Support NeoGAF

[kirblar]

What level of pressure could be ineffective at this point?

Ones that pull a tea party, leading to Dems in vulnerable seats getting primaried by far flank challengers who are completely unviable in a general election, causing the party to lose seats in a wave election it should have easily won.

 

[water_wendi]

That's because they came off of the GOP literally obstructing everything, didn't pay attention to the reality in the Senate, and now expect the exact same from the Dems when it's literally impossible on these votes.

ive looked through the OP and the thread but im not exactly sober right now so maybe i missed it but can you point out for me where people are angry because the Democrats failed to stop someone or something?

 

[studyguy]

So they should vote for people or things that arent good just because their vote wouldnt effect the outcome?

What the fucks a blue dog? Everyone should be as progressive as a blue state dem!

Nonsense, pressure where you can, people railing against Dems like Manchin are literally not facing the reality that deep red Dems aren't ever going to be as progressive as they would hope for a reason. Their constituents in larger numbers would eat them alive. Worse yet the alternative is hardline repubs in those kinds of situations so where's the expected victory here?

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Ones that pull a tea party, leading to Dems in vulnerable seats getting primaried by far flank challengers who are completely unviable in a general election, causing the party to lose seats in a wave election it should have easily won.

ah yes, the electability argument. I believe I've seen this before.

 

[reckless]

i can see voting for something that is good for the country or a pick for someone is qualified but in the Whitehouse example he voted for fucking Pompeo. If there was a vote to declare war on Iran, and its impossible for Dems to stop it, would you be okay with them voting for it?

And he voted for Pompeo.. for what? Political favors from the GOP? lol At the expense of his base?

If it saved their seat somehow from a teapartier or something yeah. Otherwise i'd think they are pretty dumb because that vote would come back to haunt them.

His public reason for pompeo is, the pick coulda been a lot worse and pompeo wasn't really close to Trump he was closer to Rubio. Maybe keeping up relations with someone like Rubio might help in the future idk.

 

[excelsiorlef]

What level of pressure could be ineffective at this point?

The level of pressure that causes the next Tim Canovas to win primaries instead of being rightfully rejected.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I'm a bit confused about the tone here. The article, inasfar as I understand is saying "Democrats are taken aback by the passion of their base, and are asking Bernie Sanders for help in communicating to the base how to best direct this passion." This seems like a good thing! This is Bernie having his opinion taken in to account! This is Democrats trying to use one of their more exciting figures to organize effective resistance! What's the problem?

 

[sugarhigh4242]

The level of pressure that causes the next Tim Canovas to win primaries instead of being rightfully rejected.

I'm not going to ride for Tim Canova's progressive credentials, but since you've made your position clear, please admit that we're not in the same party and your party is not entitled to my vote.

 

[nelsonroyale]

Not so much:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/serv...-interest-groups-and-average-citizens-div.pdf
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-citizensdiv/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy

This is here is the heart of the problem.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I'm not going to ride for Tim Canova's progressive credentials, but since you've made your position clear, please admit that we're not in the same party and your party is not entitled to my vote.

I'm Canadian so no problem.

You can vote however you want just be prepared to own the results....

 

[Guess Who]

I'm a bit confused about the tone here. The article, inasfar as I understand is saying "Democrats are taken aback by the passion of their base, and are asking Bernie Sanders for help in communicating to the base how to best direct this passion." This seems like a good thing! This is Bernie having his opinion taken in to account! This is Democrats trying to use one of their more exciting figures to organize effective resistance! What's the problem?

It's more "Democratic constituents are mad at their Democratic congressmen for voting in favor of Trump's insane shit, and they're asking Bernie to help them redirect the anger towards the Republicans."

 

[Inuhanyou]

He's not even a radical when compared to Hillary or Obama.
Seriously, he's slightly to the left the Democratic party consensus, and in practical terms, it's very hard to imagine a bill that would have come from congress that Sanders would've signed but a generic Democrat wouldn't (and vice versa).

You mean like the one where democrats helped kill a bill to import Canadian drugs for cheaper cost in January and all people like Cory Booker could say was "we need approval of the FDA to make sure they are safe!"

Bernie rightfully attacked the corperatist senate dems for that, just like he always has. Its always amusing hearing people argue that the dems are somehow aligned with progressive policy when they could do nothing but run away from what their base wants almost 90% of the time

 

[Evil Monkey DTT]

ive looked through the OP and the thread but im not exactly sober right now so maybe i missed it but can you point out for me where people are angry because the Democrats failed to stop someone or something?

