Support NeoGAF

[aeolist]

A very simplistic version of what she actually said, but nuance seems to be dying so I guess your take is accurate of how the voting public felt.

“If everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least,” said Clinton. “So, you need both a public and a private position.”

seems pretty straightforward to me

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

No one will buy your socialism if they think blacks and mexicans are going to be getting handouts from their taxes. This is what Trump has that the left doesn't seem to understand.

It's why Obama had to run like Mr. Vanilla Moderate and still had labels thrown at him.



When did I call him a leftist? I said he barely won as a southern Democrat.

Is the argument "Carter and Clinton won because southerners liked other southerners" or "Carter and Clinton won because southerners though that they'd be very racist"? They're both ideologically very different from the New Dealers both in how they understand private and public power and aren't just "New Dealers, but milder". Mondale and McGovern both had embarrassing losses, but McGovern was genuinely crazy far-left (in a good way, he probably would've been an A++ president) but both ran against popular incumbents during economically prosperous times, of course they're going to get dunked.

And anyways, Dukakis was a pro-market technocrat whose main difference from Bill Clinton was that he didn't brag about how many black people he'd had executed (well, and Bill Clinton managed to have more personality than a block of wood) and he still got walloped and only won like ten states.

 

[kame-sennin]

If there's an inconsistency here, it's in the arguments "progressives" use to attack Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is not a moderate, but the poster I responded to has labeled her one. Labeling Clinton a moderate seems to be the popular thing to do these days.

The platform Hillary ran on? The most progressive in the history of the party. I mean, you know, you could always read the damn thing. It's public.

So, did Hilary run on The Most Progressive Platform in History™ which is why she's great, or was McGovern the most progressive dem, which is why he sucked?

I'm not sure why I feel the need to defend McGovern here but the 72 platform including dismantling the military industrial complex, single payer health care, full employment via a federal job guarantee, equalizing school funding, and a bunch of other stuff that would be absolutely crazy if it made it into the platform now. McGovern was far enough to the left that Democrats were going on the air to talk about supporting Nixon and the need for Democrats to support Nixon. I guarantee you that Hillary had no interest in dismantling the military industrial complex. That's not even a knock on her, I don't think Bernie really would either! But to be like "actually Hillary ran to the left of McGovern" is insane.

'The truth is whatever I need it to be to win this argument.'

There's also a weird need on the part of dems to suppress the left, but at the same time become indignant when they're accuse of being moderates.

 

[pigeon]

There's the economy, then there's """the economy""". Bernie ran on the former, Trump on the latter. Trump's idea of "economy" was "dey tuk our jerbs", "bring back coal", "fuck China, make everything US made", etc, etc. None of it grounded in reality, none of it actually nuanced discussion on economics or policy.

It was generic far-right rhetoric, populism, xenophobia and racism with no actual basis on the economy. You might think Bernie was going to fare better but the reality is that Bernie and Trump were not having the same conversation.

Probably a mistake to characterize anything Bernie did as a conversation rather than a monologue tbh

 

[GiantBreadbug]

So, did Hilary run on The Most Progressive Platform in History™ which is why she's great, or was McGovern the most progressive dem, which is why he sucked?



'The truth is whatever I need it to be to win this argument.'

There's also a weird need on the part of dems to suppress the left, but at the same time become indignant when they're accuse of being moderates.

It's not so weird when you realize the Dems have to hold leftist values and ideals hostage in order to drip feed them to their electorate, who then in turn get to feel like the Good Guys for being such a special part of a special group of special people.

BREITBART being more straightforward about this issue than you. Context and nuance matter. People wonder why she didn't release the speeches. Hint hint. It's not corruption. It's because people are just gonna take out of context snippets and parade them as the whole story that why

Yeah like this. People who twist their brains into uncomfortable positions to defend blatant shitspeak and insist that "context matters" when talking about how to conceal your actual intentions from voters.

She didn't release the speech transcripts because it would have been one more thing on the pile that shows, incontrovertibly, what an absolute greed-fueled egomaniac she is. But everyone already knows it, so not releasing them was very much a lose lose.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

seems pretty straightforward to me

BREITBART being more straightforward about this issue than you. Context and nuance matter. People wonder why she didn't release the speeches. Hint hint. It's not corruption. It's because people are just gonna take out of context snippets and parade them as the whole story that why

Yeah like this. People who twist their brains into uncomfortable positions to defend blatant shitspeak and insist that "context matters" when talking about how to conceal your actual intentions from voters.

