Support NeoGAF

[sugarhigh4242]

Ok. So what will you be doing in the next couple years to get the party you want?

#1: Organizing. Going to where working class movements are and signing people up, getting them to meetings, doing political education. It happens at marches, union demonstrations, college campuses, etc.

#2: Issue-oriented activist campaigns. Lots of worthy issues out there. The 15 minimum wage, public school funding/reform, prison reform, rent control, municipal broadband, immigration rights, black lives matter, and so on. Both initiating campaigns through the party and joining other campaigns in solidarity.

#3: Running candidates for winnable local offices. Another one just announced today in Minneapolis: https://www.minnpost.com/politics-p...nneapolis-council-seat-under-socialist-altern

 

[hydragonwarrior]

At least for Warren, I believe her rationale was basically: "Sigh. And there's someone worse waiting in the wings, isn't there?"

Grinding one department to a halt won't accomplish anything, and for this particular position it probably not worth it compared to other upcoming ones.

I do agree though, Dems should instead be informing via the media what THEY are doing and what they are allowing. Try to control the fucking media for once, dems! Give us a positive message on what you're doing!

However, if the remaining are all given flying colors, then yea I would then agree there's some really rotten shit happening.

 

[kirblar]

Yes, the Democrats inadvertently screwed themselves in 2013 by defanging the fillibuster like that.

No they didn't. There was nothing preventing the GOP from a making the same rule change on their own. This unilateral disarmament fear from the Dems re the filibuster has been the stupidest thing. The GOP is not going to abide by norms. So when you get an eclipse, play to win and pull out all the stops.

Right now he Dems have no actual power without GOP defectors. Therefore, they have to pick and choose where to point the media.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

i wonder if it's actually occurred to any elected democrats that the massive deluge of evil shit that's going to be flooding us for the next year could have been done even more easily in the other direction in 2009 if they hadn't been so utterly worthless

Nancy Pelosi already told us the answer. It's no:

http://nypost.com/2016/12/04/nancy-pelosi-i-dont-think-democrats-want-a-new-direction/

No chance. The old timers will stick around no matter who the face of the party is in a Presidential race. There is a reason Nancy Pelosi is still around and it is not because of her progressive views or political acumen.

Absolutely right. It's their party:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/...t-civil-rights-mcgovern-meany-rustin-sanders/

 

[Mighty Chin]

Not really sure what you want Dems to do at this point. 3 Nominees confirmed. Everything else has been EO's.

 

[dskillzhtown]

Not really sure what you want Dems to do at this point. 3 Nominees confirmed. Everything else has been EO's.

Exactly. I just think many are feeling angst and frustration and want SOMETHING done. It doesn't work like that. The Dems have zero power right now, so if you want something to happen, you need to do your part and continue to speak up and support candidates next year.

 

[aeolist]

Not really sure what you want Dems to do at this point. 3 Nominees confirmed. Everything else has been EO's.

they could show that they're on the same page as their massive angry base. even if it's a meaningless symbolic stand, that's still important.

instead they're just rolling over. if we can't count on them to fight back when it doesn't matter, why should we believe they will when it does?

 

[kirblar]

they could show that they're on the same page as their massive angry base. even if it's a meaningless symbolic stand, that's still important.

instead they're just rolling over. if we can't count on them to fight back when it doesn't matter, why should we believe they will when it does?

Endlessly feeding people's desire for emotional validation from others is the last thing that they should be doing.

They have limited resources. Outrage is one of them.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Exactly. I just think many are feeling angst and frustration and want SOMETHING done. It doesn't work like that. The Dems have zero power right now, so if you want something to happen, you need to do your part and continue to speak up and support candidates next year.

How is it that Democrats have 0 power unless they hold the presidency and super majorities in both houses. But Republicans are always formidable?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27372033/ns/politics-decision_08/t/why-magic-senate-number/#.WIojWnUrLCI

And furthermore, why didn't Democrats do much of anything for the 2 years they actually had it? Why is Guantanamo Bay still a US prison colony?

 

[Blader]

#1: Organizing. Going to where working class movements are and signing people up, getting them to meetings, doing political education. It happens at marches, union demonstrations, college campuses, etc.

#2: Issue-oriented activist campaigns. Lots of worthy issues out there. The 15 minimum wage, public school funding/reform, prison reform, rent control, municipal broadband, immigration rights, black lives matter, and so on. Both initiating campaigns through the party and joining other campaigns in solidarity.

