Prop 22 only happened because democrats pushed legislation to enforce the opposite of it. Yet we are saying that Dems were for it? That the California dem party didn’t care?
Well, "we" aren't. One of us seems to be maybe maybe not its not clear,
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.
But I don’t understand how “revolving doors hurt activism” in this case when a) most people didn’t know those people were in those positions in the first place, and b) who those former Obama staffers were anyway. I might not be remembering correctly, but I don’t think there were any of them that I heard their names and could remember, unprompted, that they had been in the Obama admin.
No one is arguing that they're at Uber for their star power. I think youre confused about what people are saying
Yes, if you could be more clear and direct about what exactly it is that you’re saying it would be a big help.
Former elected officials and people in that general circle are valuable to industry because they retain ties with people in government. They are on first name terms, send christmas cards etc. Right off the bat legislators are already not inclined to act against people who are often their friends, and even after that these former elected officials and advisors know who to call.
Its an edge they have over regular people and their regular people activism, whether we're talking about Republicans who now work for Raytheon or Democrats working for Uber.
But people did act against prop-22. It was on the ballot and people voted. Information was shared by many sources on why people should have voted against it. I don’t see how having former Obama staff working at Uber makes any difference.
The only way your description makes sense if is you’re saying that the Democratic Party actively worked against the anti prop-22, to help out their friends.
People voted, yes. After months of a massive campaign of lies with infinite funding on one side and a slap dash underfunded canpaign largely on the backs of already strained unions.
Its my feeling as a an active labor....activist, and its one widely shared among those circles, that the revolving door between the Democratic Sphere circa 2008-2016 has been a significant hurdle to getting the Democratic party as a machine to bear on a labor fight, both prop 22 and beyond, that should naturally be in the wheelhouse of a party that claims labor rights as a concern.
Ok, but just because you and other....activists feel a certain way, doesn’t make it true.
Plus you’re again moving the goalposts. You began by saying legislators don’t like to move against their friends, but when I pointed out that people did fight against prop-22, you dismiss it entirely and say it was “ slap dash underfunded canpaign largely on the backs of already strained unions”.
You also assert that this “revolving door” is the reason the party doesn’t fight for labor issues, but it’s just your assertion, I see no evidence to support it beyond you saying “the party failed to stop “x” or fight it to my satisfaction, so clearly they simply don’t care.
In looking for my citation, I had a hard time finding any of the democratic party/establishment that was against prop-22, it seemed mostly like labor related pacs, but let me know if I'm wrong. So the party failed to stop prop 22 and the accusation is that they didn't try and may not actually be against it.
Here’s a list of people working in opposition to prop-22. Here you’ll find such party back-benchers as Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and the California Democratic Party.
Note the donor list. A candidate or politician saying "I oppose this" and then not really doing anything against it amounts to basically nothing.
I see we have again reached the “they didn’t fight hard enough” section of where we’ve moved the goalposts.
First it was the party didn’t try, then it was activists tried but the party didn’t care, and when I provide a list of prominent party members (and the California Democratic Party) who opposed it, we’re right back at “well they didn’t fight and/or fund it hard enough” for you.
What I'm reading is that the complaint is the claim that the DNC intentionally threw the fight on 22.
That's a pretty obtuse reading, then.
I just plain don't think the Democratic Party felt invested in the outcome either way. I think they were perfectly insouciant, though personally I think forced to choose, they would have rather it gone the other way so they could have taken credit. Whether that's just from general apathy, or the presence of former Obama administration individuals on the pro-side softened them to the idea, I'm not sure.
So they didn't throw the fight, they just didn't care enough to show up?
I think their primary concern was assessing how much support would be necessary to say 'we tried' and gauged their efforts based on that figure.
And it's not difficult to see why. They want labor votes, and they want tech votes.
So... they did what they needed to stay in power so they could enact policy?
What Prop 22 and AB5 show us is that we need. to stop messing around with confusing half measures. If we want people to have health insurance in California, pass single payer health insurance and give it to them. If people should have sick pay and paid time off, pass a law raising the taxes required to provide them and pay for them from the state.
Stop papering over the cracks with bills like AB5 and actually do what we want.
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.
But I don’t understand how “revolving doors hurt activism” in this case when a) most people didn’t know those people were in those positions in the first place, and b) who those former Obama staffers were anyway. I might not be remembering correctly, but I don’t think there were any of them that I heard their names and could remember, unprompted, that they had been in the Obama admin.
No one is arguing that they're at Uber for their star power. I think youre confused about what people are saying
Yes, if you could be more clear and direct about what exactly it is that you’re saying it would be a big help.
Former elected officials and people in that general circle are valuable to industry because they retain ties with people in government. They are on first name terms, send christmas cards etc. Right off the bat legislators are already not inclined to act against people who are often their friends, and even after that these former elected officials and advisors know who to call.
Its an edge they have over regular people and their regular people activism, whether we're talking about Republicans who now work for Raytheon or Democrats working for Uber.
But people did act against prop-22. It was on the ballot and people voted. Information was shared by many sources on why people should have voted against it. I don’t see how having former Obama staff working at Uber makes any difference.
The only way your description makes sense if is you’re saying that the Democratic Party actively worked against the anti prop-22, to help out their friends.
People voted, yes. After months of a massive campaign of lies with infinite funding on one side and a slap dash underfunded canpaign largely on the backs of already strained unions.
Its my feeling as a an active labor....activist, and its one widely shared among those circles, that the revolving door between the Democratic Sphere circa 2008-2016 has been a significant hurdle to getting the Democratic party as a machine to bear on a labor fight, both prop 22 and beyond, that should naturally be in the wheelhouse of a party that claims labor rights as a concern.
Ok, but just because you and other....activists feel a certain way, doesn’t make it true.
Plus you’re again moving the goalposts. You began by saying legislators don’t like to move against their friends, but when I pointed out that people did fight against prop-22, you dismiss it entirely and say it was “ slap dash underfunded canpaign largely on the backs of already strained unions”.
You also assert that this “revolving door” is the reason the party doesn’t fight for labor issues, but it’s just your assertion, I see no evidence to support it beyond you saying “the party failed to stop “x” or fight it to my satisfaction, so clearly they simply don’t care.
