Support NeoGAF

[sphagnum]

Maybe I'm dumb. Possible. Or it's the fish in water thing. But I still don't get how this works.

Toyota engineers develop SMED. It cuts the time and labour requirements for die changes at factories from 4 hours to 10 mins. How is that shared between workers in their coop company thing?

Do you mean instead of this they would focus on other forms of automation?

This also ignores non-automation derived operational efficiency that reduces labour requirements. Is the solution to not advance operations management?

I feel like we had this same sort of back and forth in a thread on the Off Topic side a month ago, but it depends on what kind of socialism we're talking about. If we're talking about market socialism, then the workers are essentially shareholders in the company and simply make bank off the profit and get to reduce the amount of time they work as far as they want to/can over time. How they want to do this is up to them. Eventually with automation and AI markets become kind of pointless though, but thats a ways off. If we're talking about a centralized system, the government gives everyone basic income as they transition them off of the eight hour workday and adjust upwards as they move people away from jobs entirely in that luxury automated space communism future.

It's not really any different than the current proposed ideas for how to handle automation, it's just more democratically decided so that people aren't tossed out on the street when robots make them redundant.

Now in regards to anarchism, I guess everyone gets a 3D printer?

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Spoiler

What if we collected all profit in the US and split it up amongst all citizens equally? If we're just naming stuff that'll never happen.

Stuff like this is why I'd like some ground rules if we ever did that "PoliGAF Constitutional Convention." Because if we're just going to completely change the entire culture, history, and political makeup of the US, then why bother doing it at all?

Talking about the other stuff will just be us going in circles for forever but this is something I'd like to address here.

Postwar liberal consensus wasn't born out of thin air and it didn't just randomly die or get crushed by a thousand technocratic cuts on the edges. It was born because FDR, Attlee, and others (I'm American, you expect me to know about other countries?) fought for radical changes in the economic system of the United States. They had bold policy agenda and created the golden age of liberalism. It died because the conservative leaders, most prominently Reagan but including others, sold their vision and fundamentally changed they way Americans view politics. Thatcher called New Labour her greatest accomplishment and both Clinton and Dukakis are obvious reactions to Reagan-era policies. Of course race is an unignorable factor here, but Reagan barely cracked 51% of the vote and only crushed Carter with EVs because the left abandoned him for Anderson. "We're not like those old Democrats like Mondale, we believe in deregulation and privatization. We'll just do it better than them."

Of course, if this new kind of liberalism (a neoliberalism, if you will) is the only kind of politics you've experienced, it might seem impossible to change things, but it's historically not true that political shifts only happen gradually. Can you imagine talking about serious racial issues or mass incarceration the way we did last year in 2008?

 

[Jooney]

Instead, go full steam ahead, stick up for our principles, and at least say we tried then relying on nonsense that will get us screwed anyway. Might as well fight when and while we can.

Further to this, caving to a pick now means the moral force that Garland injustice had evaporates - no one will care when it comes to nomination #2.

Being decent now will not pay dividends later.

 

[thepotatoman]

why.

Why not?

 

[shinra-bansho]

We probably have. I imagine your market socialism approach is somewhat plausible, and not impossibly removed from the current employee share schemes etc. At least for small companies.

With a company of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of employees. Harder to fathom.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Further to this, caving to a pick now means the moral force that Garland injustice had evaporates - no one will care when it comes to nomination #2.

Being decent now will not pay dividends later.

People will care if god forbid RBG's seat is vacated, regardless of when not if Gorsuch is confirmed.

People should care more.

Double post. But whatever.

 

[sphagnum]

Of course, if this new kind of liberalism (a neoliberalism, if you will) is the only kind of politics you've experienced, it might seem impossible to change things, but it's historically not true that political shifts only happen gradually. Can you imagine talking about serious racial issues or mass incarceration the way we did last year in 2008?

Trump, Brexit, and the whole Western lurch towards the authoritarian right prove that liberalism is not invulnerable. I think a few years ago Zizek's statement about being unable to imagine a world without capitalism was obvious but now the cracks have been revealed. Unfortunately, the wrong side is prying.

 

[Teggy]

You can't even make this shit up. Iraqi parents can't get to see their badly burned kid in Boston because of the ban. The parents named one of their other kids after Trump.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/01/31/iraq-boy-burned-surgery-immigration-trump-executive-order/

 

[wutwutwut]

You can't even make this shit up. Iraqi parents can't get to see their badly burned kid in Boston because of the ban. The parents named one of their other kids after Trump.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/01/31/iraq-boy-burned-surgery-immigration-trump-executive-order/

My SO's reaction: if you poop while giving birth, do you name your child "poop"?

