2018 Democrats thread

[GoSox05]

4 minutes ago, Reddy said:

It was about representation in a low-turnout race, not about policy. People want leaders who look like them and come from the places they come from.

And this... since we're quoting lefty-fan Dave Weigel today
 

 

Who cares?  She won the election.  She is going to be a million times better than Crowley for poor and working class people. 

I know that politics for you is fun and it's all about the game of it, but for the rest of us it has real world consequences.  I don't give a shit about AOC winning because of turn out or whatever.  All I care about is she brings us one step closer to medicare for all and better wages.  Both things that will directly make my life better. 

I just don't understand the bragging and gloating when garbage candidates like Cuomo and Feinstein win.  They do nothing and continue to keep the status quo.  It's celebrating failure.

[Reddy]

10 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

Who cares?  She won the election.  She is going to be a million times better than Crowley for poor and working class people. 

I know that politics for you is fun and it's all about the game of it, but for the rest of us it has real world consequences.  I don't give a shit about AOC winning because of turn out or whatever.  All I care about is she brings us one step closer to medicare for all and better wages.  Both things that will directly make my life better. 

I just don't understand the bragging and gloating when garbage candidates like Cuomo and Feinstein win.  They do nothing and continue to keep the status quo.  It's celebrating failure.

Because I don't think passing laws that actually improve peoples' lives is a failure. I think trying to pass laws that fail because they're not popular - even if they'd improve peoples' lives as well - is a bad use of our time. This is a country in which things only improve peoples' lives if they get DONE, and I don't see that wing of the party getting anything done.

[Reddy]

"Cuomo pushed through a same-sex marriage law long before marriage equality was a given everywhere, or even in New York. After the shootings in Sandy Hook, Cuomo strengthened New York’s already strict gun control laws. Last year’s budget included a $15 minimum wage, which is being phased in over a five-year period, as well as paid family leave. This year’s budget, which was the vehicle for the tuition plan, also reinstituted a tax on the income of millionaires, raised the age at which juvenile offenders can be tried as adults, created a $10 million legal defense fund for immigrants and provided a tax break for workers who pay union dues."

http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-cuomo-new-york-governor-progressives.html

I'm honestly not a huge Cuomo fan. I was very critical of him prior to this race. But Nixon's candidacy led me to defend him over and over even though I didn't really want to. I'm happy he won when she was the alternative. That doesn't mean I think he's flawless - far from it. He's pretty damn corrupt and manipulative, but for the most part that ends up improving peoples' lives in this case. If far-left policy were so good (I think it - mostly - is) and so easy to implement (there's the kicker), why the hell don't those candidates win more elections?

[GoSox05]

4 minutes ago, Reddy said:

"Cuomo pushed through a same-sex marriage law long before marriage equality was a given everywhere, or even in New York. After the shootings in Sandy Hook, Cuomo strengthened New York’s already strict gun control laws. Last year’s budget included a $15 minimum wage, which is being phased in over a five-year period, as well as paid family leave. This year’s budget, which was the vehicle for the tuition plan, also reinstituted a tax on the income of millionaires, raised the age at which juvenile offenders can be tried as adults, created a $10 million legal defense fund for immigrants and provided a tax break for workers who pay union dues."

http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-cuomo-new-york-governor-progressives.html

I'm honestly not a huge Cuomo fan. I was very critical of him prior to this race. But Nixon's candidacy led me to defend him over and over even though I didn't really want to. I'm happy he won when she was the alternative. That doesn't mean I think he's flawless - far from it. He's pretty damn corrupt and manipulative, but for the most part that ends up improving peoples' lives in this case. If far-left policy were so good (I think it - mostly - is) and so easy to implement (there's the kicker), why the hell don't those candidates win more elections? 

 

Well, I think this is starting to change.  Small wins here and there, but way more than there was 5-10 years ago.