#3: Running candidates for winnable local offices. Another one just announced today in Minneapolis: https://www.minnpost.com/politics-p...nneapolis-council-seat-under-socialist-altern

Good luck to you.

they could show that they're on the same page as their massive angry base. even if it's a meaningless symbolic stand, that's still important.

instead they're just rolling over. if we can't count on them to fight back when it doesn't matter, why should we believe they will when it does?

As a Democratic voter who is very angry and has spent the last few months calling my senators, attending marches and rallies, and making donations to advocacy groups I believe in, I do not want my representatives making meaningless symbolic stands. I want them doing actually meaningful things. Those options are pretty limited the way things are, but I've seen it in a lot of their questioning in committee hearings, which is as good as it can get for now.

 

[aeolist]

Endlessly feeding people's desire for emotional validation from others is the last thing that they should be doing.

They have limited resources. Outrage is one of them.

a no vote costs them literally nothing

 

[kirblar]

How is it that Democrats have 0 power unless they hold the presidency and super majorities in both houses. But Republicans are always formidable?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27372033/ns/politics-decision_08/t/why-magic-senate-number/#.WIojWnUrLCI

And furthermore, why didn't Democrats do much of anything for the 2 years they actually had it? Why is Guantanamo Bay still a US prison colony?

Because Obama tried to play nice/fair and fucked himself over in the process.

Guantanamo got complicated by the "where do we put the prisoners" issue.

a no vote costs them literally nothing

Absolutely incorrect. An endless sea of No votes makes one a broken record and makes it impossible to spotlight an issue. It makes them a one-note stopped clock.

 

[Future]

they could show that they're on the same page as their massive angry base. even if it's a meaningless symbolic stand, that's still important.

instead they're just rolling over. if we can't count on them to fight back when it doesn't matter, why should we believe they will when it does?

Exactly. Dems continue to quiet instead of motivate their base

 

[Neato_Jinkins]

it would be funny to see so many people in this thread who still believe that there are an unspoken set of rules in american politics, if it wasn't so pathetically sad. you dipshits are still playing chess while the republicans flipped the board eight years ago.

please, find me an example of a strategic vote being turned around for favorable treatment in recent political history. because i have an example of obstructionism and ideals-based politicking leading directly to increased political power, and i assure you it's a fucking doozy.

 

[aeolist]

Because Obama tried to play nice/fair and fucked himself over in the process.

Guantanamo got complicated by the "where do we put the prisoners" issue.

Absolutely incorrect. An endless sea of No votes makes one a broken record and makes it impossible to spotlight an issue. It makes them a one-note stopped clock.

i can only laugh at the people who believe that this brand of realpolitik still has any meaning after the last 8 years and the election of donald fucking trump

everything you think you know is wrong

 

[BajiBoxer]

Superdelegates don't really matter in what quickly thin down to two-person races. If you dumped them, Hillary still wins.

If you dumped them in 2008, Obama would still have won.

If you dumped them in 2004, Kerry would still have won.

If you dumped them in 2000, Gore would still have won.

They're there in case of multi-way shitshows where no candidate is a clear, unambiguous, majority winner of the contests.

That this year of all years became the year that people bring up superdelegates completely boggles the mind. Hillary won by ~12%. By GE standards, that's a complete epic blowout. In primary standards, there's not really a comparison because candidates typically drop out after they've lost any real chance at getting the nomination.

I think part of the problem with the superdelegates was how the Clinton campaign and some in the media used the superdelegates early on as not so subtle propaganda. Touting huge superdelegate leads before anyone has voted is not how the superdelegates were intended to be used. It may be smart politicaly and not against the rules, but it also undermines the Democratic process and leaves a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths. That along with caucuses (which Bernie benefited from) don't do much to encourage participation. They just make a lot of people believe they don't matter.

 

[Blader]

How is it that Democrats have 0 power unless they hold the presidency and super majorities in both houses. But Republicans are always formidable?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27372033/ns/politics-decision_08/t/why-magic-senate-number/#.WIojWnUrLCI

And furthermore, why didn't Democrats do much of anything for the 2 years they actually had it? Why is Guantanamo Bay still a US prison colony?

Democrats got quite a lot done in those two years. And it's much harder to govern when you're: a) presiding over more diverse interest groups in your electorate; and b) actually interested in governing.

it would be funny to see so many people in this thread who still believe that there are an unspoken set of rules in american politics, if it wasn't so pathetically sad. you dipshits are still playing chess while the republicans flipped the board eight years ago.

please, find me an example of a strategic vote being turned around for favorable treatment in recent political history. because i have an example of obstructionism and ideals-based politicking leading directly to increased political power, and i assure you it's a fucking doozy.