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

Can we stop giving rick santorum air time?

 

[A Human Becoming]

Has anyone started writing up a statement for their senator's staff? Hard to be coherent after drinking.

 

[sphagnum]

We probably have. I imagine your market socialism approach is somewhat plausible, and not impossibly removed from the current employee share schemes etc. At least for small companies.

With a company of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of employees. Harder to fathom.

Mixed economy. Direct socialism at one level, representative at another.

I'm just shooting off ideas here.

I do think that some level of centralization will have to happen whether liberals want it to or not simply due to resource constraints and all the ecological disruptions this century is going to bring. At least, it will need to if we want to maintain civilization and don't develop nanomachines or something. Frankly we already have large centralized organizations outside of government influencing much of our lives, like Walmart - they just run according to market principles. Eventually computers will be smart enough to organize things better than the anarchy of markets since they'll be able to sort out all that data that humans can't (which is what caused the command economies of the 20th century to fail). I would think so, anyway.

But maybe we can stave off a Roko's basilisk scenario if we're smart enough about it.

 

[JesseEwiak]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2006

Bush got blown the fuck out in 2006. This was also during a presidency with record high approval ratings. Trump is now one of the lowest rated presidents ever, and liberals are currently galvanized. I'm confident they'll be there next year, provided voter ID fuckery doesn't get in the way.

The reason why Obama's administration struggled during midterms was his base only showed up during the major elections. Basically, they need to put a face to the elections. Progressives have that in Trump to go out and vote against him next year.

A big chunk of that was "independents" and nominal Republican's voting for Democrat's, especially Blue Dog Democrats. Turnout didn't explode that year.

Now, it's entirely possible that happens. But that'll happen because the current midterm electorate turns on Trump, not because of some insane turnout change.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The French center-right had the presidency completely in the bag....


And then their voters decided in the last week to nominate a guy for president who they hadn't vetted at all.

And now the center-right candidate has been shown to be plagued with scandals.

That's just terrible primary voting, holy shit. They threw away the presidency to pick a guy that no one talked about until there was one week left in the primary.

 

[jack_package_200]

The French center-right had the presidency completely in the bag....


And then their voters decided in the last week to nominate a guy for president who they hadn't vetted at all.

And now the center-right candidate has been shown to be plagued with scandals.

That's just terrible primary voting, holy shit. They threw away the presidency to pick a guy that no one talked about until there was one week left in the primary.

So La Pen is in good shape?

If so.

 

[mo60]

So La Pen is in good shape?

If so.

Nope. Macron is still around and gaining support. He's doing better in second round polls then Fillon against Le Pen right now and close to Fillon in first round polls.If Fillon drops out of the race or doesn't get past the first round somewhere else will be there to crush Le Pen in the second round if she gets past the second round.

 

[kirblar]

Talking about the other stuff will just be us going in circles for forever but this is something I'd like to address here.

Postwar liberal consensus wasn't born out of thin air and it didn't just randomly die or get crushed by a thousand technocratic cuts on the edges. It was born because FDR, Attlee, and others (I'm American, you expect me to know about other countries?) fought for radical changes in the economic system of the United States. They had bold policy agenda and created the golden age of liberalism. It died because the conservative leaders, most prominently Reagan but including others, sold their vision and fundamentally changed they way Americans view politics. Thatcher called New Labour her greatest accomplishment and both Clinton and Dukakis are obvious reactions to Reagan-era policies. Of course race is an unignorable factor here, but Reagan barely cracked 51% of the vote and only crushed Carter with EVs because the left abandoned him for Anderson. "We're not like those old Democrats like Mondale, we believe in deregulation and privatization. We'll just do it better than them."

Of course, if this new kind of liberalism (a neoliberalism, if you will) is the only kind of politics you've experienced, it might seem impossible to change things, but it's historically not true that political shifts only happen gradually. Can you imagine talking about serious racial issues or mass incarceration the way we did last year in 2008?

And if you're serious about economics, you'll throw socialism in the trash where it belongs. Major policy changes are needed, but chasing after debunked fantasies will get us nowhere. Much of Reagan's changes should be reversed (especially on taxation) but if you think "capitalism" is a bad thing, you will be rightfully ignored by people who actually study the subject of economics.