[StrangeSox]

That seems to make a fundamental mistake that democratic elections will tend to result in the "best" politicians and policies, too.  It could be true that leftist policies are both good and plausible to implement but are still not popular among the voting public for a wide variety of reasons.

[Reddy]

4 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

That seems to make a fundamental mistake that democratic elections will tend to result in the "best" politicians and policies, too.  It could be true that leftist policies are both good and plausible to implement but are still not popular among the voting public for a wide variety of reasons.

Is this at me?

It doesn't matter if they're good if they're not popular. Candidates who support those policies have to win elections if they're ever going to get implemented, and in the meantime, do we just let people get screwed? Or do we pass less-than-perfect legislation that at least improves things? I'd rather do something than nothing every time.

In the real world we need both of these movements. People to get elected and get things done and people to keep pushing the agenda forward. But that latter movement needs to not keep the former from winning against our common enemy, and THAT'S where my issue lies.

[StrangeSox]

right, you want the left to sit down and shut up and never say a bad word about any centrist candidates or policies while those same centrists should be free to attack the left at all times and immune to any challenges

Edited September 14, 2018 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

36 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

right, you want the left to sit down and shut up and never say a bad word about any centrist candidates or policies while those same centrists should be free to attack the left at all times and immune to any challenges

Sounds like you got his point, Bro.

[Dam8610]

3 hours ago, Reddy said:

Unless you're a Bernie Bro

No one is a fictitious creation of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

[caulfield12]

2 hours ago, Reddy said:

New York has the worst voting laws in the country. Also, turnout tripled from 14, and Nixon is complaining that "high turnout" helped Cuomo even though he's presided over really strict voter laws.

Huh?

Maybe people just didn't like you! #NovelConcepts

And yet the Dems didn’t learn that lesson in 2008 from the Clinton campaign...?  That’s half the reason the Supreme Court will have a “Reign of Terror” the next 20-30 years, that “you’re likeable enough” issue wasn’t ever fixed, despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars on her behalf.

[Reddy]

Fictitious? 

 

[Reddy]

I don't really understand the hate thrown at me for stating the obvious fact that winning is better for progress than losing. 

[caulfield12]

Because nobody cheers for Chuck Schumer, Fake populist Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, Tim Kaine, moderation, the establishment, the status quo, accommodation, corporations...etc.

It’s the same reason Collins, Murkowski, Flake, Corker, Sasse are not going to survive long on the other side the aisle.

Dems are sick of being reasonable to the right being obstructionists and bomb throwers.  What did all that patience and haughty reasonableness get Obama?

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/14/michael-avenatti-2020-democratic-primary-219910

On the other hand, this might be more to your liking, arguing Avenatti is enticing Dems like Booker and Harris to act more and more like Trump.

Let’s just see if the two sides can unite under the banner of Liz Warren.  Somehow, I doubt it.  Biden and Sanders are the past, old white men.  Oe we can go with Beto O’Rourke and let the chips fall where they may.

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/dianne-feinstein-what-in-the-hell-were-you-thinking?yptr=yahoo

here would be another reason...supporting candidates like Diane Feinstein, that are the equivalent of Chuck Grassley in our party, out of touch and out of their depth

[Dam8610]

3 hours ago, Reddy said:

I don't really understand the hate thrown at me for stating the obvious fact that winning is better for progress than losing. 

 

10 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

Corporatists are the worst problem. At least you can clearly paint Republicans as the bad guys who want to take away your rights, it's harder for people who have never experienced things like collective bargaining rights, a progressive tax system that actually funds social programs, or well funded social programs that provide benefits to the average American to see that the Corporatists are doing the exact same thing.

I answered that question before you asked it.

3 hours ago, Reddy said:

Fictitious? 

 

Yes, fictitious. The corporatists have spent a long time entrenching themselves in the Democratic Party and convincing people that trading economic equality for "social progress" is the right way to go. Clearly, it's going to take more than a few years to undo decades of brainwashing the corporatists have put in place, but progress is clearly happening.