She didn't release the speech transcripts because it would have been one more thing on the pile that shows, incontrovertibly, what an absolute greed-fueled egomaniac she is. But everyone already knows it, so not releasing them was very much a lose lose.

I guess having to have different public and private positions personally I don't have to twist my brain. Ask me a question about race relations at work and ask me the same question when I get home. You'll get two very different answers but neither is me trying to conceal my actual intentions. Sometimes messages are best tailored to the audience.

Please. Her and the party's dirty laundry got aired and the best people can come away with for corruption is DWS and Donna Brazile giving her an answer for a debate. Incontrovertible proof my ass.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Is the argument "Carter and Clinton won because southerners liked other southerners" or "Carter and Clinton won because southerners though that they'd be very racist"? They're both ideologically very different from the New Dealers both in how they understand private and public power and aren't just "New Dealers, but milder". Mondale and McGovern both had embarrassing losses, but McGovern was genuinely crazy far-left (in a good way, he probably would've been an A++ president) but both ran against popular incumbents during economically prosperous times, of course they're going to get dunked.

And anyways, Dukakis was a pro-market technocrat whose main difference from Bill Clinton was that he didn't brag about how many black people he'd had executed (well, and Bill Clinton managed to have more personality than a block of wood) and he still got walloped and only won like ten states.

The argument is that even the most cursory glance at US history shows us that this country doesn't like to go left on anything unless they are really really pissed off at Republicans.

 

[royalan]

I'm not sure why I feel the need to defend McGovern here but the 72 platform including dismantling the military industrial complex, single payer health care, full employment via a federal job guarantee, equalizing school funding, and a bunch of other stuff that would be absolutely crazy if it made it into the platform now. McGovern was far enough to the left that Democrats were going on the air to talk about supporting Nixon and the need for Democrats to support Nixon. I guarantee you that Hillary had no interest in dismantling the military industrial complex. That's not even a knock on her, I don't think Bernie really would either! But to be like "actually Hillary ran to the left of McGovern" is insane.

Carter and Dukakis weren't even lefties, both are much closer to Clinton ideologically than to the New Dealers.

I'm not denying McGovern's progresivism.

I'm not even arguing that Hillary is farther left than him generally (although, I do think that there is a substantial argument that could be made that, yes, the woman who tried to push a form of universal healthcare way back in the 90s, ran on equal pay and family leave, and was largely involved in the move to grant transfolk the ability to use the bathroom of their gender in government facilities is more progressive than McGovern).

My point was that the platform crafted by Clinton's campaign, in conjunction with the Sanders campaign, was a more progressive platform overall than what McGovern ran on, as is generally agreed.

So praising the McGovern platform while condemning Hillary's is...well, completely silly.

 

[aeolist]

we always somehow end up in a position where america is intractably conservative and nothing can be done about it.

what i don't get is what liberals want to make out of this. are you saying we should move right to try and get those conservative votes, when it's clear that the republican voting bloc loathes you? is it just pointless and we should give up?

i also think that liberals hear leftists talk and somehow think we're trying to convince conservatives rather than the 40+ percent of eligible voters who consistently feel like their interests are not being represented by the establishment policies of either party and don't vote.

 

[PdotMichael]

Also I feel like we should be more clear about our terminology.

I am a progressive.

"Socialists" who don't believe in civil rights and are okay with white supremacy are not progressives.

I'm not sure what word is appropriate. Tankie, maybe? Know Nothing? You guys can figure it out.

Then get your terminology right. Socialists who don't care about civil rights don't exist, it would run against the definition of socialism.

 

[royalan]

we always somehow end up in a position where america is intractably conservative and nothing can be done about it.

what i don't get is what liberals want to make out of this. are you saying we should move right to try and get those conservative votes, when it's clear that the republican voting bloc loathes you? is it just pointless and we should give up?

i also think that liberals hear leftists talk and somehow think we're trying to convince conservatives rather than the 40+ percent of eligible voters who consistently feel like their interests are not being represented by the establishment policies of either party and don't vote.

For starters? Maybe stop slandering liberals who are just a tiny bit to the right of you as conservative.

That would be a start.

The far left (which, believe it or not, I consider myself a part of) will get nowhere if they don't embrace the Democratic party as a whole. That includes the Clintons, and Bookers, And Frankens, and all the "evil corporate Dems" of the world.