For what it's worth I'm personally angry at the lack of resistance for alot of these picks, even knowing they can't block these choices not a one of them should be voting people like Ben Carson for housing.

You mean like the one where democrats helped kill a bill to import Canadian drugs for cheaper cost in January and all people like Cory Booker could say was "we need approval of the FDA to make sure they are safe!"

Bernie rightfully attacked the corperatist senate dems for that, just like he always has. Its always amusing hearing people argue that the dems are somehow aligned with progressive policy when they could do nothing but run away from what their base wants almost 90% of the time

So much this, the democrats have no intention of matching progressive values. They just happen to be the only party left in america that isn't trying to actively kill us.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

It's more "Democratic constituents are mad at their Democratic congressmen for voting in favor of Trump's insane shit, and they're asking Bernie to help them redirect the anger towards the Republicans."

Yeah, I'm pretty mad at certain Democratic congressmen, too. I'd love to see Trump fail to get any Democrat vote. But I think that when the Democratic party turns to Bernie Sanders to ask him for help in communicating with the base, that can only be a good thing. The more the party leadership tries involve him in messaging and activism and shit like that, the more like Sanders the party will become.

 

[Khoryos]

So people do realize GOP obstruction only worked because they you know control both the Senate and House eh?

If it isn't going to make a difference anyway why the fuck wouldn't you stand on principle? What possible reason is there to *not* act the way your constituents want you to act?

 

[water_wendi]

If it saved their seat somehow from a teapartier or something yeah. Otherwise i'd think they are pretty dumb because that vote would come back to haunt them.

His public reason for pompeo is, the pick coulda been a lot worse and pompeo wasn't really close to Trump he was closer to Rubio. Maybe keeping up relations with someone like Rubio might help in the future idk.

While true i thought that there werent enough Democrats to block his vote so why all the pushback here? There is no point to vote for Pompeo. You lose the trust of your constituency, you gain zero political capital from the GOP (and if you believe that you should be voted out because you are an imbecile), and the "could have been worse" excuse means fuck all because there arent enough votes to stop his appointment anyway! So again if the opposition cant even oppose something as simple as this, they need to get out of the way for someone that will. Going along to get along is over imo.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

I'm Canadian so no problem.

You can vote however you want just be prepared to own the results....

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

The Democrats have been OK with owning these results. I'm not.

 

[studyguy]

You mean like the one where democrats helped kill a bill to import Canadian drugs for cheaper cost in January and all people like Cory Booker could say was "we need approval of the FDA to make sure they are safe!"

NJ isn't going to vote against pharma when it's basically the main industry of the state, not now or anytime soon regardless of whatever party is being represented.

 

[excelsiorlef]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

The Democrats have been OK with owning these results. I'm not.

My point was if you want a party full of Tim Canovas be prepared to accept that results...

 

[excelsiorlef]

If it isn't going to make a difference anyway why the fuck wouldn't you stand on principle? What possible reason is there to *not* act the way your constituents want you to act?

This is a good point.

There might be fear that full pressed no on everything makes the most heinous nominees look no worse than the least heinous nominee.

Even though they failed to stop her from being nominated the Dems made Betsy Devos a household name, everyone is watching her now. She isn't going to be able to slip under the radar and do the evil shit she wanted to do undetected... Everyone is watching her like a hawk now... Sessions is similar.

Now if every nominee for every position was treated with the same level it might have been a lot harder to pain folks like Sessions and Devos as especially heinous and thus they might hahve found themselves less scrutinized once they took their posts...

 

[Chichikov]

You mean like the one where democrats helped kill a bill to import Canadian drugs for cheaper cost in January and all people like Cory Booker could say was "we need approval of the FDA to make sure they are safe!"

Bernie rightfully attacked the corperatist senate dems for that, just like he always has. Its always amusing hearing people argue that the dems are somehow aligned with progressive policy when they could do nothing but run away from what their base wants almost 90% of the time

Majority of democrats voted for it and allowing importation of drugs from Canada is also in the Democratic party platform. Yes, I'm not really happy with the Democrats who voted against it, but don't try to paint it like the democratic establishment is all against it and just brave Bernie is fighting for the people.

p.s.
This is a minor point but it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine - you got to stop using "corporatist" as a slur. FDR was a corporatist and so was LBJ.

 

[Jobbs]

I'm saying they:

1. have 0 power to do so
2. not everyone lives in a district or state that will allow that sort of obstruction

You have to understand, part of the reason it worked so well for the GOP is they gerrymandered the fuck out of this country when they came in on the 2010 wave. They created safe seats all over the damn place, the Dems currently don't have that same luxury. Some do, but a lot of them don't. They have to deal with purple or lean-R districts/states. Guys like Manchin are literally the best that can be gotten in states like West Virginia.