In looking for my citation, I had a hard time finding any of the democratic party/establishment that was against prop-22, it seemed mostly like labor related pacs, but let me know if I'm wrong. So the party failed to stop prop 22 and the accusation is that they didn't try and may not actually be against it.
Here’s a list of people working in opposition to prop-22. Here you’ll find such party back-benchers as Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and the California Democratic Party.
Note the donor list. A candidate or politician saying "I oppose this" and then not really doing anything against it amounts to basically nothing.
I see we have again reached the “they didn’t fight hard enough” section of where we’ve moved the goalposts.
First it was the party didn’t try, then it was activists tried but the party didn’t care, and when I provide a list of prominent party members (and the California Democratic Party) who opposed it, we’re right back at “well they didn’t fight and/or fund it hard enough” for you.
My argument is that the Dems didnt fight hard enough and let the unions shoulder all the burden and get massively outspent.
You linked a page highlighting how the unions did the heavy lifting and got outspent and a collection of mostly tweets from Democrats saying yeah its a bad idea vote no.
How am I moving goal posts? This lines up with what Im arguing.
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.
But I don’t understand how “revolving doors hurt activism” in this case when a) most people didn’t know those people were in those positions in the first place, and b) who those former Obama staffers were anyway. I might not be remembering correctly, but I don’t think there were any of them that I heard their names and could remember, unprompted, that they had been in the Obama admin.
No one is arguing that they're at Uber for their star power. I think youre confused about what people are saying
Yes, if you could be more clear and direct about what exactly it is that you’re saying it would be a big help.
Former elected officials and people in that general circle are valuable to industry because they retain ties with people in government. They are on first name terms, send christmas cards etc. Right off the bat legislators are already not inclined to act against people who are often their friends, and even after that these former elected officials and advisors know who to call.
Its an edge they have over regular people and their regular people activism, whether we're talking about Republicans who now work for Raytheon or Democrats working for Uber.
But people did act against prop-22. It was on the ballot and people voted. Information was shared by many sources on why people should have voted against it. I don’t see how having former Obama staff working at Uber makes any difference.
The only way your description makes sense if is you’re saying that the Democratic Party actively worked against the anti prop-22, to help out their friends.
People voted, yes. After months of a massive campaign of lies with infinite funding on one side and a slap dash underfunded canpaign largely on the backs of already strained unions.
Its my feeling as a an active labor....activist, and its one widely shared among those circles, that the revolving door between the Democratic Sphere circa 2008-2016 has been a significant hurdle to getting the Democratic party as a machine to bear on a labor fight, both prop 22 and beyond, that should naturally be in the wheelhouse of a party that claims labor rights as a concern.
Ok, but just because you and other....activists feel a certain way, doesn’t make it true.
Plus you’re again moving the goalposts. You began by saying legislators don’t like to move against their friends, but when I pointed out that people did fight against prop-22, you dismiss it entirely and say it was “ slap dash underfunded canpaign largely on the backs of already strained unions”.
You also assert that this “revolving door” is the reason the party doesn’t fight for labor issues, but it’s just your assertion, I see no evidence to support it beyond you saying “the party failed to stop “x” or fight it to my satisfaction, so clearly they simply don’t care.
In looking for my citation, I had a hard time finding any of the democratic party/establishment that was against prop-22, it seemed mostly like labor related pacs, but let me know if I'm wrong. So the party failed to stop prop 22 and the accusation is that they didn't try and may not actually be against it.
Here’s a list of people working in opposition to prop-22. Here you’ll find such party back-benchers as Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and the California Democratic Party.
Note the donor list. A candidate or politician saying "I oppose this" and then not really doing anything against it amounts to basically nothing.
I see we have again reached the “they didn’t fight hard enough” section of where we’ve moved the goalposts.
First it was the party didn’t try, then it was activists tried but the party didn’t care, and when I provide a list of prominent party members (and the California Democratic Party) who opposed it, we’re right back at “well they didn’t fight and/or fund it hard enough” for you.
My argument is that the Dems didnt fight hard enough and let the unions shoulder all the burden and get massively outspent.
You linked a page highlighting how the unions did the heavy lifting and got outspent and a collection of mostly tweets from Democrats saying yeah its a bad idea vote no.
How am I moving goal posts? This lines up with what Im arguing.
What more should the party have done in a fight where they were easily outspent 10:1?
Is more money the solution? Because Uber and Lyft would have just spent even more had the party as a whole invested more. It would not have been possible for the party to outspend the groups who wanted prop-22 to pass.
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.
But I don’t understand how “revolving doors hurt activism” in this case when a) most people didn’t know those people were in those positions in the first place, and b) who those former Obama staffers were anyway. I might not be remembering correctly, but I don’t think there were any of them that I heard their names and could remember, unprompted, that they had been in the Obama admin.
No one is arguing that they're at Uber for their star power. I think youre confused about what people are saying
Yes, if you could be more clear and direct about what exactly it is that you’re saying it would be a big help.
Former elected officials and people in that general circle are valuable to industry because they retain ties with people in government. They are on first name terms, send christmas cards etc. Right off the bat legislators are already not inclined to act against people who are often their friends, and even after that these former elected officials and advisors know who to call.
Its an edge they have over regular people and their regular people activism, whether we're talking about Republicans who now work for Raytheon or Democrats working for Uber.
But people did act against prop-22. It was on the ballot and people voted. Information was shared by many sources on why people should have voted against it. I don’t see how having former Obama staff working at Uber makes any difference.
The only way your description makes sense if is you’re saying that the Democratic Party actively worked against the anti prop-22, to help out their friends.
People voted, yes. After months of a massive campaign of lies with infinite funding on one side and a slap dash underfunded canpaign largely on the backs of already strained unions.
Its my feeling as a an active labor....activist, and its one widely shared among those circles, that the revolving door between the Democratic Sphere circa 2008-2016 has been a significant hurdle to getting the Democratic party as a machine to bear on a labor fight, both prop 22 and beyond, that should naturally be in the wheelhouse of a party that claims labor rights as a concern.
Ok, but just because you and other....activists feel a certain way, doesn’t make it true.
Plus you’re again moving the goalposts. You began by saying legislators don’t like to move against their friends, but when I pointed out that people did fight against prop-22, you dismiss it entirely and say it was “ slap dash underfunded canpaign largely on the backs of already strained unions”.
