Officerrob
Banned
I'm not Booker's biggest fan, but lets not pretend like Rubio has a fraction of the charisma Booker has
-
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 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
I'm not Booker's biggest fan, but lets not pretend like Rubio has a fraction of the charisma Booker has
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Well fuck
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
At the very least Booker isn't lazy like Rubio
Booker is obviously more charismatic than Rubot, but I think his charisma is overrated in general.
Okay, so let me try and restate the point I'm trying to make here. Maybe I am being unclear.
When people talk about running more aggressive socialist candidates, the argument consistently made against it is that we should instead run more centrist candidates who favor more neoliberal social policies, specifically because the socialists will lose resoundingly because their position is more extreme.
That, to me, is an affirmative argument. It demands proof! But proof is generally not provided. I expected Corbyn's attempt to compete, Bernie's primary attempt, etc., to contribute some proof to defend that argument, because it's an argument I've made in the past. But I don't see them providing the proof I expected.
My point is that we should discard that argument. It has not been proven, merely asserted. Without that argument, we should fall back to the null hypothesis, which is that centrists have neither an advantage nor a disadvantage over socialists. Under this hypothesis I would strongly argue for running the socialist, because their platform will be better for the country (and also just morally correct). You might obviously disagree, assuming you are a neoliberal shill/capitalist running dog/automobile manufacturer. But that's a topic to debate.
You suggest here that you agree with me that we should return to the null hypothesis. Do you still hold to this? If so, then great! We are on the same page.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Yes, but the point is that people buy into candidates and the stories they tell, not to general technocratic deference.
This is why I rolled my eyes a bit at the "progressive candidates did worse than Clinton" argument after the election - most people vote straight down the ticket, and those candidates weren't bolstered by a candidate at the top folding them into a narrative people could buy into.
So, two themes in this post. A personal take on "electability" and then some comments about inference.
I said pretty clearly that I favor robust primaries and that I don't think making assumptions about what other people think is a good way to pick candidates. I took this lesson to heart in 2004 and I think it was affirmed in 2008 and 2016. I was a toddler when Mondale ran and don't think the socialist/neoliberal label is helpful, so I don't have a strong opinion on being too far left to be unelectable. If people want to run socialists in primaries they should go for it.
There are probably a lot of candidates that think of as being kooky or whatever. Bernie Sanders was one. But it's stupid to oppose on electability - the average voter doesn't have a good sense of what that is. I opposed him on policy and on the level of personal fitness. It's important and helpful for this to play out in 2018, and we'll learn something from the experience.
That being said, I never said I agree with you because you've been saying we learned something new. My point is we haven't learned much of anything yet. If you are reevaluating the anti-socialism hypothesis because you are questioning whatever basis lead you to conclude it in the first place, that's awesome and appropriate. If you are reevaluating it because Hillary's plurality and Corbyn's 40% convinced you that Americans love socialism, that's silly.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
better options than we had tbh
This is why them being forced into a hung/quick new election scenario is good cause holy fuck did they need a mulligan.
Eh. American primaries are mostly fake since parties make the important electoral decisions. Maybe you want to change that, I guess.
I think that's pretty clearly not what I'm saying, if you read my post.
I don't know, this is a huge victory for Corbyn and I can't see the Tories getting any less evil. I don't see how the choices in a presumptive second election would be any better.
Ned Lamont certainly would have been a better senator than Joe Lieberman. Also curious whether Eric Cantor has a strong opinion on the subject. Or Joe Biden.
I'd be happy to quote several instances where you explicitly state we learned something new from Corbyn and Clinton, if it would help. I've been reading your posts.
But, I'm also happy to mark this up to misreading one another and moving on. We're like 85% of the way to the same page. Maybe as much as 95%.
aspiegamer
Member
Extremely impressed with what the UK has managed to pull off. Sticking with May with any sort of actual majority would be the final green light for the international community to write them off for good. Unpopular sentiment overall but at least there'd be an actual clearing path forward. Instead or a government no one else on the planet wants, there's no government at all! Somehow an even worse option than just pulling away and surrendering themselves to Europe.
VendettaRed07
Member
Corbyn outperformed expectations by a lot, so I think that it's possible Corbyn can win the next GE if the mutiny in the party dies down and they fully all get on the Corbyn train rather than just shitting on him saying he's unelectable and not taking the party where they want to go.
SomewhatGroovy
Banned
Okay, this was ignored while thread was moving pages a mile during today's testimony so I want to bring it up again
Now, here is a reporting of Comey refuting the NYT article by Washington Post. Interestingly enough, the NYT has been reviewing the story since Comes statement
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...ot-true-comey-denounces-new-york-times-story/
This is troubling in my point of view as NYT is a trusted and reputable newspaper.
From NYT
Now, here is a reporting of Comey refuting the NYT article by Washington Post. Interestingly enough, the NYT has been reviewing the story since Comes statement
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...ot-true-comey-denounces-new-york-times-story/
This is troubling in my point of view as NYT is a trusted and reputable newspaper.
From NYT
whyamihere
Banned
UK officially has a hung parliament.
Also, Labour won a ton of affluent seats on a hard left platform. I might want to eat some crow on being worried about going over those seats in Murica.
Also, Labour won a ton of affluent seats on a hard left platform. I might want to eat some crow on being worried about going over those seats in Murica.