Nobody is arguing that we move to the right.

 

[kirblar]

we always somehow end up in a position where america is intractably conservative and nothing can be done about it.

what i don't get is what liberals want to make out of this. are you saying we should move right to try and get those conservative votes, when it's clear that the republican voting bloc loathes you? is it just pointless and we should give up?

i also think that liberals hear leftists talk and somehow think we're trying to convince conservatives rather than the 40+ percent of eligible voters who consistently feel like their interests are not being represented by the establishment policies of either party and don't vote.

we end up in that position because

a) the system is rigged against urban areas

b) the legacy of slavery and our much higher % of minority citizens than EU countries makes racism a far, far bigger factor in our politics than in other western places. It synergizes with "a" as well.

 

[aeolist]

The far left (which, believe it or not, I consider myself a part of)

funnily enough i don't believe it

 

[BinaryPork2737]

Y'all are talking past each other. Poor and working-class whites have been conditioned over the last 400 years to see race as an economic issue. Whites have always been conned into believing that slaves, free blacks, Mexicans, Chinese immigrants etc. are their economic competitors, and that keeping these people out and/or oppressed was in the economic interests of whites.

So racism and the economy were both primary issues because to whites, they're the same thing.

Agreed, race and class have always been linked in our country, all the way back to the origin of race-based chattel slavery in the Chesapeake colonies. It's why we should be focusing on both improving minority rights and elevating the working class (and not just the white working class).

Even to this day I have conversations with people regarding slavery and get responses like "actually slaves had it good, poor southern whites were worse off because slaves did all of their jobs." The revisionist history at play is fucking nuts. Then there's the infamous "if you can convince a white man..." quote attributed to LBJ for something slightly more modern. Those are just a few examples, but the list goes on and on (the Chinese Exclusion Act, etc.). Economic standing has been used to fuel bigotry for a long time, and it's not going to be going away in the near future.

 

[pigeon]

we always somehow end up in a position where america is intractably conservative and nothing can be done about it.

what i don't get is what liberals want to make out of this. are you saying we should move right to try and get those conservative votes, when it's clear that the republican voting bloc loathes you? is it just pointless and we should give up?

I mostly just want people to stop telling me that voting for white supremacy is a totally understandable choice and start holding people to moral account for their decision, because, to be totally honest, I believe the reason a lot of those people chose to vote for white supremacy is that their ostensibly progressive family members chose to excuse their racism because "it's just politics" or "he's got economic anxiety." Maybe if you went ahead and challenged them they wouldn't have gotten radicalized in the first place.

But other than that, it's clear to me that people who think the most productive thing for them to do right now is complain about Hillary Clinton are not ever going to be useful allies against white supremacy anyway, so I don't personally want you to do anything in particular, like, go ahead and entertain yourself while I work on this I guess.

i also think that liberals hear leftists talk and somehow think we're trying to convince conservatives rather than the 40+ percent of eligible voters who consistently feel like their interests are not being represented by the establishment policies of either party and don't vote.

Then yelling at people who think enough about politics to spend time posting about it on an video game message board seems like a super ineffective strategy?

 

[pigeon]

Then get your terminology right. Socialists who don't care about civil rights don't exist, it would run against the definition of socialism.

So what do you consider yourself then? You said in this very thread you think racism is a "purity test." Clearly you're not a socialist. What should we call your ilk?

 

[royalan]

funnily enough i don't believe it

Good for you.

In the meantime, as with everyone else, I encourage you to research progressive policies and Democratic politicians, particularly their voting records.

I mostly just want people to stop telling me that voting for white supremacy is a totally understandable choice and start holding people to moral account for their decision, because, to be totally honest, I believe the reason a lot of those people chose to vote for white supremacy is that their ostensibly progressive family members chose to excuse their racism because "it's just politics" or "he's got economic anxiety." Maybe if you went ahead and challenged them they wouldn't have gotten radicalized in the first place.

But other than that, it's clear to me that people who think the most productive thing for them to do right now is complain about Hillary Clinton are not ever going to be useful allies against white supremacy anyway, so I don't personally want you to do anything in particular, like, go ahead and entertain yourself while I work on this I guess.



Then yelling at people who think enough about politics to spend time posting about it on an video game message board seems like a super ineffective strategy?