You also assert that this “revolving door” is the reason the party doesn’t fight for labor issues, but it’s just your assertion, I see no evidence to support it beyond you saying “the party failed to stop “x” or fight it to my satisfaction, so clearly they simply don’t care.
In looking for my citation, I had a hard time finding any of the democratic party/establishment that was against prop-22, it seemed mostly like labor related pacs, but let me know if I'm wrong. So the party failed to stop prop 22 and the accusation is that they didn't try and may not actually be against it.
Here’s a list of people working in opposition to prop-22. Here you’ll find such party back-benchers as Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and the California Democratic Party.
Note the donor list. A candidate or politician saying "I oppose this" and then not really doing anything against it amounts to basically nothing.
I see we have again reached the “they didn’t fight hard enough” section of where we’ve moved the goalposts.
First it was the party didn’t try, then it was activists tried but the party didn’t care, and when I provide a list of prominent party members (and the California Democratic Party) who opposed it, we’re right back at “well they didn’t fight and/or fund it hard enough” for you.
My argument is that the Dems didnt fight hard enough and let the unions shoulder all the burden and get massively outspent.
You linked a page highlighting how the unions did the heavy lifting and got outspent and a collection of mostly tweets from Democrats saying yeah its a bad idea vote no.
How am I moving goal posts? This lines up with what Im arguing.
What more should the party have done in a fight where they were easily outspent 10:1?
Is more money the solution? Because Uber and Lyft would have just spent even more had the party as a whole invested more. It would not have been possible for the party to outspend the groups who wanted prop-22 to pass.
'We lost, therefore we were always going to lose' is a pretty arrogant position.
What I'm reading is that the complaint is the claim that the DNC intentionally threw the fight on 22.
That's a pretty obtuse reading, then.
I just plain don't think the Democratic Party felt invested in the outcome either way. I think they were perfectly insouciant, though personally I think forced to choose, they would have rather it gone the other way so they could have taken credit. Whether that's just from general apathy, or the presence of former Obama administration individuals on the pro-side softened them to the idea, I'm not sure.
So they didn't throw the fight, they just didn't care enough to show up?
I think their primary concern was assessing how much support would be necessary to say 'we tried' and gauged their efforts based on that figure.
And it's not difficult to see why. They want labor votes, and they want tech votes.
So... they did what they needed to stay in power so they could enact policy?
No.
EDIT: To clarify, your insinuation that actively fighting for the better outcome of prop-22 would have cost them politically is without merit.
I trying to figure out the complaint here. Your issue is that they did not throw more resources at Prop 22. Foam is making claims that suggest their reason for doing so was corruption. Why do you feel they made this incorrect decision?
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.
But I don’t understand how “revolving doors hurt activism” in this case when a) most people didn’t know those people were in those positions in the first place, and b) who those former Obama staffers were anyway. I might not be remembering correctly, but I don’t think there were any of them that I heard their names and could remember, unprompted, that they had been in the Obama admin.
No one is arguing that they're at Uber for their star power. I think youre confused about what people are saying
Yes, if you could be more clear and direct about what exactly it is that you’re saying it would be a big help.
Former elected officials and people in that general circle are valuable to industry because they retain ties with people in government. They are on first name terms, send christmas cards etc. Right off the bat legislators are already not inclined to act against people who are often their friends, and even after that these former elected officials and advisors know who to call.
Its an edge they have over regular people and their regular people activism, whether we're talking about Republicans who now work for Raytheon or Democrats working for Uber.
But people did act against prop-22. It was on the ballot and people voted. Information was shared by many sources on why people should have voted against it. I don’t see how having former Obama staff working at Uber makes any difference.
The only way your description makes sense if is you’re saying that the Democratic Party actively worked against the anti prop-22, to help out their friends.
People voted, yes. After months of a massive campaign of lies with infinite funding on one side and a slap dash underfunded canpaign largely on the backs of already strained unions.
Its my feeling as a an active labor....activist, and its one widely shared among those circles, that the revolving door between the Democratic Sphere circa 2008-2016 has been a significant hurdle to getting the Democratic party as a machine to bear on a labor fight, both prop 22 and beyond, that should naturally be in the wheelhouse of a party that claims labor rights as a concern.
Ok, but just because you and other....activists feel a certain way, doesn’t make it true.
Plus you’re again moving the goalposts. You began by saying legislators don’t like to move against their friends, but when I pointed out that people did fight against prop-22, you dismiss it entirely and say it was “ slap dash underfunded canpaign largely on the backs of already strained unions”.
You also assert that this “revolving door” is the reason the party doesn’t fight for labor issues, but it’s just your assertion, I see no evidence to support it beyond you saying “the party failed to stop “x” or fight it to my satisfaction, so clearly they simply don’t care.
In looking for my citation, I had a hard time finding any of the democratic party/establishment that was against prop-22, it seemed mostly like labor related pacs, but let me know if I'm wrong. So the party failed to stop prop 22 and the accusation is that they didn't try and may not actually be against it.
Here’s a list of people working in opposition to prop-22. Here you’ll find such party back-benchers as Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and the California Democratic Party.
Note the donor list. A candidate or politician saying "I oppose this" and then not really doing anything against it amounts to basically nothing.
I see we have again reached the “they didn’t fight hard enough” section of where we’ve moved the goalposts.
First it was the party didn’t try, then it was activists tried but the party didn’t care, and when I provide a list of prominent party members (and the California Democratic Party) who opposed it, we’re right back at “well they didn’t fight and/or fund it hard enough” for you.
My argument is that the Dems didnt fight hard enough and let the unions shoulder all the burden and get massively outspent.
You linked a page highlighting how the unions did the heavy lifting and got outspent and a collection of mostly tweets from Democrats saying yeah its a bad idea vote no.
How am I moving goal posts? This lines up with what Im arguing.
What more should the party have done in a fight where they were easily outspent 10:1?
Is more money the solution? Because Uber and Lyft would have just spent even more had the party as a whole invested more. It would not have been possible for the party to outspend the groups who wanted prop-22 to pass.
Idk about a solution, it was always uphill but it would have helped a lot. Uber et al could spend more but there's likely dimishing returns after a point and theyd already saturated the state pretty hard.
Remember, Im not arguing that victory could necessarily have been guaranteed, but that this was something we could have gotten nore out of going forward. So in terms of building up an activist network and staging as the first round of ongoing fight more money would have been very useful I imagine.
