Support NeoGAF

[Fenderputty]

how many "moderates" did they win last year with their centrist candidate and campaign?

The fact that you can call the most liberal platform a dem POTUS candidate has ever ran on "centrist", I think I'm done with arguing with you.

 

[excelsiorlef]

how many "moderates" did they win last year with their centrist candidate and campaign?

2016 was not a centrist campaign

 

[AdventureMike]

Lots of people really itching to keep Trump and Republicans in power. Meanwhile, others get to live in daily fear with the consequences.

 

[Nista]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#Housing

This and the article seem to tell two sides of the housing story. I don't know why her office didn't choose to go after OneWest, but I really don't understand why left pundits love to nitpick on almost decade old litigation. The whole mortgage crisis sucked, but actual solutions to bank misconduct have been watered down and destroyed by the Republicans more than anything.

Condeming Harris on this is like yelling at someone for knocking over a patio chair while your house is burning to the ground behind you. I'm more interested in what she can even accomplish as a junior Senator in the current dysfunctional government.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Until this article, I have never heard of mortgage fraud being used to describe alleged criminal acts in courts to repossess homes. Usually you're talking about applicants misrepresenting themselves to lenders.

 

[The Technomancer]

The Democratic Party tries to unite so many political factions under one banner - leftists, liberals, greens, social democrats - that it's not wonder nothing gets done and everyone hates everyone else. Just imagining the social democrats (SPD) working together with the liberals (FDP) over here is weird to me since their so ideologically far apart. I mean, it's not impossible and it has been done a few times over the years...but just bundling them all together into one seems silly and counter-productive.

Also this. The reason the default state of the Democratic party is "everyone is unhappy about everything constantly" is because actually its a bunch of interests that aren't in total alignment because there isn't enough of any one given set of interests to take power on their own

 

[El_Tiguere]

The fact that you can call the most liberal platform a dem POTUS candidate has ever ran on "centrist", I think I'm done with arguing with you.

Please save us the bullshit of the optics of the DNC appeasing the Bernie wing with token promises in the convention through changes in the platform. Centrist Democrats since Bill Clinton have been Republican-lite centrist corporate lapdogs competing for those campaign donations (while regular Americans fall by the wayside).

Hillary, like her husband, did NOT want to rock the corporate donor boat, hence why she begrudgingly faked her way a bit farther left. Had Bernie not been there, her only promise would have been another Obama presidency... which was a gangbusters time for big money (yet not so much for the rest of Americans). Don't give us the "Buh Hillary was progressive!!" BS.

 

[Fenderputty]

This and the article seem to tell two sides of the housing story. .

The article has a clear agenda. Of course there was a second side and of course the article didn't touch on it.

Please save us the bullshit of the optics of the DNC appeasing the Bernie wing with token promises in the convention through changes in the platform. Centrist Democrats since Bill Clinton have been Republican-lite centrist corporate lapdogs competing for those campaign donations (while regular Americans fall by the wayside).

Hillary, like her husband, did NOT want to rock the corporate donor boat, hence why she begrudgingly faked her way a bit farther left. Had Bernie not been there, her only promise would have been another Obama presidency... which was a gangbusters time for big money (yet not so much for the rest of Americans). Don't give us the "Buh Hillary was progressive!!" BS.

These are a lot of garbage words to try and discredit a fact I pointed out. Are you the author of the OP?

 

[IamDodongo]

Gotta find a way to get those assholes out to vote in 2020 if you truly want him gone.

It will be a wave for sure. I have no doubt.

 

[Unison]

Also this. The reason the default state of the Democratic party is "everyone is unhappy about everything constantly" is because actually its a bunch of interests that aren't in total alignment because there isn't enough of any one given set of interests to take power on their own

Yes, which makes purity tests and intractability on the part of some factions utterly inexplicable... Plenty of the right absolutely hated Trump, yet held their nose and pulled the lever when it came to be time to vote. Compromise is essential to gaining power in our political system, and that many of the loudest leftists don't understand that is continually baffling to me.

 

[El_Tiguere]

These are a lot of garbage words to try and discredit a fact I pointed out. Are you the author of the OP?

I wouldn't recommend that you call a cunning power-hungry politician's platform "a fact" in terms of what they intend to do once in office. That hasn't gone well throughout history...

 

[B-Dubs]

I wouldn't recommend that you call a cunning power-hungry politician's platform "a fact" in terms of what they intend to do once in office. That hasn't gone well throughout history...

