• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pigeon

Banned
AntraxSuicide said:
Sure, I don't think we should (or really need to) run candidates like Bill again for President. But if W.J. Clinton signed up to run for governor of Arkansas and had a shot to win it, I think it seems like a good thing to do.

I really don't want to hear over and over again that Dems keep losing state houses and governor's mansions and then also we should actually be running Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren in all 50 states. If there are things you actually would compromise on, state them and why they'd help win! If not, then have fun in California while some of us rot in the deep South.
Click to expand...

Things to learn from 2016:

1. Races are all nationalized now.
2. Ultimately people vote on party loyalty a lot regardless of individual candidates.

Conclusion: just run perfect Democrats everywhere and don't compromise on any issues. Who cares? People will vote for you just to get back at Trump, pendulum politics will operate, and then with a bunch of actually progressive Democrats if office we can just do progressive stuff.
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
From a scale of one to ten, how much do people abhor the notion of a "Republican Front". Or essentially grand coalitions like CDU-SPD.

I mean it would never work in the US. But from a hypothetical.


Edit: what's the reasoning behind being against the March for Science... o_O
 
P

pigeon

Banned
I mean if it's a front against fascism I'm pro-it?

I don't really understand unity coalitions in general unless they're basically wartime alliances.
 
Emerson

Emerson

May contain jokes =>
shinra-bansho said:
From a scale of one to ten, how much do people abhor the notion of a "Republican Front". Or essentially grand coalitions like CDU-SPD.

I mean it would never work in the US. But from a hypothetical.


Edit: what's the reasoning behind being against the March for Science... o_O
Click to expand...

Same reasoning as being against the Women's March. "We should support our leader, like him or not he was elected!"

Just completely valueless reasoning.
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
pigeon said:
Frum is a weird case because he loves military action and immigration restriction but he also thinks the Republican Party is an ideologically paralyzed disaster and Trump is an immoral Nazi. Which is correct!

So I view him as part of the national popular front, but sure post-fascism I would certainly drop him.
Click to expand...
I just feel Frum's view of politics inevitably leads to fascism, I don't think you can separate his politics from Trump's even if he dislikes how Republicans currently act.
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
Well, for a real world timely example, Francois Fillon is gross. His supporters are probably pretty gross. Are you happy though to unite with them to stop the Le Pens.
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
pigeon said:
Things to learn from 2016:

1. Races are all nationalized now.
2. Ultimately people vote on party loyalty a lot regardless of individual candidates.

Conclusion: just run perfect Democrats everywhere and don't compromise on any issues. Who cares? People will vote for you just to get back at Trump, pendulum politics will operate, and then with a bunch of actually progressive Democrats if office we can just do progressive stuff.
Click to expand...

Uh, races are in fact not nationalized in the sense that this country is set up (stupidly of course but them's the breaks) so that without control of a state you can't do a lot of things. Progressive Dems in Congress would be amazing, but without Dems at all in Mississippi, I'm not going to see a whole lot of this new world you're talking about. You will because you live in a blue state; that's a privilege you have to consider! Telling someone in Arkansas that they actually shouldn't be happy about a possible Dem win from compromise might actually be affecting them whereas you aren't affected at all by the governor of Arkansas.

I mean, surely you've got to be mad that Edwards won in Louisiana, right? He definitely compromised on some positions and still only pulled the win because his opponent had some insane scandals. But the Dems in LA should probably primary him before he runs again, right?

Edit: to get specific, the only Dem who has a shot at all of winning the governor's race in 2019 here in Mississippi is Jim Hood. Am I supposed to back a no name candidate (who would definitely lose, see: the fucking truck driver we ran last time) to make myself feel good or do I back Hood even though I highly suspect he won't be able to talk about how much he loves Planned Parenthood? Literally lives could be on the line as MS still doesn't have the Medicaid expansion, which might be possible later.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
Oh man, Jane Sanders just tweeted an insane article about how Heath Mello's abortion stances are Actually Good and DailyKos is supporting suburban Ossoff instead of Mello and isn't that WEIRD?!?!?!?!

🙄
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
whyamihere said:
Oh man, Jane Sanders just tweeted an insane article about how Heath Mello's abortion stances are Actually Good and DailyKos is supporting suburban Ossoff instead of Mello and isn't that WEIRD?!?!?!?!

��
Click to expand...