 

[Chumley]

Well in fairness Dems still might get slaughtered in 2018

I have no faith in the party right now

If they do every liberal might as well move to Canda or Europe.

I agree with the sentiment that it would be cowardly to run now, but if they can't get it together for 2018 they'll never be able to.

 

[Dierce]

If they do every liberal might as well move to Canda or Europe.

I agree with the sentiment that it would be cowardly to run now, but if they can't get it together for 2018 they'll never be able to.

If that does happen than this country will just implode under conservative rule. I can see no way that republicans, who by far are the number one cause for all the problems that affects this country either directly or indirectly, could ever lead to something positive.

Just look at abortion. If they end up outlawing it completely we will get rampant crime in a few years which they will try to tackle through harsher penalties leading to more poverty. Not to mention that their tax cuts as well as their aversion for lowering military spending will lead to more debt.

The republican party is corrupt in every sense but it appears that if they are to cease to exists they will be taking the entire country with them.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Interesting yearbook quote, Gorsuch!

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Talking about the other stuff will just be us going in circles for forever but this is something I'd like to address here.

Postwar liberal consensus wasn't born out of thin air and it didn't just randomly die or get crushed by a thousand technocratic cuts on the edges. It was born because FDR, Attlee, and others (I'm American, you expect me to know about other countries?) fought for radical changes in the economic system of the United States. They had bold policy agenda and created the golden age of liberalism. It died because the conservative leaders, most prominently Reagan but including others, sold their vision and fundamentally changed they way Americans view politics. Thatcher called New Labour her greatest accomplishment and both Clinton and Dukakis are obvious reactions to Reagan-era policies. Of course race is an unignorable factor here, but Reagan barely cracked 51% of the vote and only crushed Carter with EVs because the left abandoned him for Anderson. "We're not like those old Democrats like Mondale, we believe in deregulation and privatization. We'll just do it better than them."

I think your argument misunderstands my position. Of course changes in political opinion of the country happen, and yes not always gradual.

But your argument supposes that the change you put in spoiler quotes is on the level of a political movement that you yourself noted only lasted for about 40 years. I'd argue differently. The idea that someone who starts a business owns that business is an idea that has never not been the case in the US. This isn't "I think the tax code should be heavier at the top." This is "I think that whole system you got there is jank."

Whether I agree or not at this point (and I do like sphagnum's centralized plan above since in a country this large, I think a government controlled UBI is essential since a third of our workforce is going to be obsolete in a decade) is moot. You're advocating for something that just isn't possible.

To me, this difference is rather large. It's the difference between "We should have only government healthcare through a completely gov't program" and "We should just let people buy Medicaid if they make too much to get it for free, and it should be cheap as shit with access to private doctors and such." The latter is easily doable through several policy extensions of current framework. The former might as well be inventing a time machine to go back and just rework the Constitutional Convention as it was happening.

Of course, if this new kind of liberalism (a neoliberalism, if you will) is the only kind of politics you've experienced, it might seem impossible to change things, but it's historically not true that political shifts only happen gradually. Can you imagine talking about serious racial issues or mass incarceration the way we did last year in 2008?

I'm familiar with various political movements. Civil rights has been an ongoing thing in US culture since we fought a war over it 150 years ago, and even wrote the (incredibly hypocritical, but still part of the culture) line "all men are created equal." What you're talking about isn't something you could get 90% of Americans on board with.

 

[Ether_Snake]

So if this goes on as I think things usually go, this is the last week where people pay a huge amount of attention and protest for a while. Usually, big events take hold for two weeks at most, then interest slips. So I'd say things will tapper quickly starting this weekend. Next thing on the horizon would be what happens after the 30-days to make a plan to fight IS is done.

 

[Toxi]

Interesting yearbook quote, Gorsuch!

Kissinger is a real piece of work.

 

[mo60]

So if this goes on as I think things usually go, this is the last week where people pay a huge amount of attention and protest for a while. Usually, big events take hold for two weeks at most, then interest slips. So I'd say things will tapper quickly starting this weekend. Next thing on the horizon would be what happens after the 30-days to make a plan to fight IS is done.

I don't think things will quit down just yet.

 

[ugaboga232]

Interesting yearbook quote, Gorsuch!

Yikes he was in my fraternity at columbia...

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

So La Pen is in good shape?

If so.