Actually, most politicians tend to keep the promises they make while running. There's been a couple of studies done that show this. Why? Because they want to be reelected, a shocking idea I know.

 

[Fenderputty]

I wouldn't recommend that you call a cunning power-hungry politician's platform "a fact" in terms of what they intend to do once in office. That hasn't gone well throughout history...

It was the most liberal platform and that is a fact. Who gets all of their platform?

I'm sure you've already been shown this data suggesting most politicians do in fact follow most of their promises.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/

How far back in History are you looking when you're making you're lazy claim?

 

[Krauser Kat]

This is all bullshit until we have a sea of candidates in the primary. We can fight about what type of liberalism we want then.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

All I know is liberals need to back someone that can actually win over large swaths of swing/undecided voters.

Rallying the base alone won't work.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

If the article claims nobody has done a good job, then who the hell are we supposed to elect?

You know the answer to this.

 

[El_Tiguere]

It was the most liberal platform and that is a fact. Who gets all of their platform?

I'm sure you've already been shown this data suggesting most politicians do in fact follow most of their promises.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/

How far back in History are you looking when you're making you're lazy claim?

Many Democrats are still looking at Obama, who promised to be the change/hope candidate that was going to fight against Wall Street and money in politics, and in the end he was nothing more than a well-principled puppet of big money. The Americans that switched their votes from Obama to Trump, and the ones that sat out the election DID NOT want 4 more years of the same broken promises.

 

[Fenderputty]

You know the answer to this.

I know you knew I know the answer to this 😂

Many Democrats are still looking at Obama, who promised to be the change/hope candidate that was going to fight against Wall Street, and in the end he was nothing more than a well-principled puppet of big money. The Americans that switched their votes from Obama to Trump, and the ones that sat out the election DID NOT want 4 more years of the same broken promises.

Goal post move to resstablish a point for the need of party purity

 

[jtb]

It kind of feels like most of the "debate"--and I say this not to endorse the article's position that we should give Harris a break--has been an extremely smaller and insular bubble of 24/7 Twitter refreshers and low-end bloggers for think piece sites. Like, there's no evidence to me that the real world or anyone important has really given this much thought at all. I would really, really, really caution people against making the leap from "I keep seeing people talking to this" to "This is on everyone's mind and an important issue", because it's possible that you're deep inside the bubble and don't realize it. Motivated reasoning is a brutal psychological fact, and it's the same reason you see Bill Mitchell saying stuff like "Actually <scandal xyz> is GOOD for Trump!" or whatever. I would guess the total audience of many of the "thought leaders" that people point to is no more than high thousands or low tens of thousands, yet they seem like central players in the intellectual landscape. And it's not because their audience is all elites and they are central to the intellectual network and their ideas propagate, it's more like an alternate reality where everyone mutually gives certain figures credence even though they aren't important at all.

I know that's kind of a derail relative to the argument being advanced and might feel bad faith, but I literally am not taking a position on it. The criticisms made against Harris seem reasonable to me, and the defence that pobody's nerfect seems reasonable to me as well, but the urgency of the "We Are Going Down A Bad Path Here, I Am Seeing Shades of 2016, Bernie Made Hillary Lose, The Whole World is On Fire And The Left Is Eating Itself, I Can't Believe BlueBlog.Progress Claimed That Tim Kaine Ate Deval's Patrick's Leftovers In The Senate Fridge, And Then Rod Drehrer Responded That This Was Symptomatic Of Moral Decline, But It's Okay Because Louise Mensch Says The Time Travel Machine That Is Going To Execute Fred Trump Is About To Be Invented And Russia Actually Doesn't Exist, Oh My God Salon Just Published 'This Week's Game Of Thrones Gives Haunting Echoes Of The Time Ned Lamont Primaried Joe Lieberman'" insularity seems totally, utterly unfounded to me.

I'd find this argument more compelling if there was a single person in politics who wasn't compulsively using Twitter 24/7.

Washington is about as incestuous as a town as you'll find.

 

[DarkKyo]

This is all bullshit until we have a sea of candidates in the primary. We can fight about what type of liberalism we want then.

Yeah that worked out great fighting about that during the last primary.

 

[Nafai1123]

Can any of you purity leftists actually detail what Harris did wrong? Not "she should've prosecuted Mnunchin" bullshit. If that's your argument, what evidence did they have? A leaked memo is not evidence.

