also never win, because the conservative labor pool will caucus with kleptocratic capital and overwhelm them. The other side of things literally is the reason we have President Biden right now. The Libertarian Party caused the GOP to hemmorage just enough votes in just enough states that Biden won. Because of that, voters who traditionally would have voted for the GOP in most cases lost, as did the GOP.
Neither of the two main parties can align on a Labor vs Capitalist ideology. You can't unify capital in the US, and you can't unify labor in the US. It just doesn't work that way, because there aren't unified Marxist ideologies that preclude other issues like identity politics like we see in Europe.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try to help labor of all kinds, I've specifically called out that we must do so previously on the last few pages. What I'm saying is that there isn't a fundamental way to bridge labor into a single successful party that will actually achieve the goals of all labor. It will always be self-sabotaging due to how first-past-the-post works.
Enc on
+5
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.
Well, except in Texas. And Georgia. And Colorado. And Virginia. And so on.
I'm legitimately having issues figuring out the implication here
Democrats are doing exactly what Styro is saying they aren't.
Youll have to be more clear Im afraid, I wasnt sure what you were referencing either.
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
Democrats are doing exactly what Styro is saying they aren't.
Youll have to be more clear Im afraid, I wasnt sure what you were referencing either.
Those are states where the Dems are investing in the networks and connections you are talking about. 2 are in the process, and 2 are somewhat better success stories.
Sure and they're good for their part and in varying degrees. Hopefully a sign of better efforts to come in general.
So, one might say, Democrats aren't actually sucking at this right now.
A .125 batting average doesnt mean you are good at it or have never hit the ball.
There are some optimistic signs and outcomes in certain places that should be rewarded and fostered. On the whole the work to be done remains vast.
I know there aren't goalposts in baseball, but I feel like the outfield just streeeeeeetched another 100 yards just now. Must be a trick of the light.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
A big challenge for fighting 22, and this comes up all the time in other fights to, is that to some degree you really want party buy in but the people youre working against have a connection to the supposed labor party stronger than you could ever hope for. Multiple Obama people work for the exploitstors in the gig economy now.
I am willing to bet any amount of money that close to 95% of voters and volunteers didn’t know, or care which members of team Obama work for Uber.
Absolutely true, but not what Im saying. Its hard to win over establishment dems for your working class activism when the guys youre working against have personal connections with the people youre trying to win over.
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
Democrats are doing exactly what Styro is saying they aren't.
Youll have to be more clear Im afraid, I wasnt sure what you were referencing either.
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
Democrats are doing exactly what Styro is saying they aren't.
Youll have to be more clear Im afraid, I wasnt sure what you were referencing either.
Those are states where the Dems are investing in the networks and connections you are talking about. 2 are in the process, and 2 are somewhat better success stories.
Sure and they're good for their part and in varying degrees. Hopefully a sign of better efforts to come in general.
So, one might say, Democrats aren't actually sucking at this right now.
A .125 batting average doesnt mean you are good at it or have never hit the ball.
There are some optimistic signs and outcomes in certain places that should be rewarded and fostered. On the whole the work to be done remains vast.
I know there aren't goalposts in baseball, but I feel like the outfield just streeeeeeetched another 100 yards just now. Must be a trick of the light.
I feel like there's little conversation to be had when any clarification, confusion, or elaboration is moving the goal posts.
If someone says they suck at cooking that doesnt mean theyve never produced a palatable meal.
You seem so set on the idea that Im operating in bad faith that youve allowed yourself to indulge in some.
A big challenge for fighting 22, and this comes up all the time in other fights to, is that to some degree you really want party buy in but the people youre working against have a connection to the supposed labor party stronger than you could ever hope for. Multiple Obama people work for the exploitstors in the gig economy now.
I am willing to bet any amount of money that close to 95% of voters and volunteers didn’t know, or care which members of team Obama work for Uber.