"Vote for the crook, not the fascist"

I don't think Le Pen has a chance. She's got a very low ceiling.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

"Vote for the crook, not the fascist"

I don't think Le Pen has a chance. She's got a very low ceiling.

Honestly I'll believe it when I see it. Remember when Sam Wang gave a >99% chance to Hillary and demographics meant it was impossible for a Brexit scenario to happen? Especially with Fillon going down in scandal, I'll wait and see.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Honestly I'll believe it when I see it. Remember when Sam Wang gave a >99% chance to Hillary and demographics meant it was impossible for a Brexit scenario to happen? Especially with Fillon going down in scandal, I'll wait and see.

Have you seen any of the polls for the French election? This isn't anything like Brexit or the U.S. election, which were always close.

Le Pen is consistently down by 20-30%.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Have you seen any of the polls for the French election? This isn't anything like Brexit or the U.S. election, which were always close.

Le Pen is consistently down by 20-30%.

I just remember when Brexit comparisons to the US election were mocked for comparing totally separate phenomena.

I'm not saying it will happen, I'm just saying I'm not going to make definitive statements that "it can't happen here" until it doesn't. Same with Canada, etc. I have faith in Germany because they have the best electoral systems and (supposedly) no one would ever form a coalition with AfD.

 

[whyamihere]

It's also quite possible that Macron could end up making the runoff instead of Fillon, especially with the later starting to go down in flames and Le Pen with some brewing scandals of her own.

Honestly, Macron and Mélenchon should've joined a left-wing primary. I'm still mad they didn't.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

I just remember when Brexit comparisons to the US election were mocked for comparing totally separate phenomena.

I'm not saying it will happen, I'm just saying I'm not going to make definitive statements that "it can't happen here" until it doesn't. Same with Canada, etc. I have faith in Germany because they have the best electoral systems and (supposedly) no one would ever form a coalition with AfD.

Brexit and the U.S. election were still close races and pretty consistently within a few points with the exception of a few periods of time (like the post-DNC bump). The only thing close about the French election is who will Le Pen face.

The French have been there before, albeit in times where nationalism and fascism weren't as popular. Marine's father made it to the second round and proceeded to lose by... 65%. Against a scandal ridden opponent. That's where "vote" for the crook, not the fascist comes from.

We don't have to worry about Germany since SPD and CDU can always continue on with making grand coalitions. We probably don't even have to worry about the Netherlands unless Wilders gets enough to where he is needed in a coalition. Although it's obviously scary that he is going to likely receive a plurality of votes.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

It's also quite possible that Macron could end up making the runoff instead of Fillon, especially with the later starting to go down in flames and Le Pen with some brewing scandals of her own.

Honestly, Macron and Mélenchon should've joined a left-wing primary. I'm still mad they didn't.

Wouldn't Macron benefit from not being attached to PS? Though I see that PS is doing a lot better poll wise now that their primary is over.

Brexit and the U.S. election were still close races and pretty consistently within a few points with the exception of a few periods of time (like the post-DNC bump). The only thing close about the French election is who will Le Pen face.

The French have been there before, albeit in times where nationalism and fascism weren't as popular. Marine's father made it to the second round and proceeded to lose by... 65%. Against a scandal ridden opponent. That's where "vote" for the crook, not the fascist comes from.

We don't have to worry about Germany since SPD and CDU can always continue on with making grand coalitions. We probably don't even have to worry about the Netherlands unless Wilders gets enough to where he is needed in a coalition. Although it's obviously scary that he is going to likely receive a plurality of votes.

So again, I get this. I just also remember when Hillary was leading polls in Wisconsin by like ten points and how demographic changes since 2012 made it impossible for Hillary to lose, especially with her new appeal to college whites. And how the US wouldn't do this because we just weren't white enough anymore, dammit.

SPD/CDU seems plausible but like, what if an AfD surge takes away enough CDU voters that they can't form a grand coalition? Maybe we'd see a SPD/Green/The Left coalition or SPD/Green/CDU.

Like I said, I get it. It's unlikely. So was Trump, who had to win every swing state and also flip one of the solidly Democratic states that hadn't voted R since '88. He had, supposedly, a chance of winning smaller than 1%. I get that France is not the US, but I'll just sleep easier when the election actually happens.