FUCKING AMEN

 

[El_Tiguere]

The far left (which, believe it or not, I consider myself a part of) will get nowhere if they don't embrace the Democratic party as a whole. That includes the Clintons, and Bookers, And Frankens, and all the "evil corporate Dems" of the world.

Why? What for?


P.s. Franken is cool in my book.

 

[Autoignition]

Why? What for?


P.s. Franken is cool in my book.

Here's why. I linked this earlier in the thread, but I'm going to do it again. As Democrats, our biggest problem is that we're a coalition going up against a party of ideologues. Until we find a way to permanently change this, we're going to keep running into this problem over and over and over again.

The fact of the matter is that the numbers are on our side, but we keep fighting ourselves. You can see it right here in this thread. Now there's even a shithead wing of the party calling themselves "Justice Democrats" that want to primary every incumbent Democrat that doesn't pass their purity tests.

This is why I (and many other people here) keep saying that what we need is a great messenger. Someone who can sell our platform not only to the country but also to each other.

 

[El_Tiguere]

There's the economy, then there's """the economy""". Bernie ran on the former, Trump on the latter. Trump's idea of "economy" was "dey tuk our jerbs", "bring back coal", "fuck China, make everything US made", etc, etc. None of it grounded in reality, none of it actually nuanced discussion on economics or policy.

It was generic far-right rhetoric, populism, xenophobia and racism with no actual basis on the economy. You might think Bernie was going to fare better but the reality is that Bernie and Trump were not having the same conversation.

Which is why you match up xenophobic right wing populism against the vision of a fair inclusive economy that prioritizes workers under Bernie's left wing populism. It's why Bernie consistently beat Trump 55 to 44ish.

Women, moderate center to left woukdnhave gone for him. Independents were already all over Bernie. Corrupt Democrats and the corrupt media would have had to have fallen in line for the sake of defeating Trump, young people that stayed home would have MOBILIZED under Bernie (instead they got shown once again how bullshit politics are with the whole DNC debacle). Many many paths to victory for an ol statesman who people recognize for being genuine against an orange buffoon who was the lesser of two evils for a ton of people.

 

[Mutant]

For starters? Maybe stop slandering liberals who are just a tiny bit to the right of you as conservative.

That would be a start.

Maybe you shouldn't consider people who supported Bernie Sanders as enemies that you actively work against?

 

[kame-sennin]

The far left (which, believe it or not, I consider myself a part of) will get nowhere if they don't embrace the Democratic party as a whole. That includes the Clintons, and Bookers, And Frankens, and all the "evil corporate Dems" of the world.

The only way the left will get anywhere is if they abandon the democratic party and electoral politics and put all of their energy into movements, direct action, and revolt.

The purpose of the democratic party is to redirect the energy of the left, which is a threat to the state, into a dead electoral system that the corporate state can easily manage. This goes especially for Bernie, who ran a sheepdog campaign designed to pull disaffected leftists back into the democratic party.

 

[El_Tiguere]

The fact of the matter is that the numbers are on our side, but we keep fighting ourselves. You can see it right here in this thread. Now there's even a shithead wing of the party calling themselves "Justice Democrats" that want to primary every incumbent Democrat that doesn't pass their purity tests..

So what is that "purity test" exactly?

 

[pigeon]

Maybe you shouldn't consider people who supported Bernie Sanders as enemies that you actively work against?

People who think white supremacy is not a real issue and that the Democrats need to stop talking about it are enemies that I am actively working against.

 

[Autoignition]

So what is that "purity test" exactly?

You'd have to ask them. I don't watch TYT, I just see the headlines pass along my Twitter feed from time to time.

 

[Autoignition]

The only way the left will get anywhere is if they abandon the democratic party and electoral politics and put all of their energy into movements, direct action, and revolt.

The purpose of the democratic party is to redirect the energy of the left, which is a threat to the state, into a dead electoral system that the corporate state can easily manage. This goes especially for Bernie, who ran a sheepdog campaign designed to pull disaffected leftists back into the democratic party.

Green party door's open. See you.

 

[Mutant]

People who think white supremacy is not a real issue and that the Democrats need to stop talking about it are enemies that I am actively working against.

Wait what? Did Bernie Sanders endorse white supremacy or...?

 

[pigeon]

Wait what? Did Bernie Sanders endorse white supremacy or...?

A bunch of people blew it off in this very thread, and all the "real progressives" who support Bernie Sanders ignored it and focused all their energy on attacking Hillary.