When the GOP did it they did it from a position of power. Unfortunately the Dems don't have that luxury.

And I'm saying

A) yes, filibuster everything (they probably won't nuke it)

B) it's also about optics and messaging. There should be a collective posture about this that all democrats adhere to. Every time a democrat speaks we should hear "kremlin". We should hear that they won't work with Putin or his associates. Politics is repetition and raw emotion. It's not scholarly.

 

[Striek]

Ones that pull a tea party, leading to Dems in vulnerable seats getting primaried by far flank challengers who are completely unviable in a general election, causing the party to lose seats in a wave election it should have easily won.

Really killed the Republican Party didn't it?

They only control the white house, senate, house, most states and soon the judicial branch after listening to their own base.

It would be terrible if the Democrats managed to do the same! Better play it safe and stick with the policies proven not to bring out the voters.

 

[hodayathink]

And I'm saying

A) yes, filibuster everything (they probably won't nuke it)

B) it's also about optics and messaging. There should be a collective posture about this that all democrats adhere to. Every time a democrat speaks we should hear "kremlin". Politics is repetition and raw emotion. It's not scholarly.

And that's how you lose West Virginia, and North Dakota, and about 3-6 Dem seats (at least) that are up in 2018 in states that voted Republican. You have to allow those people the ability to deviate from the party platform when it will appease their local constituents.

 

[Back-In-Black]

Rorschach would be a Trump voter anyway.

This is 100% true.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Majority of democrats voted for it and allowing importation of drugs from Canada is also in the Democratic party platform. Yes, I'm not really happy with the Democrats who voted against it, but don't try to paint it like the democratic establishment is all against it and just brave Bernie is fighting for the people.

p.s.
This is a minor point but it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine - you got to stop using "corporatist" as a slur. FDR was a corporatist and so was LBJ.

And there's legitimate criticisms of both. Most of the time, I'm using liberal as a slur too.

I didn't see support for capitalist markets in the GAF terms of service.

 

[Jobbs]

And that's how you lose West Virginia, and North Dakota, and about 3-6 Dem seats (at least) that are up in 2018 in states that voted Republican. You have to allow those people the ability to deviate from the party platform when it will appease their local constituents.

Caution hasn't gotten us anywhere. You need fire.

Republicans lost a winnable seat here and there as a result of the tea party. They ran loons in moderate districts and lost.

But so what? They control everything now.

 

[Glix]

Its not just wanting them to obstruct Trump. We have been mad for some time now and its just been building.
They need to realize that right away. We have been unhappy with them for YEARS

 

[kirblar]

Really killed the Republican Party didn't it?

They only control the white house, senate, house, most states and soon the judicial branch after listening to their own base.

It would be terrible if the Democrats managed to do the same! Better play it safe and stick with the policies proven not to bring out the voters.

It limited their gains in waves where they should have picked up more seats.

The reason they have power is because they're ruthless and kept up a 50-state strategy, not because of any ideology.

 

[hodayathink]

Caution hasn't gotten us anywhere. You need fire.

Republicans lost a winnable seat here and there as a result of the tea party. They ran loons in moderate districts and lost.

But so what? They control everything now.

The biggest reason that happened isn't because they went towards the Tea Party, though.

All of this traces back to the 2010 redistricting, which gave Republicans a ton of seats that were completely safe (which are the seats that the Tea Party took over). That's what has allowed them to take over the House and be able to block everything (senate is/was a bonus). That's what has allowed them to draw up draconian voter registration rules in states that aren't heavily Democratic to restrict the voters (like in North Carolina and Wisconsin, two states that just happened to go Republican last year). This, in combination with Dems starting to completely lose the rural vote (which puts any senator in a state without a large enough metropolis in jeopardy) is why the Dems don't have a solid enough base to stand on to go scorched earth on everything.

TLR, you should have given a shit in 2010, and you for damn sure better give a shit in 2020.

 

[Trokil]

Why shouldn't they get shit?

It was their decision to drop most local and state races and stop supporting them with money and manpower, so that they would have more funding for their flashy senate races. They surrounded themselves with people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz who bullied everybody out questioning that and pampered the party elite. They are in a big part responsible that the Republicans took over the country and now they are whining because people call them out for it?

 

[Chichikov]

And there's legitimate criticisms of both. Most of the time, I'm using liberal as a slur too.

I didn't see support for capitalist markets in the GAF terms of service.