 

[Azure Dream]

Starting to think Trump legitimately has early dementia or 0 9 something.

https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/status/826521935987298304

I've thought something like this since partway into the election. He has problems, real problems. The Republicans were mocking every little thing Clinton did out of line, even making up things to be "concerned" about ("we don't want a President that 'short-circuits'" parroted over and over again), when they were happy to elect a man that has a lot of warning signs of looming mental illness.

 

[shinra-bansho]

So I'm just going to crosslink/post to Stampy's post on what Dems should do, since it's a better articulated version of my general thinking.
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=229477139

Where I'm relatively ambivalent on filibuster because I figure the most likely outcome is 1 or 2 in paragraph three.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Gorsuch's opinion of "IDEA allows for a disabled child to get an education, but doesn't mandate any quality standard of education so that the public school didn't give you autistic child a good education at all doesn't violate the law" is so irritating.

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/07/07-1304.pdf

Yes, Congress really put together a law where their goal was "every disabled child can get at least a terrible education and it doesn't matter if they all just get a terrible education." That was definitely the intent of the law >_>

 

[mo60]

Like I said earlier If Fillon doesn't end up in the second round someone will be there to replace him which in this case it looks like it will be macron at this point. Le Pen doesn't get a free win card if she gets to the second round. She will still have to deal with the same forces(but a lot weaker) that resulted in her father getting crushed by a historic margin for an election in the western world in 2002. There's also the inevitable FN infighting that looks likely to occur after the second round of the french presidential election.

 

[Pixieking]

So this is an interesting question because it assumes that voting for a candidate one prefers is always a rational behavior. The problem is that the practical utility of voting is almost nonexistent since individual votes have almost no chance of mattering. The reason people vote then is because they get other benefits for voting, including the warm feeling that comes from civic engagement and supporting a candidate they liked. Especially when the cost is high, like with voter ID laws or the opportunity cost of missing, voting for a candidate you don't like is not a tantalizing prospect.

Not disagreeing with what you say, but to the bolded, would a way to increase participation and fluffy warm feelings be to create more social voting events? Souls to the Polls, but for... I don't know, LAN parties, Book Reading Groups, that sort of thing?

I suppose on a very high level, it is the voter's job to pick the best person for the job, and they fail themselves when they vote for someone they regret voting for.

But on a practical level, that road only leads to, for a lack of a better word, circlejerking. It does no one any good to complain about voters being idiots, unless you think that can somehow turn into a cultural change where uninformed voters are embarrassed into educating themselves, or you pass some sort constitutional amendment to require passing tests to vote.

I've been so so so tempted the past few days to say "The US is getting what it deserves", because at this point the uneducated voters and non-voters are to blame for Trump doing what he's doing. And, honestly, if I thought it would embarrass them into educating themselves, I'd pay for adverts to say that... But I don't think it would.

Perhaps this would be a neat side-effect of mandatory voting - that everyone would educate themselves, but somehow I doubt it.

Besides, Hillary can basically force any message she wants on the voters, and she chose a message of optics. Show me a TV ad from the general election that was about the issues that some trump voters are now wishing they knew about before voting.

Hard to do without knowing those specific issues - give me an example.

Oh, btw, that Muslim Ban? Hillary and her team saw that coming, but thought it would happen in November.

 

[whyamihere]

Wouldn't Macron benefit from not being attached to PS? Though I see that PS is doing a lot better poll wise now that their primary is over.

Yeah, Macron would. He stood up to Hollande, and that's why people like him from both the Left and the Right. And he's attractive and young and a good speaker.

The last polls are:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/pr...et-macron-au-coude-a-coude-le-pen-en-tete.php

LaRouche, I guess (<.5%):

Cheminade (LaRouche): <.5%

Left (26%):

Arthaud (Communist Union): .5%
Poutou (New Anticapitalist Party): .5%
Mélenchon (Unsubmissive France): 10%
Jadot (Europe Ecology &#8211; The Greens): 2%
Hamon (Socialists): 13%

Center (25%):

Macron (En Marche!): 20%
Bayrou (MoDem): 5%

Right (49%):

Fillon (Republicans): 21%
Dupont-Aignan (France Arise): 3%
Le Pen (National Front): 25%

Runoffs:

Fillon: 60%
Le Pen: 40%

Macron: 65%
Le Pen: 35%

Macron: 58%
Fillon: 42%

Unlike the American polls, there is very little "Don't Know" responses in general, something that threw off a ton of models.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

"Unsubmissive France" sounds like a bunch of dudes who are scared to admit they are gay.