Absolutely true, but not what Im saying. Its hard to win over establishment dems for your working class activism when the guys youre working against have personal connections with the people youre trying to win over.
What race did Obama run in this year?
What does that have to do with high level dems working on the pro-22 campaign?
A big challenge for fighting 22, and this comes up all the time in other fights to, is that to some degree you really want party buy in but the people youre working against have a connection to the supposed labor party stronger than you could ever hope for. Multiple Obama people work for the exploitstors in the gig economy now.
I am willing to bet any amount of money that close to 95% of voters and volunteers didn’t know, or care which members of team Obama work for Uber.
Absolutely true, but not what Im saying. Its hard to win over establishment dems for your working class activism when the guys youre working against have personal connections with the people youre trying to win over.
What race did Obama run in this year?
Huh? Im making the same basic "revolving doors hurt activism" argument we share all the time, just as it relates to how Prop 22 shook out.
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.
Popping back here, the point I'm making here is that because people have been working on this assumption makes it true. The parties are built on these assumptions. Their polices demand it. And that axis goes back way long than 30 years. Its the core of American politics since the Continental Congress. We've never been a nation that tilts based on labor and capital like France or the UK, that hasn't ever been the real dichotomy, even in the height of Union power in the US. We have labor making strong showings in both parties, and motivated showings in both parties. Our resource labor in rural America and our industrial/service labor in the urban and edge cities have a lot in common when looked at on a Maxist lens! That said, they don't ever get along due to other, longstanding issues creating a divide between them. Issues of race, of identity, of resource allocations, of religion. The axis of US politics just doesn't allow for a labor party to exist as one of the two primary parties because our labor populations have deep, deep cultural divides that cannot be bridged with slogans and figureheads. For the same reasons, we can't have one capital party because our capital has two very different worldviews of what capitalism should be and should do. One is capitalism through a socialist lens, which appeals to a large swath of the middle and upper-middle classes and those seeking new capital investments on a fair playing field. One is capitalism through a kleptocratic lens, which strongly appeals to those who are already winners, already hold the keys of power and money, and don't want that to change.
If you could unite labor in the US, you would have solved the issues of racism, religious tolerance, LGBT tolerance, wage security, health care, and age security nationwide before you could have done so. Which is to say, impossible.
I don't disagree that the ubran/rural divide is a fundamental stress point to our government, but I feel that what you're saying doesn't square with the congressional dominance of new deal democrats over the course of most of the 20th century.
I agree that labor collapsed because of bigotry in the face of shifting demographics and workforce roles, but that doesn't mean it will always fail or isn't worth pursuing in light of people becoming more accepting of others in their reality even if not in their rhetoric.
We had a labor party in America from 1932 to 1992.
I guess I don't know what you're arguing, more of the same because it's working so well?
I'm arguing that a labor party, bound as such, will inevitably only hold half of that labor at most. You might get a labor party which aligns conservative socially and get ~some~ of the rural labor groups, or one that aligns liberal socially and get ~some~ the urban groups. What happens in the end, and what happened for all of the Labor Party's history, is that whichever group goes toward that party loses on all fronts. If Labor aligns with a socially liberal front, it will cause the Democratic party to hemmorage votes and neither will win, but it itself will also never win, because the conservative labor pool will caucus with kleptocratic capital and overwhelm them. The other side of things literally is the reason we have President Biden right now. The Libertarian Party caused the GOP to hemmorage just enough votes in just enough states that Biden won. Because of that, voters who traditionally would have voted for the GOP in most cases lost, as did the GOP.
Neither of the two main parties can align on a Labor vs Capitalist ideology. You can't unify capital in the US, and you can't unify labor in the US. It just doesn't work that way, because there aren't unified Marxist ideologies that preclude other issues like identity politics like we see in Europe.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try to help labor of all kinds, I've specifically called out that we must do so previously on the last few pages. What I'm saying is that there isn't a fundamental way to bridge labor into a single successful party that will actually achieve the goals of all labor. It will always be self-sabotaging due to how first-past-the-post works.