As long as you understand what is corporatism and that the most of progress toward social justice and welfare in the last century in America was done by corporatists then that's fine. There is definitely a lot of places where corporatists deserve criticism and one can easily level a broad criticism of that whole idea, I'm sure that if you dig into my post history hard enough you'd find me doing it too.

Though I can't lie, the fact that you think that "capitalist markets" is related to that question kinda suggests that you're using the terms kinda like conservatives using "liberal" or "socialist".

 

[sugarhigh4242]

The biggest reason that happened isn't because they went towards the Tea Party, though.

All of this traces back to the 2010 redistricting, which gave Republicans a ton of seats that were completely safe (which are the seats that the Tea Party took over). That's what has allowed them to take over the House and be able to block everything (senate is/was a bonus). That's what has allowed them to draw up draconian voter registration rules in states that aren't heavily Democratic to restrict the voters (like in North Carolina and Wisconsin, two states that just happened to go Republican last year). This, in combination with Dems starting to completely lose the rural vote (which puts any senator in a state without a large enough metropolis in jeopardy) is why the Dems don't have a solid enough base to stand on to go scorched earth on everything.

TLR, you should have given a shit in 2010, and you for damn sure better give a shit in 2020.

In terms of concrete policy, what do you think it would mean for Dems to go "scorched earth", and which DNC leaders support those policies?

 

[leroidys]

oh ok, there's dozens of local and national stories crediting her, but i'll take your unsubstantiated word for it, friendo.



http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/24/news/economy/seattle-marxist-minimum-wage/



http://blogs.seattletimes.com/opini...t-has-already-won-the-seattle-15-wage-debate/



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/06/kshama-sawant-living-wage_n_7191276.html



http://www.commondreams.org/news/20...ant-among-those-arrested-minimum-wage-protest



https://ballotpedia.org/City_of_Seattle_$15_Per_Hour_Minimum_Wage_Initiative_(November_2014)



http://knkx.org/post/group-pushing-15hour-minimum-wage-seattle-plans-file-ballot-initiative-language

http://knkx.org/post/seattle-group-files-15-minimum-wage-initiative

I'm in politics in the city (not my day job, but I'm connected to many for whom it is). She successfully bandwagonned on a movement that had been building for years, and was going to pass either way. Giving her credit for it is a big disservice to the other local politicians, organizers, and even business leaders who put in years of work. You also ignored the rest of my post. Sawant is an example of empty populist rhetoric and non-stop politicking. Expanding that nationally is not going to work IMHO. You don't have to take my word for it, but it's not worth much less than 1 op-ed and some national columnists who don't know anything about king county politics.

Some more context: Sawant voted against the initial proposal, and upon it passing, denounced the people who worked on it as DINOs and corporate shills while her supporters shouted "SHAME". If anything, the measure passed in spite of her.

 

[GAF A60-Rim A]

But her emails....

I know you're only quoting the meme =p but...

The "emails" argument, extrapolated:


👍 The emails leak was an unfair attempt to discredit Hillary's campaign...

👎 Hmm, but, in all fairness, her campaign's back-channel-esque scheming and lobbying, with help from Wasserman-Schulz and Brazile, and exhorbitantly wealthy donors and Super PACs, etc., in order to dominate the Democratic nomination, was highly irresponsible and perhaps somewhat undemocratic...

👍 Well, yes, but, in fairness, Hillary didn't do anything illegal, and was merely ignorant of the fact that she could actually lose to Trump (practically nobody thought she would, not even Nate Silver)...

👎 Sort of, but, in fairness, many polls, all the way back to very early 2016, actually predicted that Bernie Sanders would have a much better chance at defeating Trump, and this became more ominous when he started winning many primaries including the typically right-skewing rust-belt states...

👍 Ahh, yes, but those polls were probably just as wrong as the GE polls, and Bernie was untested whereas Clinton was rigorously vetted over decades of Republican dirt-digging...

👎 True, but that only helped the right-wing cause, because there was so much perceived dirt (whether exaggerated or not) that she was susceptible to extreme exaggeration and disinformation from a demagogue who was rising to power through extreme exaggeration and disinformation...

👍 Maybe, but Sanders would have fallen victim of the exact same discrediting campaign ("socialist," anyone?)...

👎 Possibly, but if given the chance, and the full support of the Democratic Party apparatus, he could have convincingly articulated why elements of democratic socialism would work well for everyday struggling Americans. They already do have benefits (Medicare, etc.) and other countries handle them fine...