 

[Pixieking]

"Unsubmissive France" sounds like a bunch of dudes who are scared to admit they are gay.

They just like topping from the bottom, that's all.

 

[A Human Becoming]

So I'm just going to crosslink/post to Stampy's post on what Dems should do, since it's a better articulated version of my general thinking.
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=229477139

Where I'm relatively ambivalent on filibuster because I figure the most likely outcome is 1 or 2 in paragraph three.

Stump is missing an important part: what does the base want? Getting the base energized matters. We all known perception and feelings are more important to people than logic.

 

[JP_]

So I'm just going to crosslink/post to Stampy's post on what Dems should do, since it's a better articulated version of my general thinking.
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=229477139

Where I'm relatively ambivalent on filibuster because I figure the most likely outcome is 1 or 2 in paragraph three.

If you believe that the Republicans will do away with the filibuster after it is used the first time, but it'll work the first time, then you want to save the filibuster for Trump appointing someone to replace Breyer, RBG, or even Kennedy

So, again, it comes down to this idea that they won't nuke it when we try to use it. Let's say we roll over and let them have Garland's spot with Gorsuch. Then a liberal retires and Trump puts up someone conservative. We plan to filibuster. Two things can happen.

• Filibuster works, they nuke it, renominate whoever they had and we can't stop it.
• Expecting the filibuster, they preemptively nuke it and we can't stop it.

Whatever we did with Gorsuch is basically irrelevant and has no bearing on either scenario. The strategy with Gorsuch might have more to do with how we think it'll play for 2018 and 2020.

 

[studyguy]

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/826650559524532228

Yeah cause people were up in arms over the cost of the trip lmao

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

SPD/CDU seems plausible but like, what if an AfD surge takes away enough CDU voters that they can't form a grand coalition? Maybe we'd see a SPD/Green/The Left coalition or SPD/Green/CDU.

There is zero chance of a SPD/Green/Left coaltion. If SPD or the Greens were interested in doing that, they would've done it this time around - those 3 parties have the (slight) majority of seats right now in the Bundestag. The Left is, well, the left-wing version of AfD so to speak. No one wants to make a coalition with them. If SPD/CDU don't constitute a majority, which is unlikely, the Greens would be likely to step in to get to 50+1.

Plus, you have Schulz MEGA running for SPD now!

 

[sazzy]

nvm

 

[metalslimer]

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/826650559524532228

Yeah cause people were up in arms over the cost of the trip lmao

lol I didn't even know she used government money

 

[whyamihere]

Don't we like Schultz? Isn't he one of the more competent leaders of SPD?

 

[Tarydax]

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/826650559524532228

Yeah cause people were up in arms over the cost of the trip lmao

She's so fucking awful.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

There is zero chance of a SPD/Green/Left coaltion. If SPD or the Greens were interested in doing that, they would've done it this time around - those 3 parties have the (slight) majority of seats right now in the Bundestag. The Left is, well, the left-wing version of AfD so to speak. No one wants to make a coalition with them. If SPD/CDU don't constitute a majority, which is unlikely, the Greens would be likely to step in to get to 50+1.

Plus, you have Schulz MEGA running for SPD now!

The Left are already in ruling coalitions in two states as junior partners with SPD and the Greens. I don't think they're as toxic as AfD.

...man I just wish we had PR so bad.

 

[royalan]

Stump is missing an important part: what does the base want? Getting the base energized matters. We all known perception and feelings are more important to people than logic.

Absolutely agreed.

I will admit that my position is more than a little colored by the fact that I do a lot of grassroots level work in Philly, but I think Dems right now face a &#8211; in the words of the great Marco Rubio &#8211; binary choice between what may be politically and logically sound, and what our base wants.

There's simply no denying it at this point: there is an unprecedented level of energy, anger, and drive to get involved in Democrats party at the grassroots level (it has NEVER been so easy to sign people up and get them involved, from my vantage point). There is also a very real risk that Democrats (particularly in the Senate) risk squandering that energy or, worse, having it turn against them, if they're seen as not acting within the interest of that activated base.

Under normal circumstances, I would compare this to the rise of the tea party and be terrified. But in this particular case, with the Senate, I don't think we gain more than we stand to lose by not standing with the people and this incredible energy on the Left right now. I hear the arguments, but the only thing you really stand to gain is...this belief that you can save the threat of filibuster for later and Republicans won't nuke it. There's no brownie points with this GOP. If they want the filibuster gone, it's gone.