It's worth noting that part of the backlash to the 1619 Project was from Marxist scholars and activists,who saw the position raised by the Project as a threat to their class based model of the world.
A big challenge for fighting 22, and this comes up all the time in other fights to, is that to some degree you really want party buy in but the people youre working against have a connection to the supposed labor party stronger than you could ever hope for. Multiple Obama people work for the exploitstors in the gig economy now.
I am willing to bet any amount of money that close to 95% of voters and volunteers didn’t know, or care which members of team Obama work for Uber.
Absolutely true, but not what Im saying. Its hard to win over establishment dems for your working class activism when the guys youre working against have personal connections with the people youre trying to win over.
What race did Obama run in this year?
What does that have to do with high level dems working on the pro-22 campaign?
What does a former presidents people working in corporate America 4+ years afterwards have to do with literally anything WRT to the party platform as a whole?
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.
Popping back here, the point I'm making here is that because people have been working on this assumption makes it true. The parties are built on these assumptions. Their polices demand it. And that axis goes back way long than 30 years. Its the core of American politics since the Continental Congress. We've never been a nation that tilts based on labor and capital like France or the UK, that hasn't ever been the real dichotomy, even in the height of Union power in the US. We have labor making strong showings in both parties, and motivated showings in both parties. Our resource labor in rural America and our industrial/service labor in the urban and edge cities have a lot in common when looked at on a Maxist lens! That said, they don't ever get along due to other, longstanding issues creating a divide between them. Issues of race, of identity, of resource allocations, of religion. The axis of US politics just doesn't allow for a labor party to exist as one of the two primary parties because our labor populations have deep, deep cultural divides that cannot be bridged with slogans and figureheads. For the same reasons, we can't have one capital party because our capital has two very different worldviews of what capitalism should be and should do. One is capitalism through a socialist lens, which appeals to a large swath of the middle and upper-middle classes and those seeking new capital investments on a fair playing field. One is capitalism through a kleptocratic lens, which strongly appeals to those who are already winners, already hold the keys of power and money, and don't want that to change.
If you could unite labor in the US, you would have solved the issues of racism, religious tolerance, LGBT tolerance, wage security, health care, and age security nationwide before you could have done so. Which is to say, impossible.
I don't disagree that the ubran/rural divide is a fundamental stress point to our government, but I feel that what you're saying doesn't square with the congressional dominance of new deal democrats over the course of most of the 20th century.
I agree that labor collapsed because of bigotry in the face of shifting demographics and workforce roles, but that doesn't mean it will always fail or isn't worth pursuing in light of people becoming more accepting of others in their reality even if not in their rhetoric.
We had a labor party in America from 1932 to 1992.
I guess I don't know what you're arguing, more of the same because it's working so well?
I'm arguing that a labor party, bound as such, will inevitably only hold half of that labor at most. You might get a labor party which aligns conservative socially and get ~some~ of the rural labor groups, or one that aligns liberal socially and get ~some~ the urban groups. What happens in the end, and what happened for all of the Labor Party's history, is that whichever group goes toward that party loses on all fronts. If Labor aligns with a socially liberal front, it will cause the Democratic party to hemmorage votes and neither will win, but it itself will also never win, because the conservative labor pool will caucus with kleptocratic capital and overwhelm them. The other side of things literally is the reason we have President Biden right now. The Libertarian Party caused the GOP to hemmorage just enough votes in just enough states that Biden won. Because of that, voters who traditionally would have voted for the GOP in most cases lost, as did the GOP.
Neither of the two main parties can align on a Labor vs Capitalist ideology. You can't unify capital in the US, and you can't unify labor in the US. It just doesn't work that way, because there aren't unified Marxist ideologies that preclude other issues like identity politics like we see in Europe.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try to help labor of all kinds, I've specifically called out that we must do so previously on the last few pages. What I'm saying is that there isn't a fundamental way to bridge labor into a single successful party that will actually achieve the goals of all labor. It will always be self-sabotaging due to how first-past-the-post works.