[Reddy]

2 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

 

I answered that question before you asked it.

Yes, fictitious. The corporatists have spent a long time entrenching themselves in the Democratic Party and convincing people that trading economic equality for "social progress" is the right way to go. Clearly, it's going to take more than a few years to undo decades of brainwashing the corporatists have put in place, but progress is clearly happening.

Are you saying white people are smarter and more "woke" to economic injustice than minorities?

[Dam8610]

12 hours ago, Reddy said:

Are you saying white people are smarter and more "woke" to economic injustice than minorities?

No, I'm saying Corporatists have spent three generations conspiring with Republicans to strip us of our economic rights, so it's going to take more than a couple of years to undo that damage, especially since most alive today have never experienced most of those economic rights. It's about the politicians, not the voters.

[Reddy]

22 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

No, I'm saying Corporatists have spent three generations conspiring with Republicans to strip us of our economic rights, so it's going to take more than a couple of years to undo that damage, especially since most alive today have never experienced most of those economic rights. It's about the politicians, not the voters.

So why do liberal white people (mostly men) "get it" and vote for the progressive candidates, but the minority and female voters don't?

Edited September 15, 2018 by Reddy

[Dam8610]

1 hour ago, Reddy said:

So why do liberal white people (mostly men) "get it" and vote for the progressive candidates, but the minority and female voters don't?

The sad and horrifying truth in my opinion is that white men are much less accustomed to systemic oppression and therefore don't as readily accept it and more actively seek out people and things which will eliminate it. Minorities and women are far more conditioned to accept systemic oppression in our society, a fact that Corporatists are now capitalizing on to save their political lives.

[Balta1701]

3 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

The sad and horrifying truth in my opinion is that white men are much less accustomed to systemic oppression and therefore don't as readily accept it and more actively seek out people and things which will eliminate it. Minorities and women are far more conditioned to accept systemic oppression in our society, a fact that Corporatists are now capitalizing on to save their political lives.

Or maybe, just maybe, a more equitable economic distribution does not stop a police officer from breaking into your apartment and shooting you on site and then the police declaring you a criminal for it.

[Dam8610]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

Or maybe, just maybe, a more equitable economic distribution does not stop a police officer from breaking into your apartment and shooting you on site and then the police declaring you a criminal for it.

Yes, and a progressive wants to stop that AND give everyone things like collective bargaining rights, free college, and free healthcare. Corporatists only have interest in doing the former and demonizing anyone who wants to do the latter three as racist for not prioritizing the former.

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, Dam8610 said:

Yes, and a progressive wants to stop that AND give everyone things like collective bargaining rights, free college, and free healthcare. Corporatists only have interest in doing the former and demonizing anyone who wants to do the latter three as racist for not prioritizing the former.

It sure seems like people who don't go along with declaring the economy to be the priority get demonized too. For example, where you use the word "corporatists".

 

[Dam8610]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

It sure seems like people who don't go along with declaring the economy to be the priority get demonized too. For example, where you use the word "corporatists".

 

I don't find the word "progressive" demonizing, nor would I find the word "populist" demonizing. Corporatists serve corporate interests. Why is it demonizing to call them the thing that describes what they do?

[Reddy]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

Or maybe, just maybe, a more equitable economic distribution does not stop a police officer from breaking into your apartment and shooting you on site and then the police declaring you a criminal for it.

Boom.

[Reddy]

12 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

I don't find the word "progressive" demonizing, nor would I find the word "populist" demonizing. Corporatists serve corporate interests. Why is it demonizing to call them the thing that describes what they do?

Because supporting non-Berniecrats =/= being a corporatist. I'm not. At all. I want politicians who have a prayer of getting elected (progressives have shown they have a tough time with this) and thus have a shot at actually implementing policy that will help people. I'm pragmatic.

Your use of buzzwords to denigrate people who disagree with you is why your cause is losing.