The fact that the CA Housing Bill of Rights increased CA AG power to investigate and prosecute financial crime leads me to believe that she did not have the power at the time to actually do anything about it.

 

[n00bsauce87]

Let's be honest, voters who label themselves democrat or independent hasn't been out to the voting booths during midterm elections since the Tea Party wave.

How do you think we've gotten 30+ republican governors now?

All this talk about trying to right the ship for the democratic party won't mean anything if voters won't come out for the smaller races.

So articles that criticize potential presidential candidates 3.5 years from now is nothing but hot air. How about we balance some of these state houses first. Practice what you preach.

 

[El_Tiguere]

Goal post move to resstablish a point for the need of party purity

I HAVE AN IDEA!! would it be OK with apathetic pragmatists in the center if we channel FDR and his New Deal? Can we just listen to his advice to Democrats back in the day?

His letter to Democrats:

Franklin D. Roosevelt Letter to the Democratic Convention
July 18, 1940
Members of the Convention:

In the century in which we live, the Democratic Party has received the support of the electorate only when the party, with absolute clarity, has been the champion of progressive and liberal policies and principles of government.

The party has failed consistently when through political trading and chicanery it has fallen into the control of those interests, personal and financial, which think in terms of dollars instead of in terms of human values.

The Republican Party has made its nominations this year at the dictation of those who, we all know, always place money ahead of human progress.

The Democratic Convention, as appears clear from the events of today, is divided on this fundamental issue. Until the Democratic Party through this convention makes overwhelmingly clear its stand in favor of social progress and liberalism, and shakes off all the shackles of control fastened upon it by the forces of conservatism, reaction, and appeasement, it will not continue its march of victory.

It is without question that certain political influences pledged to reaction in domestic affairs and to appeasement in foreign affairs have been busily engaged behind the scenes in the promotion of discord since this Convention convened.

Under these circumstances, I cannot, in all honor, and will not, merely for political expediency, go along with the cheap bargaining and political maneuvering which have brought about party dissension in this convention.

It is best not to straddle ideals.

In these days of danger when democracy must be more than vigilant, there can be no connivance with the kind of politics which has internally weakened nations abroad before the enemy has struck from without.

It is best for America to have the fight out here and now.

I wish to give the Democratic Party the opportunity to make its historic decision clearly and without equivocation. The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time.

By declining the honor of the nomination for the presidency, I can restore that opportunity to the convention. I so do.

 

[Fenderputty]

Can any of you purity leftists actually detail what Harris did wrong? Not "she should've prosecuted Mnunchin" bullshit. If that's your argument, what evidence did they have? A leaked memo is not evidence.

The fact that the CA Housing Bill of Rights increased CA AG power to investigate and prosecute financial crime leads me to believe that she did not have the power at the time to actually do anything about it.

Shhhh context makes their rage more difficult

 

[jack_package_200]

Ya'll need to stop responding to people who have a known history of shitposting and not arguing in good faith

OT: We'll have to see what comes out of the wood work for 2020.

I just know Booker, Zuckerberg, Gabbard, and Bernie's token minority friend have absolutely no shot in a primary.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

I know you knew I know the answer to this &#128514;

Goal post move to resstablish a point for the need of party purity

Yep, cannot wait to lose because a certain subset didn't get their fucking unicorn.

All because some people just cannot accept the fact that progress is slow. These debates over purity are so damn played out.

 

[RastaMentality]

P.S.

Spoiler

Nina Turner is better than Kamala Harris anyways!

Comparing a State Senator who hasn't done anything relevant but endorse Bernie to an attorney general is literally a bad opinion.

 

[jtb]

I HAVE AN IDEA!! would it be OK with apathetic pragmatists in the center if we channel FDR and his New Deal? Can we just listen to his advice to Democrats back in the day?

His letter to Democrats:

No. FDR tolerated racism and white supremacy. That's not good enough.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Yep, cannot wait to lose because a certain subset didn't get their fucking unicorn.

All because some people just cannot accept the fact that progress is slow. These debates over purity are so damn played out.

That's exactly what's going to happen. The meltdown will be fucking historic.

No. FDR tolerated racism and white supremacy. That's not good enough.

Every president has tolerated racism and white supremacy. That's not going to change. But it's a matter of degrees and which way they'll try to nudge this giant boat called civilization. I'd rather someone try to nudge it in a direction that will eventually get us somewhere better than someone that'll just lead us to ruin.

Can't let perfect be the enemy of good.