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.
But I don’t understand how “revolving doors hurt activism” in this case when a) most people didn’t know those people were in those positions in the first place, and b) who those former Obama staffers were anyway. I might not be remembering correctly, but I don’t think there were any of them that I heard their names and could remember, unprompted, that they had been in the Obama admin.
No one is arguing that they're at Uber for their star power. I think youre confused about what people are saying
Yes, if you could be more clear and direct about what exactly it is that you’re saying it would be a big help.
Former elected officials and people in that general circle are valuable to industry because they retain ties with people in government. They are on first name terms, send christmas cards etc. Right off the bat legislators are already not inclined to act against people who are often their friends, and even after that these former elected officials and advisors know who to call.
Its an edge they have over regular people and their regular people activism, whether we're talking about Republicans who now work for Raytheon or Democrats working for Uber.
But people did act against prop-22. It was on the ballot and people voted. Information was shared by many sources on why people should have voted against it. I don’t see how having former Obama staff working at Uber makes any difference.
The only way your description makes sense if is you’re saying that the Democratic Party actively worked against the anti prop-22, to help out their friends.
People voted, yes. After months of a massive campaign of lies with infinite funding on one side and a slap dash underfunded canpaign largely on the backs of already strained unions.
Its my feeling as a an active labor....activist, and its one widely shared among those circles, that the revolving door between the Democratic Sphere circa 2008-2016 has been a significant hurdle to getting the Democratic party as a machine to bear on a labor fight, both prop 22 and beyond, that should naturally be in the wheelhouse of a party that claims labor rights as a concern.
Ok, but just because you and other....activists feel a certain way, doesn’t make it true.
Plus you’re again moving the goalposts. You began by saying legislators don’t like to move against their friends, but when I pointed out that people did fight against prop-22, you dismiss it entirely and say it was “ slap dash underfunded canpaign largely on the backs of already strained unions”.
You also assert that this “revolving door” is the reason the party doesn’t fight for labor issues, but it’s just your assertion, I see no evidence to support it beyond you saying “the party failed to stop “x” or fight it to my satisfaction, so clearly they simply don’t care.
In looking for my citation, I had a hard time finding any of the democratic party/establishment that was against prop-22, it seemed mostly like labor related pacs, but let me know if I'm wrong. So the party failed to stop prop 22 and the accusation is that they didn't try and may not actually be against it.
Here’s a list of people working in opposition to prop-22. Here you’ll find such party back-benchers as Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and the California Democratic Party.
Note the donor list. A candidate or politician saying "I oppose this" and then not really doing anything against it amounts to basically nothing.
I see we have again reached the “they didn’t fight hard enough” section of where we’ve moved the goalposts.
First it was the party didn’t try, then it was activists tried but the party didn’t care, and when I provide a list of prominent party members (and the California Democratic Party) who opposed it, we’re right back at “well they didn’t fight and/or fund it hard enough” for you.
My argument is that the Dems didnt fight hard enough and let the unions shoulder all the burden and get massively outspent.
You linked a page highlighting how the unions did the heavy lifting and got outspent and a collection of mostly tweets from Democrats saying yeah its a bad idea vote no.
How am I moving goal posts? This lines up with what Im arguing.
What more should the party have done in a fight where they were easily outspent 10:1?
Is more money the solution? Because Uber and Lyft would have just spent even more had the party as a whole invested more. It would not have been possible for the party to outspend the groups who wanted prop-22 to pass.
'We lost, therefore we were always going to lose' is a pretty arrogant position.
Then it’s great that I’m not taking that position.
I pretty clearly asked what more should have been done in the face of such a funding disparity. I don’t appreciate you mischaracterizing what I’m saying and putting words in my mouth like that Javen.
What I'm reading is that the complaint is the claim that the DNC intentionally threw the fight on 22.
That's a pretty obtuse reading, then.
I just plain don't think the Democratic Party felt invested in the outcome either way. I think they were perfectly insouciant, though personally I think forced to choose, they would have rather it gone the other way so they could have taken credit. Whether that's just from general apathy, or the presence of former Obama administration individuals on the pro-side softened them to the idea, I'm not sure.
So they didn't throw the fight, they just didn't care enough to show up?
I think their primary concern was assessing how much support would be necessary to say 'we tried' and gauged their efforts based on that figure.
And it's not difficult to see why. They want labor votes, and they want tech votes.
So... they did what they needed to stay in power so they could enact policy?
No.
EDIT: To clarify, your insinuation that actively fighting for the better outcome of prop-22 would have cost them politically is without merit.
I trying to figure out the complaint here. Your issue is that they did not throw more resources at Prop 22. Foam is making claims that suggest their reason for doing so was corruption. Why do you feel they made this incorrect decision?
My issue is not that they did not throw more resources at prop-22. My issue is that they were indifferent to the outcome of prop-22.
What I'm reading is that the complaint is the claim that the DNC intentionally threw the fight on 22.
That's a pretty obtuse reading, then.
I just plain don't think the Democratic Party felt invested in the outcome either way. I think they were perfectly insouciant, though personally I think forced to choose, they would have rather it gone the other way so they could have taken credit. Whether that's just from general apathy, or the presence of former Obama administration individuals on the pro-side softened them to the idea, I'm not sure.
So they didn't throw the fight, they just didn't care enough to show up?
I think their primary concern was assessing how much support would be necessary to say 'we tried' and gauged their efforts based on that figure.
And it's not difficult to see why. They want labor votes, and they want tech votes.
So... they did what they needed to stay in power so they could enact policy?
No.
EDIT: To clarify, your insinuation that actively fighting for the better outcome of prop-22 would have cost them politically is without merit.
I trying to figure out the complaint here. Your issue is that they did not throw more resources at Prop 22. Foam is making claims that suggest their reason for doing so was corruption. Why do you feel they made this incorrect decision?
My issue is not that they did not throw more resources at prop-22. My issue is that they were indifferent to the outcome of prop-22.
What I'm reading is that the complaint is the claim that the DNC intentionally threw the fight on 22.
That's a pretty obtuse reading, then.
I just plain don't think the Democratic Party felt invested in the outcome either way. I think they were perfectly insouciant, though personally I think forced to choose, they would have rather it gone the other way so they could have taken credit. Whether that's just from general apathy, or the presence of former Obama administration individuals on the pro-side softened them to the idea, I'm not sure.