The Tweet itself is fucking weird too...
@thenation provides actual facts vs fake news, political correctness & hypocrisy. Choose news sources /groups wise
Click to expand...
Political Correctness?!

https://twitter.com/janeosanders/status/856701396749570048

Like literally and all offense intended to her the only difference between that tweet and a Trump tweet is the news agency she's talking about.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
Mello voted for the ultrasound legislation as, his words, a "compromise" (I can't find the article because I'm on my phone and of course a million think pieces have sprung up since on the subject).

There's nothing to defend about it. You can say he got better (he did), but don't defend his original position. And maybe IF YOU SAW THAT DAILYKOS WAS RAISING MONEY FOR ROB QUIST AND NOT LIVE IN INSANE CONSPIRACIES THAT THE WORLD IS OUT TO GET YOU YOUD BREATHE AND SEE IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
AntraxSuicide said:
Uh, races are in fact not nationalized in the sense that this country is set up (stupidly of course but them's the breaks) so that without control of a state you can't do a lot of things. Progressive Dems in Congress would be amazing, but without Dems at all in Mississippi, I'm not going to see a whole lot of this new world you're talking about. You will because you live in a blue state; that's a privilege you have to consider! Telling someone in Arkansas that they actually shouldn't be happy about a possible Dem win from compromise might actually be affecting them whereas you aren't affected at all by the governor of Arkansas.

I mean, surely you've got to be mad that Edwards won in Louisiana, right? He definitely compromised on some positions and still only pulled the win because his opponent had some insane scandals. But the Dems in LA should probably primary him before he runs again, right?

Edit: to get specific, the only Dem who has a shot at all of winning the governor's race in 2019 here in Mississippi is Jim Hood. Am I supposed to back a no name candidate (who would definitely lose, see: the fucking truck driver we ran last time) to make myself feel good or do I back Hood even though I highly suspect he won't be able to talk about how much he loves Planned Parenthood? Literally lives could be on the line as MS still doesn't have the Medicaid expansion, which might be possible later.
Click to expand...
Man, I would love if Jim Hood won the MS governorship.

Pick up NJ and hold VA this year, reelect Edwards, elect Hood in MS and Beshear in KY in 2019 and we'll have all the off-year governorships.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
BTW same author Jane Sanders linked to wrote this piece 5 days ago, it's literally just a Ossoff sucks and who cares if he gets elected piece:

But even if Ossoff does pull one off in June, it will be hard to paint his victory as any kind of progressive triumph. The candidate himself seems earnest, and (to borrow a phrase) likable enough for someone who has clearly had his eye on a political career for quite a while. As a filmmaker, Ossoff's targets have included ”Nigeria's Fake Doctors," Big Tobacco (in Kenya), and corruption in Mozambique—all worthy, and all very far away. As a candidate, he's been forthright in defense of Planned Parenthood—which might actually help against Handel, who resigned from the Susan G. Komen foundation after the group reversed a decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. And he's nobody's idea of a blue dog. But with campaign ads arguing ”both parties in Washington waste too much of your money," Ossoff is running as a pragmatic centrist, not a political revolutionary.

That doesn't bother MoveOn.org, whose 15,000 Georgia members voted overwhelmingly to endorse him. ”He's talking in a way that connects with voters in his district," Matt Blizek, the group's electoral field director, told me. ”This was a pretty pro-Clinton district," he said. Ossoff, for better and worse, is definitely a candidate a Clinton supporter could love.

Just as an Ossoff victory would represent a repudiation of Trump, but not our broken politics, his failure to pull off an upset yesterday has little to tell us about the prospects for bolder candidates with more audacious agendas. A winning smile and the ability to avoid controversy will never be enough to turn this country around. Cutting off the school-to-prison pipeline, breaking the corporate stranglehold on our politics and Big Oil's steady suffocation of our planet, ending the rationing of health care and educational opportunity by income and the police targeting of young men by race—all require a lot more than tinkering around the edges. There are Democrats, right now, who could lead those fights, like Rob Quist in Montana, Tom Perriello in Virginia, and Heath Mello in Omaha, struggling to raise a fraction of the funds behind Ossoff.

It may have been fun to watch, but despite all the money, and all the media attention, the battle for Georgia's Sixth District, however entertaining, was never more than an expensive sideshow.
Click to expand...


https://www.thenation.com/article/ossoff-in-the-runoff/

The face of the revolution

DDGuttenplan_small.jpg
Click to expand...
 
S

sphagnum

Banned
shinra-bansho said:
Edit: what's the reasoning behind being against the March for Science... o_O
Click to expand...

look a these liberals politicizing science! they just want BIG GOVERNMENT spending grants to promote their evolutionist and chinese weather hoax agenda

REAL science is acknowledging the biological superiority of men and the white race, and also finding Noah's ark. have you heard that the Earth is flat?
 