It's worth noting that part of the backlash to the 1619 Project was from Marxist scholars and activists,who saw the position raised by the Project as a threat to their class based model of the world.
Hmmmm one of my takeaways going through it was how the forces of greed rallied around white supremacy as their tool of choice to maintain their grip on control
A big challenge for fighting 22, and this comes up all the time in other fights to, is that to some degree you really want party buy in but the people youre working against have a connection to the supposed labor party stronger than you could ever hope for. Multiple Obama people work for the exploitstors in the gig economy now.
I am willing to bet any amount of money that close to 95% of voters and volunteers didn’t know, or care which members of team Obama work for Uber.
Absolutely true, but not what Im saying. Its hard to win over establishment dems for your working class activism when the guys youre working against have personal connections with the people youre trying to win over.
What race did Obama run in this year?
What does that have to do with high level dems working on the pro-22 campaign?
What does a former presidents people working in corporate America 4+ years afterwards have to do with literally anything WRT to the party platform as a whole?
Former high ranking government people have connections to current high ranking government people that the rest of us never will and it can sway policy both passively and actively.
This is a pretty basic component of how our lobbying systen is broken
Posts
It's also hard to not take Styro at face value for fitting literally any democratic failure gleefully into his pre-existing worldview of the Democrats being a shitty party that doesn't represent its constituents well. A lot of times Styro is 100% right and the Democrats have consistently failed many, many communities over the last two decades and for long before that. But the assumption that because of that every failure is another nail in the coffin and that anyone associated with the Democrats shares the same failings is a tired, bad faith argument that has been repeated in way too many threads for it not to immediately draw an exasperated sigh from me. It's easy to yell from a soapbox about how everything sucks and everyone else fails, but I've yet to see any evidence that Styro et al. have done any meaningful action to contribute to change while the people they tear down, the actual Party, does every day with relentless enthusiasm and thankless efforts.
There is no goalpost that can't be moved to satisfy his praxis. No line that the Democrats could meet that would be greeted with a nod of acknowledgement. We've literally had multiple threads where he sets out a "if they wanted to meet my expectations they would do X" then, about a page or two later X happens, and he calls it not enough, too late to matter, and worthless.
Chasing that is exhausting, unproductive, and turns threads like this into a mire of negativity rather than an examination of where things are, what worked, and where work needs to be done. That last piece isn't "EVERYTHING BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE AWFUL," and when that argument gets shouted over and over and over it really drowns out the actual work that needs to be done.
People didnt just pour money into Kentucky or wherever out of nowhere. The wider Democrafic political apperatus did a lot to highlight and encourage spending there and for all the uphill fight 22 was, it was nothing on Kentucky. Donations will often follow messaging priorities.
But this highlights my point. If theres 80 million and change to be drummed up for a conservative like McGrath I dont think the issue in a given issue is lack of availability of funding but poor priorization.
I logged several hundred hours this cycle in paid and pro bono political activity for a wide variety if causes and candidates. Off the top of my head Id say most of them were DNC or DNC aligned.
You people are too into making policy arguments about the people making them.
Like if your two longshots are getting the federal legislature or shooting down prop 22 then go for the fed.
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
Unseating McConnel could have been a bigger win than unseating Trump.
You: "Why don't the Dems put more effort into fighting battles, even if they lose? It's the fight that matters."
Also you: "Fuck you for losing, losers."
And the money spent on it was wildly in excess of what was wise if other crucial efforts were getting enough attention. The lady got absolutely shellacked.
Im glad Democrats are waking up to down ticket stuff to at least some degree but its combined with the way media works these days to create this kind of regrettable thing where too much emphasis is out on hail mary plays against hated politicans in safe seats.
The fight mattering for its own sake does not mean all fights are equal. Blowing a huge amount of money in Kentucky while efforts like fighting prop 22 starve is still unwise.