So they didn't throw the fight, they just didn't care enough to show up?
I think their primary concern was assessing how much support would be necessary to say 'we tried' and gauged their efforts based on that figure.
And it's not difficult to see why. They want labor votes, and they want tech votes.
So... they did what they needed to stay in power so they could enact policy?
No.
EDIT: To clarify, your insinuation that actively fighting for the better outcome of prop-22 would have cost them politically is without merit.
I trying to figure out the complaint here. Your issue is that they did not throw more resources at Prop 22. Foam is making claims that suggest their reason for doing so was corruption. Why do you feel they made this incorrect decision?
My issue is not that they did not throw more resources at prop-22. My issue is that they were indifferent to the outcome of prop-22.
What I'm reading is that the complaint is the claim that the DNC intentionally threw the fight on 22.
That's a pretty obtuse reading, then.
I just plain don't think the Democratic Party felt invested in the outcome either way. I think they were perfectly insouciant, though personally I think forced to choose, they would have rather it gone the other way so they could have taken credit. Whether that's just from general apathy, or the presence of former Obama administration individuals on the pro-side softened them to the idea, I'm not sure.
So they didn't throw the fight, they just didn't care enough to show up?
I think their primary concern was assessing how much support would be necessary to say 'we tried' and gauged their efforts based on that figure.
And it's not difficult to see why. They want labor votes, and they want tech votes.
So... they did what they needed to stay in power so they could enact policy?
No.
EDIT: To clarify, your insinuation that actively fighting for the better outcome of prop-22 would have cost them politically is without merit.
I trying to figure out the complaint here. Your issue is that they did not throw more resources at Prop 22. Foam is making claims that suggest their reason for doing so was corruption. Why do you feel they made this incorrect decision?
My issue is not that they did not throw more resources at prop-22. My issue is that they were indifferent to the outcome of prop-22.
What I'm reading is that the complaint is the claim that the DNC intentionally threw the fight on 22.
That's a pretty obtuse reading, then.
I just plain don't think the Democratic Party felt invested in the outcome either way. I think they were perfectly insouciant, though personally I think forced to choose, they would have rather it gone the other way so they could have taken credit. Whether that's just from general apathy, or the presence of former Obama administration individuals on the pro-side softened them to the idea, I'm not sure.
So they didn't throw the fight, they just didn't care enough to show up?
I think their primary concern was assessing how much support would be necessary to say 'we tried' and gauged their efforts based on that figure.
And it's not difficult to see why. They want labor votes, and they want tech votes.
So... they did what they needed to stay in power so they could enact policy?
What Prop 22 and AB5 show us is that we need. to stop messing around with confusing half measures. If we want people to have health insurance in California, pass single payer health insurance and give it to them. If people should have sick pay and paid time off, pass a law raising the taxes required to provide them and pay for them from the state.
Stop papering over the cracks with bills like AB5 and actually do what we want.
Well yeah but that’s not the dem party
Dems are the party of creating incentive plans to influence behavior. They’re the middle management political party.
What I'm reading is that the complaint is the claim that the DNC intentionally threw the fight on 22.
That's a pretty obtuse reading, then.
I just plain don't think the Democratic Party felt invested in the outcome either way. I think they were perfectly insouciant, though personally I think forced to choose, they would have rather it gone the other way so they could have taken credit. Whether that's just from general apathy, or the presence of former Obama administration individuals on the pro-side softened them to the idea, I'm not sure.
So they didn't throw the fight, they just didn't care enough to show up?
I think their primary concern was assessing how much support would be necessary to say 'we tried' and gauged their efforts based on that figure.
And it's not difficult to see why. They want labor votes, and they want tech votes.
So... they did what they needed to stay in power so they could enact policy?
No.
EDIT: To clarify, your insinuation that actively fighting for the better outcome of prop-22 would have cost them politically is without merit.
I trying to figure out the complaint here. Your issue is that they did not throw more resources at Prop 22. Foam is making claims that suggest their reason for doing so was corruption. Why do you feel they made this incorrect decision?
My issue is not that they did not throw more resources at prop-22. My issue is that they were indifferent to the outcome of prop-22.
What I'm reading is that the complaint is the claim that the DNC intentionally threw the fight on 22.
That's a pretty obtuse reading, then.
I just plain don't think the Democratic Party felt invested in the outcome either way. I think they were perfectly insouciant, though personally I think forced to choose, they would have rather it gone the other way so they could have taken credit. Whether that's just from general apathy, or the presence of former Obama administration individuals on the pro-side softened them to the idea, I'm not sure.
So they didn't throw the fight, they just didn't care enough to show up?
I think their primary concern was assessing how much support would be necessary to say 'we tried' and gauged their efforts based on that figure.
And it's not difficult to see why. They want labor votes, and they want tech votes.
So... they did what they needed to stay in power so they could enact policy?
What Prop 22 and AB5 show us is that we need. to stop messing around with confusing half measures. If we want people to have health insurance in California, pass single payer health insurance and give it to them. If people should have sick pay and paid time off, pass a law raising the taxes required to provide them and pay for them from the state.
Stop papering over the cracks with bills like AB5 and actually do what we want.
Well yeah but that’s not the dem party
Dems are the party of creating incentive plans to influence behavior. They’re the middle management political party.
I agree, but, what I would then suggest is that we need to engage in more 'clear' behaviors. Do what we want to do.
What I'm reading is that the complaint is the claim that the DNC intentionally threw the fight on 22.
That's a pretty obtuse reading, then.
I just plain don't think the Democratic Party felt invested in the outcome either way. I think they were perfectly insouciant, though personally I think forced to choose, they would have rather it gone the other way so they could have taken credit. Whether that's just from general apathy, or the presence of former Obama administration individuals on the pro-side softened them to the idea, I'm not sure.
So they didn't throw the fight, they just didn't care enough to show up?
I think their primary concern was assessing how much support would be necessary to say 'we tried' and gauged their efforts based on that figure.
And it's not difficult to see why. They want labor votes, and they want tech votes.
So... they did what they needed to stay in power so they could enact policy?
No.
EDIT: To clarify, your insinuation that actively fighting for the better outcome of prop-22 would have cost them politically is without merit.