Nobody is arguing to be amenable to now in order to win concessions from Trump or the GOP later. The point is taking advantage of the media's and the public's limited attention span, which you can't do if you're unleashing equal levels of opposition at everything.

 

[Neato_Jinkins]

itt: people who believe sorkin's west wing was a documentary

 

[Neato_Jinkins]

"maybe if we vote for the degenerate ghouls now, our principled stand against death marches will seem all the more poignant down the line" - an idiot

 

[sugarhigh4242]

itt: people who believe sorkin's west wing was a documentary

 

[aeolist]

Nobody is arguing to be amenable to now in order to win concessions from Trump or the GOP later. The point is taking advantage of the media's and the public's limited attention span, which you can't do if you're unleashing equal levels of opposition at everything.

the media doesn't pay attention to the voting record. voting no on all of these fucks will not dominate the news cycle and push some more worthy cause to the sidelines.

vote no because it's the right thing to do and it's what your base wants. fuck this political calculus, it's gotten us nowhere good.

 

[kirblar]

i can only laugh at the people who believe that this brand of realpolitik still has any meaning after the last 8 years and the election of donald fucking trump

everything you think you know is wrong

If people aren't fucking motivated on their own, something is wrong. Senators' procedural votes are going to have a grand influence of 0 on 2018 turnout and local involvement.

Getting angry that other people aren't expressing enough outrage to satisfy people's endless thirst for it. If people are interested in putting up a political firing squad for representatives who aren't displaying enough anger while all this horrid shit is going down, it shows exactly where their priorities are and why they should be rightfully ignored.

I think part of the problem with the superdelegates was how the Clinton campaign and some in the media used the superdelegates early on as not so subtle propaganda. Touting huge superdelegate leads before anyone has voted is not how the superdelegates were intended to be used. It may be smart politicaly and not against the rules, but it also undermines the Democratic process and leaves a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths. That along with caucuses (which Bernie benefited from) don't do much to encourage participation. They just make a lot of people believe they don't matter.

The Clinton camp didn't want them counted, the media did it anyway.

 

[Parshias7]

It has become pretty clear to me over the past year that a decent chunk of the left is far more interested in appearing to be right than actually getting any results.

But muh convictions!

 

[aeolist]

It has become pretty clear to me over the past year that a decent chunk of the left is far more interested in appearing to be right than actually getting any results.

But muh convictions!

are you talking about the centrists who lost the most important election in our lifetimes or the leftists pointing out that they were running a losing candidate?

because it seems to me the left was right all along and the centrists claiming to be hard-eyed realists were living in a dream world.

 

[Lowmelody]

Democratic party has currently rolled over. To ever regain a mandate it will need to move left hard and energize resistance to trump. By the time trump is done with this country the entire population will be after the blood of anyone close to trump and we will need a strong socialist push to to make the most use of the then ubiquitous contempt of all things conservative.

Much like the mood after W had his way with the country for so long, everyone was ready to move further left and Obama was there to do things that seemed fantasy 4 or more years previously. After trump the public at large will again be ready for another push but this time in proportion to the actual damage the republicans under trump had caused.

We need a party that will seize that time and not extend olive branches, not offer compromise for the sake of bipartisanship and actually use the massive public momentum away from the right and use it to push the left.

Third way, worst way.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

It has become pretty clear to me over the past year that a decent chunk of the left is far more interested in appearing to be right than actually getting any results.

But muh convictions!

Obama got results on Anwar Al Awlaki and his 16 year old son.

 

[Principate]

Democrats got quite a lot done in those two years. And it's much harder to govern when you're: a) presiding over more diverse interest groups in your electorate; and b) actually interested in governing.



Nobody is arguing to be amenable to now in order to win concessions from Trump or the GOP later. The point is taking advantage of the media's and the public's limited attention span, which you can't do if you're unleashing equal levels of opposition at everything.

Haha what? Do you honestly think the GOP would be in power if the public gave the slightest shit about the type of shit they did under Obama? They (the republicans) applauded it. I can tell you right now that taking the higher ground will garner you exactly zero praise or positivity and may even give you the opposite.

 

[kirblar]

are you talking about the centrists who lost the most important election in our lifetimes or the leftists pointing out that they were running a losing candidate?

because it seems to me the left was right all along and the centrists claiming to be hard-eyed realists were living in a dream world.

Clinton being a bad candidate doesn't mean Bernie was a good one. He was even worse. Angry populist, or angry racist populist as the two options? Bernie only wins the Dem nomination if only white people vote, and if only white people vote, they don't vote for the Democrat.

Dems need to ban repeat non-incumbent Pres candidates as an institutional rule. It never works for them.