Yeah, if we're talking national priorities, unseating McConnell benefits the national scene in a way that fighting Prop 22 doesn't, so it makes a lot more sense as a focus for the national party.
So what makes your efforts serious, and those fighting Prop 22 a joke?
Except that kicking McConnell out would be a bigger net positive for everyone in the country than defeating prop 22.
And once again here we are. The party should simultaneously fight harder...but only where you think they should.
They should also fight battles even if they are a losing effort...but just the battles you, in hindsight, say are the logical fights. And when they lose, “well fuck you, losers. Why didn’t you do “x” instead”.
There is literally no action that the party can take that won’t either be a wasted effort, or a fight for the wrong thing.
I am willing to bet any amount of money that close to 95% of voters and volunteers didn’t know, or care which members of team Obama work for Uber.
You recall why I said fighting losing fights is good right? Builds activist networks, sets up for the next fight etc. Im not sure how McGraths long shot run did much in that regard. Are we in a better spot next time to unseat McConnell for those efforts? I dont think so.
Meanwhile labor organization, and the DNCs ties to it are in bad need of repair and the gig economy's war on labor rights isnt going away.
Im glad someone ran against McConnell. Im fine with some out of state money getting dumped in, but 22 should have been more of a priority. If the Party, in its various forms, had done more to bring it up as the national issue that it truly is it night have gotten the financial deluge too.
Some here say "well its not a national issue" or whatever but I think of it like when some state legislature tries to ban abortion. We dont say "well thats just Missouri's fight" because we know its not and national attention from the liberal side of politics gets dumped in. We could do more to foster that kind of attention and subsequent funding on other civil rights issues like labor protections.
More to the point, opposition to the gig economy is a relatively recent movement. I can remember most people pointing out how Uber, Airbnb, etc were good for our economy and society not that long ago.
I have a friend who falls just to the fringe of the "young outsiders", I don't know if he voted for Trump, but he didn't vote for Biden. He's ok with Trump losing because "hopefully this will allow work to get done". However he really opposes people getting stuff for "free". He's not overtly racist and he's gotten better over the years as we've (me and other friends) call him out, but you hear it under the surface. It's challenging because he's somebody who you can have a conversation with about politics and the world and he's interested in hearing other views, but the needle just moves very slowly for him.
Magic Online - Bertro
Absolutely true, but not what Im saying. Its hard to win over establishment dems for your working class activism when the guys youre working against have personal connections with the people youre trying to win over.
Democrats are doing exactly what Styro is saying they aren't.
Youll have to be more clear Im afraid, I wasnt sure what you were referencing either.
Popping back here, the point I'm making here is that because people have been working on this assumption makes it true. The parties are built on these assumptions. Their polices demand it. And that axis goes back way long than 30 years. Its the core of American politics since the Continental Congress. We've never been a nation that tilts based on labor and capital like France or the UK, that hasn't ever been the real dichotomy, even in the height of Union power in the US. We have labor making strong showings in both parties, and motivated showings in both parties. Our resource labor in rural America and our industrial/service labor in the urban and edge cities have a lot in common when looked at on a Maxist lens! That said, they don't ever get along due to other, longstanding issues creating a divide between them. Issues of race, of identity, of resource allocations, of religion. The axis of US politics just doesn't allow for a labor party to exist as one of the two primary parties because our labor populations have deep, deep cultural divides that cannot be bridged with slogans and figureheads. For the same reasons, we can't have one capital party because our capital has two very different worldviews of what capitalism should be and should do. One is capitalism through a socialist lens, which appeals to a large swath of the middle and upper-middle classes and those seeking new capital investments on a fair playing field. One is capitalism through a kleptocratic lens, which strongly appeals to those who are already winners, already hold the keys of power and money, and don't want that to change.
If you could unite labor in the US, you would have solved the issues of racism, religious tolerance, LGBT tolerance, wage security, health care, and age security nationwide before you could have done so. Which is to say, impossible.