I trying to figure out the complaint here. Your issue is that they did not throw more resources at Prop 22. Foam is making claims that suggest their reason for doing so was corruption. Why do you feel they made this incorrect decision?
My issue is not that they did not throw more resources at prop-22. My issue is that they were indifferent to the outcome of prop-22.
So if they cared more and nothing else changes?
'Nothing else' meaning what?
Same results, but they cared more about it?
I'm still not sure what you're asking.
You said you didn't want them to spend more resources, you just wanted them to care more. I am asking if that is literally it, or if there is some additional outcome you wanted other than for them to experience more emotion.
What I'm reading is that the complaint is the claim that the DNC intentionally threw the fight on 22.
That's a pretty obtuse reading, then.
I just plain don't think the Democratic Party felt invested in the outcome either way. I think they were perfectly insouciant, though personally I think forced to choose, they would have rather it gone the other way so they could have taken credit. Whether that's just from general apathy, or the presence of former Obama administration individuals on the pro-side softened them to the idea, I'm not sure.
So they didn't throw the fight, they just didn't care enough to show up?
I think their primary concern was assessing how much support would be necessary to say 'we tried' and gauged their efforts based on that figure.
And it's not difficult to see why. They want labor votes, and they want tech votes.
So... they did what they needed to stay in power so they could enact policy?
No.
EDIT: To clarify, your insinuation that actively fighting for the better outcome of prop-22 would have cost them politically is without merit.
I trying to figure out the complaint here. Your issue is that they did not throw more resources at Prop 22. Foam is making claims that suggest their reason for doing so was corruption. Why do you feel they made this incorrect decision?
My issue is not that they did not throw more resources at prop-22. My issue is that they were indifferent to the outcome of prop-22.
So if they cared more and nothing else changes?
'Nothing else' meaning what?
Same results, but they cared more about it?
I'm still not sure what you're asking.
You said you didn't want them to spend more resources, you just wanted them to care more. I am asking if that is literally it, or if there is some additional outcome you wanted other than for them to experience more emotion.
I said neither of those things, so I'm just going to bow out of the conversation now.
What I'm reading is that the complaint is the claim that the DNC intentionally threw the fight on 22.
That's a pretty obtuse reading, then.
I just plain don't think the Democratic Party felt invested in the outcome either way. I think they were perfectly insouciant, though personally I think forced to choose, they would have rather it gone the other way so they could have taken credit. Whether that's just from general apathy, or the presence of former Obama administration individuals on the pro-side softened them to the idea, I'm not sure.
So they didn't throw the fight, they just didn't care enough to show up?
I think their primary concern was assessing how much support would be necessary to say 'we tried' and gauged their efforts based on that figure.
And it's not difficult to see why. They want labor votes, and they want tech votes.
So... they did what they needed to stay in power so they could enact policy?
What Prop 22 and AB5 show us is that we need. to stop messing around with confusing half measures. If we want people to have health insurance in California, pass single payer health insurance and give it to them. If people should have sick pay and paid time off, pass a law raising the taxes required to provide them and pay for them from the state.
Stop papering over the cracks with bills like AB5 and actually do what we want.
Huh? AB5 had nothing to do with healthcare beyond that our current system ties it to employment. If we had socialized healthcare, we would still want laws like AB5 on the books.
The whole thing was that Uber et al. were trying to have it both ways - they wanted the control of the employee/employer relationship with the lower obligations on their part of the contractor relationship. AB5 set a standard that told them they had to pick one side or the other. That's what had them so upset - they lost having all the cards in their hand.
What I'm reading is that the complaint is the claim that the DNC intentionally threw the fight on 22.
That's a pretty obtuse reading, then.
I just plain don't think the Democratic Party felt invested in the outcome either way. I think they were perfectly insouciant, though personally I think forced to choose, they would have rather it gone the other way so they could have taken credit. Whether that's just from general apathy, or the presence of former Obama administration individuals on the pro-side softened them to the idea, I'm not sure.
So they didn't throw the fight, they just didn't care enough to show up?
I think their primary concern was assessing how much support would be necessary to say 'we tried' and gauged their efforts based on that figure.
And it's not difficult to see why. They want labor votes, and they want tech votes.
So... they did what they needed to stay in power so they could enact policy?
No.
EDIT: To clarify, your insinuation that actively fighting for the better outcome of prop-22 would have cost them politically is without merit.
I trying to figure out the complaint here. Your issue is that they did not throw more resources at Prop 22. Foam is making claims that suggest their reason for doing so was corruption. Why do you feel they made this incorrect decision?
My issue is not that they did not throw more resources at prop-22. My issue is that they were indifferent to the outcome of prop-22.
So if they cared more and nothing else changes?
'Nothing else' meaning what?
Same results, but they cared more about it?
I'm still not sure what you're asking.
You said you didn't want them to spend more resources, you just wanted them to care more. I am asking if that is literally it, or if there is some additional outcome you wanted other than for them to experience more emotion.
I said neither of those things, so I'm just going to bow out of the conversation now.
I don't know how else to read this: "My issue is not that they did not throw more resources at prop-22. My issue is that they were indifferent to the outcome of prop-22."
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."?
Yes. Or, rather, they should set up systems to direct that money in meaningful ways.
One of the problem with diffuse small dollar donations is it often just goes to the big flashy races, many of which are just pointless. Like, say, going after McConnell's seat with that much money. At some point it's just burning donation money in a barrel for fun.
I think one thing you want to do is set up funds focused on a specific objective and not a specific race in order to try and direct donations to important places without making it seem like you are hijacking people's donations against their will. A good example I think is the "Get Mitch or Die Trying" thing set up by the Crooked Media guys. You invoke the idea of fucking McConnell to get people excited but you maintain some control over where that money goes. So instead of voters pilling too much money into a pointless race because they hate Mitch McConnell, you get them to pile money into a more general fund that goes to a bunch of key winnable Senate races because they hate Mitch McConnell.
Prop 22 only happened because democrats pushed legislation to enforce the opposite of it. Yet we are saying that Dems were for it? That the California dem party didn’t care?
This is indeed the simple thing that makes this whole conversation so silly. Democrats could simply have not passed the law that necessitated Prop 22 in the first place. But they did pass that law. That's the biggest sign you have of their actual priorities.
As always, the actual problem here is direct democracy. A silly system and California is endlessly a posterboy for why that is.
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.