 

[Blader]

the media doesn't pay attention to the voting record. voting no on all of these fucks will not dominate the news cycle and push some more worthy cause to the sidelines.

vote no because it's the right thing to do and it's what your base wants. fuck this political calculus, it's gotten us nowhere good.

I AM PART OF THE BASE and I am saying that I do not want meaningless no votes everywhere for the sake of casting meaningless no votes.

Bernie has and will vote for Trump cabinet choices. He already praised Trump for killing TPP and said he'd be delighted to work with him on trade issues. Is Bernie a spineless coward who needs to be primary'd by someone more progressive?

Haha what? Do you honestly think the GOP would be in power if the public gave the slightest shit about the type of shit they did under Obama? They (the republicans) applauded it. I can tell you right now that taking the higher ground will garner you exactly zero praise or positivity and may even give you the opposite.

I didn't say a thing about taking the high road. It's not about earning points, it's about maximizing how to land your hits.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Clinton being a bad candidate doesn't mean Bernie was a good one. He was even worse. Angry populist, or angry racist populist as the two options? Bernie only wins the Dem nomination if only white people vote, and if only white people vote, they don't vote for the Democrat.

Dems need to ban repeat non-incumbent Pres candidates as an institutional rule. It never works for them.

First of all, people are angry, and they want someone to represent their anger.

Second, Bernie wasn't angry! What are you even talking about here? The guy is a meme now for being a pussycat, loveable grandfather.

OMG LOOK HOW ANGRY HE IS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc2TVLoxsDA

Get real. Jesus.

 

[aeolist]

the real reason this is happening wrt to the cabinet nominations is because senate dems don't really have an issue with most of these people. booker was a major ally of betsy devos's nightmarish school privatization organization for fuck's sake, a government run by exxon and goldman sachs is what they want.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Obama got results on Anwar Al Awlaki and his 16 year old son.

That principled Liberal precedent!

itt: people who believe sorkin's west wing was a documentary

But but what is Trump going to do about the Butterball hotline?!

 

[kirblar]

First of all, people are angry, and they want someone to represent their anger.

Second, Bernie wasn't angry! What are you even talking about here? The guy is a meme now for being a pussycat, loveable grandfather.

OMG LOOK HOW ANGRY HE IS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc2TVLoxsDA

Get real. Jesus.

I'm angry. I don't need someone to show me how angry they are. I need them to work to fix the things I'm angry about.

 

[Metroidvania]

Much like the mood after W had his way with the country for so long, everyone was ready to move further left and Obama was there to do things that seemed fantasy 4 or more years previously. After trump the public at large will again be ready for another push but this time in proportion to the actual damage the republicans under trump had caused.

The problem with this sentiment (or at least, the fear therein) is that there'll be so much broken shit after 2/4 years that it won't matter if/when the Dems get back into power.

Obviously, the potential is there for some people over-panicking, but at the same time, for any Democrat, the fire is lit, but they need to see that the legislators are with them, otherwise you start running into disconnects and people thinking 'why am I even voting?'

To the larger point, while I don't necessarily think saying 'NO' over and over is effective, I also don't know if the angry questioning during appointments is enough.

Sure, it's a symbolic point, but if you need to get the base fired up AND believe that you as the legislator actually intend to do something about it, all the explanations in the world aren't going to hold up when the public examines your voting record.

I understand, for example, Elizabeth Warren's statement on her approving Ben Carson, but at the same time, it doesn't exactly come across as reassuring to 'the base'.

 

[jWILL253]

After an election season that was based entirely upon optics, it's funny that you have people suggesting that we approach the issues with the Democratic Party in a practical manner.

The biggest problem with the progressive American left and the parties that represent them is a huge lack of discipline. We can whine and stomp all we want, but the people that represent us don't share the same amount of passion, and never seem to stick to their guns.

 

[Father_Brain]

Clinton being a bad candidate doesn't mean Bernie was a good one. He was even worse. Angry populist, or angry racist populist as the two options? Bernie only wins the Dem nomination if only white people vote, and if only white people vote, they don't vote for the Democrat.

Dems need to ban repeat non-incumbent Pres candidates as an institutional rule. It never works for them.

I honestly don't know whether Bernie would have won and I'm not interested in getting in a lengthy argument about that, except to say that anyone who insisted for months and months that Trump was obviously unelectable and/or that Hillary was the ideal candidate to take him on should probably stop claiming to know anything about what constitutes electability in modern American politics.

 

[Eidan]

People that speak to millenials like Bernie will get them to show up. The more people running that speak to us and our problems and are passionate about it the better turnout will be.