👍 Okay, but why should The Democrats have had to work with Bernie? I mean, he wasn't even a member of their party; he's an Independent, and Clinton was a lifelong Democrat whose husband still is an extremely popular figure within the party...

👎 Well, maybe, but if you read the tea-leaves, people were rallying against the perceived "Establishment" on all sides of the political spectrum, so an established candidate probably wasn't the best option...

👍 Well, hindsight is 20-20.


Did I miss anything? But yeah, maybe people across the spectrum on the left will look inward and not just blame Russian meddling for the current state of affairs...

 

[Boney]

It doesn't have to be this way. We can build a new party if we reject easy solutions and commit to doing real work at the municipal level. Take a look at Kshama Sawant's example in Seattle:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/benja...-minimum-wage-movement-entered-the-mainstream

More recently, she led the effort to get Seattle to divest from Wells Fargo for their support of the Dakota Access pipeline:
http://www.king5.com/news/local/sea...s-fargo-over-dakota-access-pipeline/395337991

Kshama Sawant is a god damn hero as Democrats keep gunning for her.

 

[old manatee]

DNC should use the opportunity to ask the protestors for their email addresses.

 

[Yen]

My point was if you want a party full of Tim Canovas be prepared to accept that results...

If you want a party full of Debbie Wasserman Schwartz's be prepared to accept the results...

 

[aeolist]

He still tends to vote with Democrats more often than not. If he were to get primaried for a candidate further to the left then you're guaranteeing that the seat will go to a far right Republican.

yeah obviously the only way democrats can win coal miner votes in WV is by putting up a guy who's in love with wall street

 

[Coriolanus]

Though I can't lie, the fact that you think that "capitalist markets" is related to that question kinda suggests that you're using the terms kinda like conservatives using "liberal" or "socialist".

right...

Kshama Sawant is a god damn hero as Democrats keep gunning for her.

not that surprising. a leftist independent technically isn't as interesting to them as a center left (or any) dem, and that makes sense.

Is why dems tried to get bernie's seat once too. Which then taught him that maybe he should also try that kinda shit and shut that thing down through other means.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

Dems continue to show they have no brains and no backbone.

Lol ded party.

 

[funkystudent]

Democrats post Hillary.


You spend a decade betting for a "sure thing" that turns out to backfire and I guess this shit was bound to happen

 

[Khoryos]

This is a good point.

There might be fear that full pressed no on everything makes the most heinous nominees look no worse than the least heinous nominee.

Even though they failed to stop her from being nominated the Dems made Betsy Devos a household name, everyone is watching her now. She isn't going to be able to slip under the radar and do the evil shit she wanted to do undetected... Everyone is watching her like a hawk now... Sessions is similar.

Now if every nominee for every position was treated with the same level it might have been a lot harder to pain folks like Sessions and Devos as especially heinous and thus they might hahve found themselves less scrutinized once they took their posts...

So it wasn't cowardice and lack of principles, it was n-dimensional chess?

 

[tuxfool]

So it wasn't cowardice and lack of principles, it was n-dimensional chess?

Expedience and political reality. Those were the fights that had widespread support from average people.

 

[CHC]

Lauaghable that they want to redirect energy against republicans using the only democrat who has gotten people remotely excited since Obama.

Yet they still don't want to just stand up, stop being "moderates" and fight the wannabe dictator that is trying, poorly, to seize power absolutely.

Buncha fucking losers.

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

I mean the town halls should just people telling Dems to fight. Compete everywhere, contest everything. The fact they aren't even competing for Price's old seat is maddening.

 

[Shake Appeal]

lmao joe manchin is worried because he's on the right side of center naturally he's the quoted dude in the article

Monthly reminder that Joe Manchin would be considered an aggressively right-wing politician in any normal democracy.

 

[MrGerbils]

Fucking start actually representing me and I'll redirect my energy. Start talking and acting like Sanders and I'll redirect my energy. Fuck this centrist shit, fuck trying to "work with" people who were just outright obstructionists for 8 years and are now ramming through some of the worst policy and appointments I could even imagine.

And most of all, fuck a party that's standing around and scapegoating their loss on things like Russia or Comey instead of taking a look in the mirror and realizing they need some dramatic reform.

Push the DNC left and keep pushing. Stuff like this shows they're listening, they're feeling the pressure.

To all the democrat reps: stand up for me and I'll stand up for you.

 

[Gattsu25]

But I thought neoliberalism was a made up word!

It sounds like your definition of it is.

Republicans are the defacto neoliberal party

 

[Jakoo]

I don't particularly like Bernie, but it's pathetic that the party that stacked the deck against his nomination now is coming back to him hat in hand.