How hung we talking here?
timetokill
Banned
Like a horse
You can negotiate on economics.
You can't negotiate on whether or not black and gay people are actually human beings.
whyamihere
Banned
Girthy.
Hey, if I can get a left wing platform through House members elected from Orange County, I'm in!
That's what I'm talking about
whyamihere
Banned
Watching the BBC coverage is universal praise for Corbyn. A unified Corbyn against Tories in disarray with a Coalition of Chaos with the DUP is so fascinating.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
This might be the evidence I need to believe that attempts to energize youth vote are significant. I've been too cynical about my generation, or perhaps I should say: maybe now some motherfuckers understand what's at stake
whyamihere
Banned
Yup. Agreed.
See this paragraph:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/james-comey-new-york-times-article-russia.html
Comey said in his testimony the FBI doesn't consider Kislyak a Russian intelligence officer; it's likely that at least one of the sources for the NYT story come from another agency (CIA, NSA) who do consider him as one.
Hence, strictly by the FBI's view that Kislyak is not a intelligence officer, the NYT's reporting that Trump campaign officials had contacts with "Russian intelligence officials" would then, at least when it comes to Kislyak, not be true.
I doubt that the substance of the reporting is false, though.
VendettaRed07
Member
They now have to rely on other parties to pass anything or get anything done in Brexit.
It would have been difficult enough to negotiate with the EU alone. They have to fight abroad and at home over every little detail now.
May has gotta step down I think. Her party must hate her. She didn't need to call this election and has now made everything on their agenda harder.
They had 3 more years ! 17 seat majority guaranteed. Totally crazy.
VendettaRed07
Member
No young people are stupid and don't vote.
Except when they do. When you aren't calling them dumb and stupid and shouldn't be asking for what they want. oh.
Think Mook even said the most important demographic Hillary lost wasn't racial or gender. It was age. Had she got more than 60% of young voters she would have won.
whyamihere
Banned
I've never seen a bigger self-own then what Theresa May did.
Yeah, it takes Iraq/Trump to get kids energized. Unfortunately. Seen it happen twice now. People are bad and reactionary and that goes for "both sides-ers" who won't listen to the South Park guys who 16 years later have a super-important warning to them.
Liberal/left goals. Probably not left policy implementations to achieve them. And that's ok.
The party wants to do universal healthcare with a public option.
Liberal/left goals. Probably not left policy implementations to achieve them. And that's ok.
SomewhatGroovy
Banned
It would be interesting if Comey could give us something here.
I do like the mental exercise Trump supporters have to engage here.
On one hand, I have heard some say "See, Libtards; even Come says it's fake!" But will stop short of supporting Comes damning statements in Trump himself.
Edit: Comey later testified the NYT article is almost entirely false. Not around semantics of who is I tell or not
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
I'm supporting whichever Democrat runs on nationalized rail in 2020
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
You joke but this would seriously get me behind someone. Proper transportation infrastructure in this country is a huge personal pet issue
VendettaRed07
Member
Lets be real. Bernie would have energized young people. Much more than Hillary did.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
At a very real cost in other parts of the electorate, as well as w/ governance in the off chance he actually did well against trump.
You don't want to be the ones with the Jimmy Carter.
ShironRedshift
Member
Ah, interesting! I definitely recall Comey mentioning that although Kislyak certainly has interactions with Russian intelligence services, he personally considers him a diplomat and not sufficiently directly/personally involved in Russian intelligence gathering to actually be considered an intelligence officer of any sort. Personal disagreement over who the label is appropriate for and who it isn't such as that would certainly be one very viable explanation for why Comey felt the NYT report to be inaccurate (the Russians in question don't meet his personal standard for being considered intelligence officials, but did for whoever were the Times' sources).
VendettaRed07
Member
I'm not saying Bernie even if he had won would have Governed well but the party needs to actually look at what about him excited young people and focus on that. I don't think we are sacrificing anything by doing that. We basically hit rock bottom. I don't think the party can lose anymore ground than it has.
You do that by holding a competitive primary and getting rid of the old candidates.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I despise South Park. It's still anecdotal but God damn have I heard it quoted or referenced a million times.
Edit:
I don't know about these last two lines. The Clinton campaign mostly hit their marks for a variety of demographics. The last thing I want to see in the future is a collapse because we took certain voters for granted. That's what started this!
Aaron Strife
Banned
Would coincide great with a shift to green energy as well.
What else does our platform look like in 2020?
$15 minimum wage
Medicare for all
Free college tuition
Comprehensive immigration reform
Wage insurance? (stepping stone towards basic income)
Drug/criminal justice reform (if Democrats don't adopt pot legalization as a party-wide issue in the next four years we are fucking dumb)
Fuck Citizens United
SomewhatGroovy
Banned
Okay but look, Comey was later asked by Cotton if that report was "almost entirely wrong", Comey responded "yes" .
Would a simple argument over semantics render the entire sentiment of a report "almost entirely wrong"?
No.
It's impossible to overstate how badly May campaigned. This wasn't death by a thousand cuts, this was a few trump cuts, a few cuts elsewhere and then a billion self-inflicted wounds.
I mean, they tried to atone for the Bush/Gore "both sides" by doing a season that was telling their viewers "NO SERIOUSLY, VOTE FOR FUCKING HILLARY" and they still couldn't break through.
- Status