 

[Dierce]

Many Democrats are still looking at Obama, who promised to be the change/hope candidate that was going to fight against Wall Street, and in the end he was nothing more than a well-principled puppet of big money. The Americans that switched their votes from Obama to Trump, and the ones that sat out the election DID NOT want 4 more years of the same broken promises.

Populist rhetoric never fixed anything. You are only buying into lies if you believe someone will come along and change the course drastically for the better.

We owe it all to the so called purist liberals who are nothing more than well off whites who don't give a fuck if minorities get their rights trampled on. So by believing in unreasonable principles shit like trump happens.

Wall street doesn't go around denying global warming or stomping on civil right. People exuberate the problem by refusing to vote for democratic candidates out of principle.

 

[B-Dubs]

I HAVE AN IDEA!! would it be OK with apathetic pragmatists in the center if we channel FDR and his New Deal? Can we just listen to his advice to Democrats back in the day?

His letter to Democrats:

You do realize that only white people benefited from that stuff originally right?

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Comparing a State Senator who hasn't done anything relevant but endorse Bernie to an attorney general is literally a bad opinion.

But you see that one thing is good enough. It's so fucking easy, you don't have to actually stand up to scrutiny because you really don't have a substantial record.

I would do xyz trust me. Didn't we just see this shit?

 

[El_Tiguere]

Yep, cannot wait to lose because a certain subset didn't get their fucking unicorn.

All because some people just cannot accept the fact that progress is slow. These debates over purity are so damn played out.

By "their fucking unicorn" do you mean politicians that are beholden to the voters and not to special interests?

How much time do we actually have for "slow progress" in terms of health care, for example? I would like to know, so that I can plan accordingly, and count how many centrist "pragmatic" Democrat administrations we need to go through for this "slow progress".

 

[Angelus Errare]

Ya'll need to stop responding to people who have a known history of shitposting and not arguing in good faith

OT: We'll have to see what comes out of the wood work for 2020.

I just know Booker, Zuckerberg, Gabbard, and Bernie's token minority friend have absolutely no shot in a primary.

Gabbard will be the first to drop out the primary.

 

[RastaMentality]

But you see that one thing is good enough. It's so fucking easy, you don't have to actually stand up to scrutiny because you really don't have a substantial record.

I would do xyz trust me. Didn't we just see this shit?

This is how Jill Stein got fans. It's easy as shit to promise the sky and the castle's gold when no ones ever gonna actually hold you accountable. Nina hasn't had to make a consequential decision in a national position yet.

 

[jtb]

Every president has tolerated racism and white supremacy. That's not going to change. But it's a matter of degrees and which way they'll try to nudge this giant boat called civilization. I'd rather someone try to nudge it in a direction that will eventually get us somewhere better than someone that'll just lead us to ruin.

Can't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Well, my point was clearly that FDR was pretty terrible when it came to those "degrees".

Not supporting racist policies and white supremacy is not demanding "perfection." It's a pretty low bar and it should be non-negotiable.

 

[aeolist]

Yep, cannot wait to lose because a certain subset didn't get their fucking unicorn.

All because some people just cannot accept the fact that progress is slow. These debates over purity are so damn played out.

i love that we've already decided that no matter what happens any potential future losses can be blamed on the left

 

[kirblar]

This is how Jill Stein got fans. It's easy as shit to promise the sky and the castle's gold when no ones ever gonna actually hold you accountable. Nina hasn't had to make a consequential decision in a national position yet.

"They're all liars, I'm the only one you can trust" is how you develop a cult following.

 

[jack_package_200]

You do realize that only white people benefited from that stuff originally right?

He always keeps omitting that detail. Every. Damn. Time.

 

[Nafai1123]

By "their fucking unicorn" do you mean politicians that are beholden to the voters and not to special interests?

How much time do we actually have for "slow progress" in terms of health care, for example? I would like to know, so that I can plan accordingly, and count how many centrist "pragmatic" Democrat administrations we need to go through for this "slow progress".

Please detail exactly how Harris has been beholden to special interests.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Newsflash guys, the majority of the country isn't going to actually pull the trigger for your unicorn. The liberal/progressive fantasy you have cannot get elected outside of the bastion of ultra liberal states.

 

[Dierce]

i love that we've already decided that no matter what happens any potential future losses can be blamed on the left

If it's the left that supports Putin and watches RT they can go fuck themselves. They are no better than the alt-right.