I can only assume that you guys agree with them or at least condone people who don't care about white supremacy as long as they agree with you about Hillary Clinton being terrible. Otherwise I assume you'd say something!

 

[Mutant]

A bunch of people blew it off in this very thread, and all the "real progressives" who support Bernie Sanders ignored it and focused all their energy on attacking Hillary.

I can only assume that you guys agree with them or at least condone people who don't care about white supremacy as long as they agree with you about Hillary Clinton being terrible. Otherwise I assume you'd say something!

I'm not a Bernie Bro (or "Socialist Democrat"?) or a part of a rogue conspiracy to undermine whatever. I'm a member of my county's DNC and I try hard to make things bluer in my red district that's in the swing state of Wisconsin.

But what you're saying are two different things. Bernie Sanders had statistically less racist supporters than Hillary. They pushed hard to get a Muslim in the DNC chair. What you're seeing is the venn diagram of brogressives and Sander supporters.

Go tell brogressives to fuck off. Not the entirety of Sander supporters.

 

[pigeon]

I'm not a Bernie Bro (or "Socialist Democrat"?) or a part of a rogue conspiracy to undermine whatever. I'm a member of my county's DNC and I try hard to make things bluer in my red district that's in the swing state of Wisconsin.

But what you're saying are two different things. Bernie Sanders had statistically less racist supporters than Hillary. They pushed hard to get a Muslim in the DNC chair. What you're seeing is the venn diagram of brogressives and Sander supporters.

Go tell brogressives to fuck off. Not the entirety of Sander supporters.

Stop assuming I'm talking about the entirety of Sanders supporters instead of the specific people I said I was talking about!

 

[Father_Brain]

funnily enough i don't believe it

Ah, yes, the "far left" that treats anyone with political views meaningfully to the left of Democratic Party leadership as an enemy that must be ruthlessly purged.

 

[El_Tiguere]

You'd have to ask them. I don't watch TYT, I just see the headlines pass along my Twitter feed from time to time.

It's important. What is the actual test so many Democrats are afraid to face? That they have to be "pure" in what way?

 

[Autoignition]

It's important. What is the actual test so many Democrats are afraid to face? That they have to be "pure" in what way?

No. Don't badger me about this. Go watch The Young Turks. Because I won't.

 

[kame-sennin]

The fact of the matter is that the numbers are on our side, but we keep fighting ourselves. You can see it right here in this thread. Now there's even a shithead wing of the party calling themselves "Justice Democrats" that want to primary every incumbent Democrat that doesn't pass their purity tests.

Green party door's open. See you.

Bernie supporters, "true progressives", leftists, social democrats, democratic socialists; this is what democrats think of you. When you criticize their corporate policies, they gaslight you and reduce your concerns to a "purity test". If you try to 'work within the system' and shift the party to the left with primary challenges, you're a "shithead". It's time to abandon ship. Dems only want leftists in their party if they can tame you and keep you voting for corporate candidates.

Activism is the only way you're going to see the change you want. The electoral system is designed to drain the energy out of movements without dramatically altering the status quo.

Out of the party and into the streets.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Bernie supporters, "true progressives", leftists, social democrats, democratic socialists; this is what democrats think of you. When you criticize their corporate policies, they gaslight you and reduce your concerns to a "purity test". If you try to 'work within the system' and shift the party to the left with primary challenges, you're a "shithead". It's time to abandon ship. Dems only want leftists in their party if they can tame you and keep you voting for corporate candidates.

Activism is the only way you're going to see the change you want. The electoral system is designed to drain the energy out of movements without dramatically altering the status quo.

Out of the party and into the streets.

Yeah, maybe next time you'll get 25% for single payer health care in a referendum instead of 21% in a swing state.

Primary challenges to Democrat's who are far out of step within their state are fine. go after Dianne Feinstein with my full support. But, you're not going to get a socialist elected in West Virginia. The only thing knocking Joe Manchin out in the Democratic Primary is make sure his Republican opponent gets 80% in the general.

 

[pigeon]

Yeah, maybe next time you'll get 25% for single payer health care in a referendum instead of 21% in a swing state.

Primary challenges to Democrat's who are far out of step within their state are fine. go after Dianne Feinstein with my full support. But, you're not going to get a socialist elected in West Virginia. The only thing knocking Joe Manchin out in the Democratic Primary is make sure his Republican opponent gets 80% in the general.

I assume his Republican opponent will also support white supremacy? Seems like kind of a wash to me.