Those are states where the Dems are investing in the networks and connections you are talking about. 2 are in the process, and 2 are somewhat better success stories.
Sure and they're good for their part and in varying degrees. Hopefully a sign of better efforts to come in general.
So, one might say, Democrats aren't actually sucking at this right now.
I don't disagree that the ubran/rural divide is a fundamental stress point to our government, but I feel that what you're saying doesn't square with the congressional dominance of new deal democrats over the course of most of the 20th century.
I agree that labor collapsed because of bigotry in the face of shifting demographics and workforce roles, but that doesn't mean it will always fail or isn't worth pursuing in light of people becoming more accepting of others in their reality even if not in their rhetoric.
We had a labor party in America from 1932 to 1992.
I guess I don't know what you're arguing, more of the same because it's working so well?
A .125 batting average doesnt mean you are good at it or have never hit the ball.
There are some optimistic signs and outcomes in certain places that should be rewarded and fostered. On the whole the work to be done remains vast.
Yes, we had a labor party over that time - that notoriously made deals to privilege white workers in order to get policy passed, and whose decline coincided with the party becoming more supportive of civil rights. Again, hardhats - socially conservative labor workers - have been a major part of why labor in the US collapsed as a political force, as the movement literally attacked their allies in support of the people who wanted to break labor. And those same social dynamics haven't gone away.
I'm arguing that a labor party, bound as such, will inevitably only hold half of that labor at most. You might get a labor party which aligns conservative socially and get ~some~ of the rural labor groups, or one that aligns liberal socially and get ~some~ the urban groups. What happens in the end, and what happened for all of the Labor Party's history, is that whichever group goes toward that party loses on all fronts. If Labor aligns with a socially liberal front, it will cause the Democratic party to hemmorage votes and neither will win, but it itself will also never win, because the conservative labor pool will caucus with kleptocratic capital and overwhelm them. The other side of things literally is the reason we have President Biden right now. The Libertarian Party caused the GOP to hemmorage just enough votes in just enough states that Biden won. Because of that, voters who traditionally would have voted for the GOP in most cases lost, as did the GOP.
Neither of the two main parties can align on a Labor vs Capitalist ideology. You can't unify capital in the US, and you can't unify labor in the US. It just doesn't work that way, because there aren't unified Marxist ideologies that preclude other issues like identity politics like we see in Europe.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try to help labor of all kinds, I've specifically called out that we must do so previously on the last few pages. What I'm saying is that there isn't a fundamental way to bridge labor into a single successful party that will actually achieve the goals of all labor. It will always be self-sabotaging due to how first-past-the-post works.
I know there aren't goalposts in baseball, but I feel like the outfield just streeeeeeetched another 100 yards just now. Must be a trick of the light.
What race did Obama run in this year?
I feel like there's little conversation to be had when any clarification, confusion, or elaboration is moving the goal posts.
If someone says they suck at cooking that doesnt mean theyve never produced a palatable meal.
You seem so set on the idea that Im operating in bad faith that youve allowed yourself to indulge in some.
What does that have to do with high level dems working on the pro-22 campaign?
Huh? Im making the same basic "revolving doors hurt activism" argument we share all the time, just as it relates to how Prop 22 shook out.
It's worth noting that part of the backlash to the 1619 Project was from Marxist scholars and activists,who saw the position raised by the Project as a threat to their class based model of the world.
Yes, an organization with goals should continuously learn and improve and update their goals as needed.
What does a former presidents people working in corporate America 4+ years afterwards have to do with literally anything WRT to the party platform as a whole?
Hmmmm one of my takeaways going through it was how the forces of greed rallied around white supremacy as their tool of choice to maintain their grip on control
Former high ranking government people have connections to current high ranking government people that the rest of us never will and it can sway policy both passively and actively.
This is a pretty basic component of how our lobbying systen is broken