 

[Fenderputty]

Well, my point was clearly that FDR was pretty terrible when it came to those "degrees".

Not supporting racist policies and white supremacy is not demanding "perfection." It's a pretty low bar.

It also highlights the far left issue with minorities. They're mostly concerned with economic purity

 

[Piecake]

By "their fucking unicorn" do you mean politicians that are beholden to the voters and not to special interests?

How much time do we actually have for "slow progress" in terms of health care, for example? I would like to know, so that I can plan accordingly, and count how many centrist "pragmatic" Democrat administrations we need to go through for this "slow progress".

You do realize that FDR was incredibly pragmatic, right?

I mean, he is famous for trying ANYTHING to fix the Great Depression, be it classically liberal economic policies or socialist-inspired ones and then sticking with it if it worked.

Do you also know the reason why he adopted his more socialist programs was a great push by Huey Long and that racist radio preacher who demanded even MORE radical ideas and had a huge following, right?

The reason why he did it was pull out the rug from under them and take their support. FDR was not an idealist. He was an incredibly pragmatic politician. I mean, its hard to be an idealist when he threw Blacks and jews under the bus that the racists and Nazis were driving over them for political reasons.

FDR certainly was an amazing politician who was charismatic and inspiring. Your mention of FDR doesn't really indicate that we need to have leftist purity, but a charismatic and inspirational politician who can get out votes and let all sorts of people stick their hopes and dreams into, not just the pure left.

 

[El_Tiguere]

Comparing a State Senator who hasn't done anything relevant but endorse Bernie to an attorney general is literally a bad opinion.

Why? please argue in terms of issues that are important to Americans.

You do realize that only white people benefited from that stuff originally right?

Chalk it up to dark times in our nation's history, NOT on the principles behind supporting American workers instead of pandering to special interests as government policy.

Populist rhetoric never fixed anything. You are only buying into lies if you believe someone will come along and change the course drastically for the better.

Whether you like it or not, populism is here to stay (pertly responsible for Trump), as in Americans are getting more and more fed up with their leaders because shit is not perceived to be fair (accurately so). With that said, no supporter of Bernie was counting on Bernie alone to change it all... but it would have MASSIVELY helped to have the head of the executive branch calling for policies that benefit most Americans (at the expense of the elites). Bernie always argued that this was a revolution of the people, and that it would only work if everyone got involved at the grassroots level (hence "Our Revolution").

With that said, your comment is baffling since progressives are usually the grass-roots liberals fighting alongside minorities (for example, you could find Bernie getting arrested fighting for civil rights while Hillary was likely attending another Barry Goldwater rally).

FDR certainly was an amazing politician who was charismatic and inspiring. Your mention of FDR doesn't really indicate that we need to have leftist purity, but a charismatic and inspirational politician who can get out votes and let all sorts of people stick their hopes and dreams into, not just the pure left.

Again, I'll quote his direct words to reflect what he thinks Democrats needed at the time (which is what progressives are arguing for NOW):

The party has failed consistently when through political trading and chicanery it has fallen into the control of those interests, personal and financial, which think in terms of dollars instead of in terms of human values.

Not too much to ask from public servants under the original framework of our country.

 

[Con_Smith]

A lot of people putting in work to discredit Harris makes me feel good keeping her as my lock for 2020. I'm not gullible enough or short sighted enough to be influenced by the "Bernie whatevers" and I'm not stupid enough to think a republican will do good shit for this country.

Hopefully she keeps getting these guys panties bunched and keeps her nose clean.

 

[Mindwipe]

i dunno why anyone would take a grandstander like Kamala 'Backpage' Harris seriously.

A-fucking-men.

 

[eBay Huckster]

until someone on the left explains how they're going to elect a Principled Progressive on both economic and social issues, when the latter of those two things will continue to have white people running away screaming to people who are unquestionably more fucking awful on economic issues, i'm going to continue leaning toward candidates who seem like they can win

candidates like

Spoiler

jesse jackson

.

 

[thecouncil]

If the article claims nobody has done a good job, then who the hell are we supposed to elect?

Donald Trump.

 

[kirblar]

It also highlights the far left issue with minorities. They're mostly concerned with economic purity

One of the problems with pushing "a return to FDR-style policies" is that doing so causes the "Were those racist discriminatory parts of those policies a bug or a feature for you?" question to linger overhead.

LBJ/Obama both both massively expanded social safety nets. But no one ever points to them as examples to copy.