This is pretty much the entire basis for the southern strategy. The southern states used to be the most loyal Democrats in the country, and then the civil rights act passed and they went in the entirely different direction.
We can't win them back with the same sales pitch we tried in the 1950s, because that sales pitch already lost out.
So Democrats are being attacked simultaneously for not doing enough to defend minority rights (even if it turns off some working class voters) and mor doing enough to appeal to working class voters (even if it turns off some minorities).
It really really sucks to think about how many people in this country, if told straight up "jobs or racism, pick one", would give up jobs to keep racism.
nor is "jobs" the only thing that could go in that first spot.
Commander Zoom on
+10
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.
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.
Yeah I wouldn't include Texas on there the Democrats here still suck at organizing.
Down ballot counts, actually.
Okay so I'm not trying to be rude but can you like elaborate on the point you're trying to make cause I'm not sure what you're getting at
Again, Styro is complaining about Dems not doing things they are absolutely doing. You are as well, now.
Basically, you guys are twisting youselves into knots to not admit that Dems are actually doing something 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.
Yeah I wouldn't include Texas on there the Democrats here still suck at organizing.
Down ballot counts, actually.
Okay so I'm not trying to be rude but can you like elaborate on the point you're trying to make cause I'm not sure what you're getting at
Again, Styro is complaining about Dems not doing things they are absolutely doing. You are as well, now.
Basically, you guys are twisting youselves into knots to not admit that Dems are actually doing something well.
I said they suck at it, on the whole, with the response to Prop 22 as an example. We had a whole conversation about this. You were part of it. There's no need to just pretend we didn't like this.
Is the DNC is an omniscient powerful organization that can do whatever they want and thus stuff not happening is because they chose it to not happen or a completely ineffectual worthless organization who can't do anything right and thus stuff not happening is because they're too stupid to get it to happen, since they're being portrayed as both
State Parties and the National Party, while related, are not necessarily the same.
Also, Styro was just talking about how Dems should spend in places to create networks and infrastructure for next time.
Yes, then Styro brought up prop 22 as an example, implying resource should have been spent to create networks and infrastructure to shift things leftward in *checks notes* California.
And people are still responding like that's arguing in good faith.
Also spending in Kentucky may not have unseated McConnell, but it may have created enough campaign work that the next person who's gonna lay the groundwork for a progressive movement, or who's gonna whip up support and coordination between existing groups, or flip a lean R district there, or pull a blue district further left, or just inject new, young, fresh blood into the state's party.
It's easy to look at Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and conclude it's a labor movement; but look at Virginia, Colorado, and North Carolina and consider Georgia, Arizona, and Texas.
Twice we've been looking at Texas going "...Y'all." and twice we've missed. Was that wasted money? Fuck no.
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.
Yeah I wouldn't include Texas on there the Democrats here still suck at organizing.
Down ballot counts, actually.
Okay so I'm not trying to be rude but can you like elaborate on the point you're trying to make cause I'm not sure what you're getting at
Again, Styro is complaining about Dems not doing things they are absolutely doing. You are as well, now.
Basically, you guys are twisting youselves into knots to not admit that Dems are actually doing something well.
No I was legit not understanding what your statement was getting at with "down ballot counts, actually"
State Parties and the National Party, while related, are not necessarily the same.
Also, Styro was just talking about how Dems should spend in places to create networks and infrastructure for next time.
Yes, then Styro brought up prop 22 as an example, implying resource should have been spent to create networks and infrastructure to shift things leftward in *checks notes* California.
To help rebuild long term labor activism as anti-labor efforts like Prop 22 spread across the country. I wrote this like 8 times.
And people are still responding like that's arguing in good faith.
8-) 8-) 8-)
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Beto helped a bunch of the downballot races in Texas, even if we didn't take the brass ring.
Beto helped a bunch of the downballot races in Texas, even if we didn't take the brass ring.
Okay, thank you for clarifying.
Despite betos work leading up to the 2018 election, I don't think the Dems are doing an even adequate job of organizing, especially since the work he did post2018 literally fell apart until basically September of this year for 2020. There's also a lot that Dems in other states, like california, do that Texans still haven't picked up on doing (like pooling campaign funds to help elections in close districts rather than more money with diminishing utility in elections Democrats will handily win). 2020 also wasn't good for down ballot races in texas because they nearly lost the seats they gained in 2018 as opposed to picking up enough to flip the house as they were all expecting to do without fully running as campaigns until October
Beto helped a bunch of the downballot races in Texas, even if we didn't take the brass ring.
Okay, thank you for clarifying.
Despite betos work leading up to the 2018 election, I don't think the Dems are doing an even adequate job of organizing, especially since the work he did post2018 literally fell apart until basically September of this year for 2020. There's also a lot that Dems in other states, like california, do that Texans still haven't picked up on doing (like pooling campaign funds to help elections in close districts rather than more money with diminishing utility in elections Democrats will handily win). 2020 also wasn't good for down ballot races in texas because they nearly lost the seats they gained in 2018 as opposed to picking up enough to flip the house as they were all expecting to do without fully running as campaigns until October
Yeah one of the more crucial things Castro highlighted after the worse-than-hoped-for returns among Hispanics this cycle was that outreach can't just be an election time thing.
+4
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Its pretty convenient to pick a non falsifiable argument and present is as gospel.
"Didn't try hard enough" is a straight up GOP tactic.
Posts
Well, "we" aren't. One of us seems to be maybe maybe not its not clear,
I see we have again reached the “they didn’t fight hard enough” section of where we’ve moved the goalposts.
First it was the party didn’t try, then it was activists tried but the party didn’t care, and when I provide a list of prominent party members (and the California Democratic Party) who opposed it, we’re right back at “well they didn’t fight and/or fund it hard enough” for you.
What Prop 22 and AB5 show us is that we need. to stop messing around with confusing half measures. If we want people to have health insurance in California, pass single payer health insurance and give it to them. If people should have sick pay and paid time off, pass a law raising the taxes required to provide them and pay for them from the state.
Stop papering over the cracks with bills like AB5 and actually do what we want.
My argument is that the Dems didnt fight hard enough and let the unions shoulder all the burden and get massively outspent.
You linked a page highlighting how the unions did the heavy lifting and got outspent and a collection of mostly tweets from Democrats saying yeah its a bad idea vote no.