Manchin is a great example of my problem here. If we have to run a white supremacist to win West Virginia then maybe we just shouldn't be winning West Virginia. How does it help the Democratic Party for it to include people who support white supremacy? All it does is make it impossible to say that the Democratic Party will campaign hard against every senator who voted for a former KKK member to become AG. Instead we have to say we'll campaign hard against every senator who voted for a former KKK member to become AG unless they're a Democrat, in which case it's fine. This line of argument literally makes kame-sennin right about everything.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Maybe you shouldn't consider people who supported Bernie Sanders as enemies that you actively work against?

That's impossible for some of these people. Which is why the Democratic Party continues to be doomed. Just look at their knee-jerk reaction to automatically run someone against the person that Bernie supported for DNC chair. These people prefer ruling over Hell to serving in Heaven.

 

[Boney]

using equal pay advocacy as an example as to how progressive one's platform is beyond clueless. It's an empty platitude since gender segregated work is the largest factor, and the proposed transparency mechanisms are half measures at best.

The only way the left will get anywhere is if they abandon the democratic party and electoral politics and put all of their energy into movements, direct action, and revolt.

The purpose of the democratic party is to redirect the energy of the left, which is a threat to the state, into a dead electoral system that the corporate state can easily manage. This goes especially for Bernie, who ran a sheepdog campaign designed to pull disaffected leftists back into the democratic party.

Amen. The dems as an institution need to be reactionary towards public pressure. Hoping they'll do good on their own merits is willfully ignorant.

 

[pigeon]

That's impossible for some of these people. Which is why the Democratic Party continues to be doomed. Just look at their knee-jerk reaction to automatically run someone against the person that Bernie supported for DNC chair. These people prefer ruling over Hell to serving in Heaven.

I'm really curious as to who you're talking about here.

 

[kame-sennin]

This line of argument literally makes kame-sennin right about everything.

Are you ok? Maybe you should see a doctor.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

That's impossible for some of these people. Which is why the Democratic Party continues to be doomed. Just look at their knee-jerk reaction to automatically run someone against the person that Bernie supported for DNC chair. These people prefer ruling over Hell to serving in Heaven.

Perez winning DNC chair and him being a huge critic of the 50 State Strategy when Obama's team was dismantling it shows that the Democratic party is made up of professional losers who have no interest in winning. It's basically over for the Democratic party for the foreseeable future. 2018 is going to be a bloodbath. It was never going to be a good year but Perez is going to ensure that it goes as badly as possible. And the democrats with run someone like Corey Booker or Kirsten Gillibrand and lose the 2020 election in a spectacular trainwreck. At this point is a question of whether they'll right the ship before 2024.

 

[Abounder]

So, would it be enough to take Hillary's exact policies, and put it into a whole new package with a candidate that doesn't have the damaged history, is likable, and will proudly promote those policies?

Yes, I certainly think so. Hillary's main problem was trouble with cutting through the noise and, in a lot of cases, adding to it. And this was a noisy campaign.

I mean, hell, if only she'd have made herself more accessible to the press during the campaign, that might've been enough to get her the few tens of thousands of votes she needed. Trump was ridiculously accessible despite constantly brow-beating the media, but Hillary (very understandably and for good reason) avoided them at all cost. At most, she would do the occasional phone interview, but even those didn't go well because she was always so guarded. I still cringe when I think about her phone interview with Anderson Cooper shortly after the whole pneumonia thing. He wasn't even being his usual top-tier, balls-out, no-BS self, either. Yeesh.

Word, the next candidate has to rival Obama's work ethic on the trail, which Hillary failed spectacularly at despite decades and million$ of prep work. Not only did she fly home every night like the rookie Trump, like mentioned already she let the birther outhustle rallies/media, skipped WI, and had fewer than half the field offices in battleground states than Obama did. Blunder after blunder

 

[Maledict]

Perez winning DNC chair and him being a huge critic of the 50 State Strategy when Obama's team was dismantling it shows that the Democratic party is made up of professional losers who have no interest in winning. It's basically over for the Democratic party for the foreseeable future. 2018 is going to be a bloodbath. It was never going to be a good year but Perez is going to ensure that it goes as badly as possible. And the democrats with run someone like Corey Booker or Kirsten Gillibrand and lose the 2020 election in a spectacular trainwreck. At this point is a question of whether they'll right the ship before 2024.