Millennial turnout during the 2016 primary was down versus the 2008 one.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

The biggest problem with the progressive American left and the parties that represent them is a huge lack of discipline. We can whine and stomp all we want, but the people that represent us don't share the same amount of passion, and never seem to stick to their guns.

They don't just lack our passion. They oppose us politically. Progressive Democrats still think they're participating in the party of the New Deal. That has been over for almost 40 years. Bill Clinton put the nail in the coffin.

The Democrats are the party of neoliberalism. They favor privatization of public services. They've embraced US imperialism. They support union-busting efforts, and they stand idly by while Republicans tear down the voting rights act.


This Guardian piece lays it out excellently. This is our reality:

Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you'll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

 

[Abounder]

Not just spineless, but lazy as well as we saw with Hillary and her camp, not to mention the lack of party presence @ local levels across the USofA. Absolutely amazing that my fellow Dems gambled the country away on a candidate who had all-time low ratings and an open FBI investigation, they are corrupt and hopeless beyond belief but I digress (and no one thought Hillary would campaign as little or as poorly as she did).

Anyway expect the party to be as worthless as ever without Obama/Clinton's backbone, the Dems need to get organized pronto. Absolutely shameful that 13 of them voted against cheaper prescription drugs but then again this is a party that even ate itself on making a better Obamacare. Just look at the Debbie Schultz fiasco for a preview of things to come

 

[Neoweee]

I think part of the problem with the superdelegates was how the Clinton campaign and some in the media used the superdelegates early on as not so subtle propaganda. Touting huge superdelegate leads before anyone has voted is not how the superdelegates were intended to be used. It may be smart politicaly and not against the rules, but it also undermines the Democratic process and leaves a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths. That along with caucuses (which Bernie benefited from) don't do much to encourage participation. They just make a lot of people believe they don't matter.

Did they really tout a Super Delegate lead? This seemed like any other year, with the DNC telling the media repeatedly to stop using SDs in their tallies, because they don't mean anything during the media.

 

[Dude Abides]

There is little political downside to casting a meaningless no vote.

There is political downside to casting a meaningless yes vote: in April, when reports come out that CIA agents are waterboarding people again, Kellyanne Conway will say to George Stephanopoulos "George, fourteen democrats voted for Director Pompeo. This has been litigated."

 

[Neato_Jinkins]

hey, at least when carson fails to keep any of the "commitments" he offered for warren's vote, we'll get some BRUTAL clickbait articles where she utterly DESTROYS him by explaining how disappointed she is in her vote.

we'll all be fist pumping from the tent cities.

 

[Neato_Jinkins]

oh, heh, i see you know nothing of military strategy.

you see, the democrats are pursuing what's known as the fabian strategy. they just keep falling back and falling back, exhausting the enemy. as you can plainly see, the enemy has been exhausted into holding three branches of government. if we just fall back and grant them a few more statehouses, they'll go ahead and crumble under their own weight.

 

[Macam]

hey, at least when carson fails to keep any of the "commitments" he offered for warren's vote, we'll get some BRUTAL clickbait articles where she utterly DESTROYS him by explaining how disappointed she is in her vote.

we'll all be fist pumping from the tent cities.

I laughed.

Also, this rationalizing that Dems might as well be cautious and approve some of them because Reasons, is the same logic that got us here.

"Don't worry, Wisconsin is definitely going to stay blue! You'll see!"

You want people to show up in 2018? Give them a reason to.

 

[BajiBoxer]

Did they really tout a Super Delegate lead? This seemed like any other year, with the DNC telling the media repeatedly to stop using SDs in their tallies, because they don't mean anything during the media.

Yeah.

Not sure how to link directly, but googling you can find articles as far back as Summer 2015. Like a Bloomberg article titled: "Clinton Camp Says One-Fifth of Delegates Secured for Nomination" from August 2015 talking about their Superdelegate lead.

 

[Almighty]

It seems democrats are still playing by the old rules. The election of Trump made it clear the old rules are dead and the sooner the democrats adjust the better this country will be. Like the Dude Abides said all this does is allow the republicans to say that the democrats agreed with them. The dems are pretty much just putting on their "I'm with stupid" shirts.

 

[rokkerkory]

Democrats do not have a clear vision and a leader. That is the problem.

 

[Chezzymann]

This sounds like the reverse of what happened 8 years ago

Whos the Democrat version of trump?

 

[aeolist]

This sounds like the reverse of what happened 8 years ago

Whos the Democrat version of trump?

zuckerberg

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Democrats do not have a clear vision and a leader. That is the problem.

The leaders are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and Cory Booker.

If you don't like those leaders, maybe you're in the wrong party.