How am I moving goal posts? This lines up with what Im arguing.
What more should the party have done in a fight where they were easily outspent 10:1?
Is more money the solution? Because Uber and Lyft would have just spent even more had the party as a whole invested more. It would not have been possible for the party to outspend the groups who wanted prop-22 to pass.
'We lost, therefore we were always going to lose' is a pretty arrogant position.
I trying to figure out the complaint here. Your issue is that they did not throw more resources at Prop 22. Foam is making claims that suggest their reason for doing so was corruption. Why do you feel they made this incorrect decision?
Idk about a solution, it was always uphill but it would have helped a lot. Uber et al could spend more but there's likely dimishing returns after a point and theyd already saturated the state pretty hard.
Remember, Im not arguing that victory could necessarily have been guaranteed, but that this was something we could have gotten nore out of going forward. So in terms of building up an activist network and staging as the first round of ongoing fight more money would have been very useful I imagine.
Then it’s great that I’m not taking that position.
I pretty clearly asked what more should have been done in the face of such a funding disparity. I don’t appreciate you mischaracterizing what I’m saying and putting words in my mouth like that Javen.
My issue is not that they did not throw more resources at prop-22. My issue is that they were indifferent to the outcome of prop-22.
So if they cared more and nothing else changes?
'Nothing else' meaning what?
Same results, but they cared more about it?
Well yeah but that’s not the dem party
Dems are the party of creating incentive plans to influence behavior. They’re the middle management political party.
I'm still not sure what you're asking.
I agree, but, what I would then suggest is that we need to engage in more 'clear' behaviors. Do what we want to do.
You said you didn't want them to spend more resources, you just wanted them to care more. I am asking if that is literally it, or if there is some additional outcome you wanted other than for them to experience more emotion.
I said neither of those things, so I'm just going to bow out of the conversation now.
Huh? AB5 had nothing to do with healthcare beyond that our current system ties it to employment. If we had socialized healthcare, we would still want laws like AB5 on the books.
The whole thing was that Uber et al. were trying to have it both ways - they wanted the control of the employee/employer relationship with the lower obligations on their part of the contractor relationship. AB5 set a standard that told them they had to pick one side or the other. That's what had them so upset - they lost having all the cards in their hand.
I don't know how else to read this: "My issue is not that they did not throw more resources at prop-22. My issue is that they were indifferent to the outcome of prop-22."
https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43099042/#Comment_43099042
Yes. Or, rather, they should set up systems to direct that money in meaningful ways.
One of the problem with diffuse small dollar donations is it often just goes to the big flashy races, many of which are just pointless. Like, say, going after McConnell's seat with that much money. At some point it's just burning donation money in a barrel for fun.
I think one thing you want to do is set up funds focused on a specific objective and not a specific race in order to try and direct donations to important places without making it seem like you are hijacking people's donations against their will. A good example I think is the "Get Mitch or Die Trying" thing set up by the Crooked Media guys. You invoke the idea of fucking McConnell to get people excited but you maintain some control over where that money goes. So instead of voters pilling too much money into a pointless race because they hate Mitch McConnell, you get them to pile money into a more general fund that goes to a bunch of key winnable Senate races because they hate Mitch McConnell.
This is indeed the simple thing that makes this whole conversation so silly. Democrats could simply have not passed the law that necessitated Prop 22 in the first place. But they did pass that law. That's the biggest sign you have of their actual priorities.
As always, the actual problem here is direct democracy. A silly system and California is endlessly a posterboy for why that is.
This is pretty much the entire basis for the southern strategy. The southern states used to be the most loyal Democrats in the country, and then the civil rights act passed and they went in the entirely different direction.
We can't win them back with the same sales pitch we tried in the 1950s, because that sales pitch already lost out.
So Democrats are being attacked simultaneously for not doing enough to defend minority rights (even if it turns off some working class voters) and mor doing enough to appeal to working class voters (even if it turns off some minorities).
nor is "jobs" the only thing that could go in that first spot.
Again, Styro is complaining about Dems not doing things they are absolutely doing. You are as well, now.
Basically, you guys are twisting youselves into knots to not admit that Dems are actually doing something well.
I said they suck at it, on the whole, with the response to Prop 22 as an example. We had a whole conversation about this. You were part of it. There's no need to just pretend we didn't like this.
Yes, then Styro brought up prop 22 as an example, implying resource should have been spent to create networks and infrastructure to shift things leftward in *checks notes* California.
And people are still responding like that's arguing in good faith.
Also spending in Kentucky may not have unseated McConnell, but it may have created enough campaign work that the next person who's gonna lay the groundwork for a progressive movement, or who's gonna whip up support and coordination between existing groups, or flip a lean R district there, or pull a blue district further left, or just inject new, young, fresh blood into the state's party.
It's easy to look at Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and conclude it's a labor movement; but look at Virginia, Colorado, and North Carolina and consider Georgia, Arizona, and Texas.
Twice we've been looking at Texas going "...Y'all." and twice we've missed. Was that wasted money? Fuck no.
No I was legit not understanding what your statement was getting at with "down ballot counts, actually"
To help rebuild long term labor activism as anti-labor efforts like Prop 22 spread across the country. I wrote this like 8 times.
8-) 8-) 8-)
Okay, thank you for clarifying.
Despite betos work leading up to the 2018 election, I don't think the Dems are doing an even adequate job of organizing, especially since the work he did post2018 literally fell apart until basically September of this year for 2020. There's also a lot that Dems in other states, like california, do that Texans still haven't picked up on doing (like pooling campaign funds to help elections in close districts rather than more money with diminishing utility in elections Democrats will handily win). 2020 also wasn't good for down ballot races in texas because they nearly lost the seats they gained in 2018 as opposed to picking up enough to flip the house as they were all expecting to do without fully running as campaigns until October
Yeah one of the more crucial things Castro highlighted after the worse-than-hoped-for returns among Hispanics this cycle was that outreach can't just be an election time thing.
"Didn't try hard enough" is a straight up GOP tactic.
2018 Beto did a lot of mid year outreach and campaigning and got within a few percentage points of cruz.
2020 the same mid year outreach and campaigning wasn't done and corny beat Hegar by 9.2.
Pick at my argument instead of putting words in my mouth like I'm treating this as gospel
Hegar recieved 20% more votes than Beto did. The issue is that Republicans turned out even more.