P

pigeon

Banned
whyamihere said:
Mello voted for the ultrasound legislation as, his words, a "compromise" (I can't find the article because I'm on my phone and of course a million think pieces have sprung up since on the subject).

There's nothing to defend about it. You can say he got better (he did), but don't defend his original position. And maybe IF YOU SAW THAT DAILYKOS WAS RAISING MONEY FOR ROB QUIST AND NOT LIVE IN INSANE CONSPIRACIES THAT THE WORLD IS OUT TO GET YOU YOUD BREATHE AND SEE IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU.
Click to expand...

Somebody on my Facebook was literally posting that this entire thing was an orchestrated smear campaign against Bernie.

Man nobody held a gun to his head to make him endorse Mello!
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Man, I would love if Jim Hood won the MS governorship.

Pick up NJ and hold VA this year, reelect Edwards, elect Hood in MS and Beshear in KY in 2019 and we'll have all the off-year governorships.
Click to expand...

Our off-year elections suck hard, but I'm pretty bullish on our chances here. Bryant is term-limited and so it'll just be Hood vs Lt. Gov Reeves (who's a piece of shit in a suck-up, slimeball kind of way, Republicans here don't like him that much). Hood is also AG, which isn't that political, so there's nothing to really hammer him on; his whole career is just fraud and child pornography cases, which are obviously pretty popular.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
I'm just so sick of Rigged.

Take ownership of your mistakes! Your husband fucked up. He apologized and did the right thing. Shut up now about it.
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
excelsiorlef said:
BTW same author Jane Sanders linked to wrote this piece 5 days ago, it's literally just a Ossoff sucks and who cares if he gets elected piece:




https://www.thenation.com/article/ossoff-in-the-runoff/

The face of the revolution
Click to expand...
I could actually at least understand this piece if it didn't also endorse Mello. I think its critiques of centrism are pretty good here and I hope Ossoff isn't the direction the party ends up going, I much prefer a candidate like Quist.

But then endorsing Mello as the real deal kind of ruins the whole thing.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
Bonen no Max'd said:
I could actually at least understand this piece if it didn't also endorse Mello. I think its critiques of centrism are pretty good here and I hope Ossoff isn't the direction the party ends up going, I much prefer a candidate like Quist.

But then endorsing Mello as the real deal kind of ruins the whole thing.
Click to expand...

I like how he's like hmm what is DailyKos doing?!?!?! but they just raised a shit ton for Quist.

UGH
 
S

studyguy

Member
If nothing else, I'm glad that whatever this new DNC ends up as has a chance to deal with what would be literally the most obvious issue that anyone could have seen coming from a mile away, as Sanders progressivism runs up against the wall of a 50 state strategy. Better to get some sand in those gears now as we move forward so this new generation can learn work through the necessary concessions that come with dealing with conservative state districts.
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
whyamihere said:
I like how he's like hmm what is DailyKos doing?!?!?! but they just raised a shit ton for Quist.

UGH
Click to expand...
I was just referring to the piece excelsiorlef linked, I don't have any free articles in The Nation right now so I didn't read anything outside of that.

It's dumb.

I should go phonebank for Quist or something once I have time.
 
R

royalan

Member
I mean...Jane Sanders always came off as a little "alt" even during the campaign.

She was pushing the conspiracy/rigged/Hillary-made-a-deal-with-the-devil angle during the primaries almost as hard as Jeff Weaver was.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
Bonen no Max'd said:
I was just referring to the piece excelsiorlef linked, I don't have any free articles in The Nation right now so I didn't read anything outside of that.

It's dumb.

I should go phonebank for Quist or something once I have time.
Click to expand...

I'm going to phonebank for Quist and Ossoff because I am divergent.

royalan said:
I mean...Jane Sanders always came off as a little "alt" even during the campaign.

She was pushing the conspiracy/rigged/Hillary-made-a-deal-with-the-devil angle during the primaries almost as hard as Jeff Weaver was.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
O

OrangeGrayBlue

Member
Trump's gonna end up getting eight years in office because we're too worried, from several different angles, about who's a real progressive. Smh. If everyone is as upset about Trump as we claim to be, we'd be setting this bullshit aside at least until we get the presidency back. But I guess he's not actually a big deal because we still have the breathing room to bicker over who's left enough on such and such policy despite our opposition being straight up villainous on a number of issues. Sorry that this isn't a particularly useful post, I just need to vent a bit about how asinine these squabbles seem.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
royalan said:
I mean...Jane Sanders always came off as a little "alt" even during the campaign.