I often wonder if Bernie supporters who talk about a 50 state strategy actually understand d what that means. It means more Joe Manchin's, not more Bernies.

And yeah, no-one in the Democratic Party wants to win. I'm sure you have a logical and sound for them wanting to lose all the time.

 

[royalan]

The only way the left will get anywhere is if they abandon the democratic party

If you've got the numbers, sure. Go ahead.

Spoiler

You don't have the numbers.

Tired of so-called "progressives" and their threats. Waaah! If you don't give us exactly what we want, exactly when we want it, every freaking time, we're going to leave the party! Fuck compromise and coalitions!

The green party's that way.

I often wonder if Bernie supporters who talk about a 50 state strategy actually understand d what that means. It means more Joe Manchin's, not more Bernies.

And yeah, no-one in the Democratic Party wants to win. I'm sure you have a logical and sound for them wanting to lose all the time.

This needs to be repeated. At some point, progressives convinced themselves that a "50 state strategy" means running a socialist in every state. That is completely wrong.

The 50 state strategy is about funding. Funding the local parties and empowering them to find their own candidates tailored to the needs of their local groups.

And yes, that DOES mean more Manchins. More moderates. Oh no.

 

[PdotMichael]

So what do you consider yourself then? You said in this very thread you think racism is a "purity test." Clearly you're not a socialist. What should we call your ilk?

I'm social democrat. And no I didn't say that racism is a purity test but you claimed that the opposite are all racist.

 

[Rentahamster]

Protip: giving progressives even more encouragement to leave the Democratic Party isn't a good strategy if you want to grow the Democratic Party.

 

[El_Tiguere]

Protip: giving progressives even more encouragement to leave the Democratic Party isn't a good strategy if you want to grow the Democratic Party.

They do have a point. Corporate cartels own the current crop of Democrats. Special interests are already too entrenched there for the bottom 90% of Americans to have their voices heard by these self-enriching corporate puppets. We do need a new party at this point.

 

[KingV]

No one will buy your socialism if they think blacks and mexicans are going to be getting handouts from their taxes. This is what Trump has that the left doesn't seem to understand.

It's why Obama had to run like Mr. Vanilla Moderate and still had labels thrown at him.



When did I call him a leftist? I said he barely won as a southern Democrat right after Watergate. That's how much the country was unwilling to go left.

Obama IS Mr. Vanilla moderate.

That is not only how he ran, it's how he governed. I'd say he actually ran left of where he governed.

 

[Boney]

They do have a point. Corporate cartels own the current crop of Democrats. Special interests are already too entrenched there for the bottom 90% of Americans to have their voices heard by these self-enriching corporate puppets. We do need a new party at this point.

The death of the liberal class

In a traditional democracy, the liberal class functions as a safety valve. It makes piecemeal and incremental reform possible. It offers hope for change and proposes gradual steps toward greater equality. It endows the state and the mechanisms of power with virtue. It also serves as an attack dog that discredits radical social movements, making the liberal class a useful component within the power elite.

But the assault by the corporate state on the democratic state has claimed the liberal class as one of its victims. Corporate power forgot that the liberal class, when it functions, gives legitimacy to the power elite. And reducing the liberal class to courtiers or mandarins, who have nothing to offer but empty rhetoric, shuts off this safety valve and forces discontent to find other outlets that often end in violence. The inability of the liberal class to acknowledge that corporations have wrested power from the hands of citizens, that the Constitution and its guarantees of personal liberty have become irrelevant, and that the phrase consent of the governed is meaningless, has left it speaking and acting in ways that no longer correspond to reality. It has lent its voice to hollow acts of political theater, and the pretense that democratic debate and choice continue to exist.

...

Such a fate awaits the liberal class, which insists on clinging to its positions of privilege while at the same time refusing to play its traditional role within the democratic state. The liberal class has become a useless and despised appendage of corporate power. And as corporate power pollutes and poisons the ecosystem and propels us into a world where there will be only masters and serfs, the liberal class, which serves no purpose in the new configuration, is being abandoned and discarded. The death of the liberal class means there is no check to a corporate apparatus designed to enrich a tiny elite and plunder the nation. An ineffectual liberal class means there is no hope, however remote, of a correction or a reversal. It ensures that the frustration and anger among the working and middle classes will find expression outside the confines of democratic institutions and the civilities of a liberal democracy.

 

[KingV]

Green party door's open. See you.

This attitude just lost an election.