She was pushing the conspiracy/rigged/Hillary-made-a-deal-with-the-devil angle during the primaries almost as hard as Jeff Weaver was.
Click to expand...

That tweet is straight up indistinguishable from a Trump tweet straight down to a nonsense reference to political correctness
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
OrangeGrayBlue said:
Trump's gonna end up getting eight years in office because we're too worried, from several different angles, about who's a real progressive. Smh. If everyone is as upset about Trump as we claim to be, we'd be setting this bullshit aside at least until we get the presidency back. But I guess he's not actually a big deal because we still have the breathing room to bicker over who's left enough on such and such policy despite our opposition being straight up villainous on a number of issues. Sorry that this isn't a particularly useful post, I just need to vent a bit about how asinine these squabbles seem.
Click to expand...

I mean, I've given and called for Perriello, Ossoff, and Quist. I'm not into purity tests. I'm less into some not being able to take a more big tent approach to the Democratic Party by saying that one of our rising candidates isn't progressive.

I don't have time for that. Sounds like you don't either. Which is great!

I was down with Bernie's apology and this happened and it makes me super worried about 18!
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
Bonen no Max'd said:
I could actually at least understand this piece if it didn't also endorse Mello. I think its critiques of centrism are pretty good here and I hope Ossoff isn't the direction the party ends up going, I much prefer a candidate like Quist.

But then endorsing Mello as the real deal kind of ruins the whole thing.
Click to expand...

I think Ossoff as a candidate makes perfect sense for a district like GA-06, while Quist makes perfect sense for Montana. That's what I want to see the party do - don't run Quists in suburban districts but don't run Ossoffs in rural districts. In the end, we'll need everyone to pass what we want to pass. (GA is also important as a state that is likely to be competitive on a federal level very soon. Same with TX, AZ, etc.)
 
P

pigeon

Banned
shinra-bansho said:
Well, for a real world timely example, Francois Fillon is gross. His supporters are probably pretty gross. Are you happy though to unite with them to stop the Le Pens.
Click to expand...

Personally I am, sure. Like, if hypothetically America had a weird runoff system and the candidates were Trump and Evan McMullin, I would vote for McMullin even though he basically sucks, because I agree with his anti-Nazis position and it's a key issue for me.

I will note that David Frum and Ross Douthat went ahead and voted for Hillary despite the fact that she's basically their antithesis.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
It's amazing how every day we see just how accurate Barney Frank's decades old summation is correct Sanders alienates natural allies so fucking easily
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
Carpe Libertatem said:
I think Ossoff as a candidate makes perfect sense for a district like GA-06, while Quist makes perfect sense for Montana. That's what I want to see the party do - don't run Quists in suburban districts but don't run Ossoffs in rural districts. In the end, we'll need everyone to pass what we want to pass. (GA is also important as a state that is likely to be competitive on a federal level very soon. Same with TX, AZ, etc.)
Click to expand...
I get that, and I hope Ossoff wins because it's one less Republican that will try and fuck me over. I'm just not that excited about him because I don't really like his politics. Quist is a good fit for Montana but also in general I just hope we can have more candidates like him that can be pro-Medicare For All and pro-choice and populist. I don't really care about the guns or rural values type stuff even though that's where I come from, though if it gets him elected more power to him. I don't think it has to be a rural split, I think minus some of the folksy stuff and the cowboy hat Quist's politics would probably fit in well with an urban district, but he definitely wouldn't fit in with a place like GA-6.
 
V

Vimes

Member
Lovett's argument was something I've heard dozens of times from people who were saying "both candidates are awful" last year; but I'm open ears this time, because it's Lovett and I know he's making the argument in good faith.

I feel like this Sanders vs Establishment shit has been the elephant in the room on PSA for months and I'm glad they seem to feel ready to tackle it head-on finally.

Also all this Lovett or Leave it hate??? It's supposed to be lighthearted and dumb you guys. (It's not called Lovett or Hang Around And Bitch.) I'm so far behind on all the Crooked pods, I dunno how any of you all can feel forced to listen to ones that aren't your jam.
/rantwheel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
The Democrats are spineless and worthless in opposing Trump & the GOP
8 9 10 11 12
571
63K
sugarhigh4242 replied
  • Locked
This week in Trump’s America: Week 2 by ThinkProgress
8
3K
stuminus3 replied
  • Locked
Hillary Clinton retweets Slate voter guide calling her most corrupt candidate
3
4K
ModBot replied
  • Locked
Blacklist 2014 - Hollywood's most liked scripts of the year
30
6K
Sho_Nuff82 replied
Top Bottom