-
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 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
Autodidact
Banned
We have to hear both sides... by the same person. CNN could use him to reduce payroll.
They'll just create another boogeyman. You don't seem to grasp that they're interchangeable.
No contradiction there.
Quist ran a really good campaign and appealed to voters, but he had a somewhat checkered background. If Democrats had been watching potentially vulnerable districts (as they ought to do), they could have picked somebody stronger to run on Quist's platform.
It's hard to believe he's the only charismatic progressive in a state with a million people.
whyamihere
Banned
you spin me right round baby right round
First he's "lightning in a bottle"
Now he's "a subpar candidate"
Can you stick with one rationalization for why you keep running left-wing populists and losing because the demographic they allegedly appeal to really likes prioritizing their racism over economics?
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
It was a small bottle
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Honestly the main takeaway from Quist's campaign is that, contrary to what some believe, there are not millions of secret socialists in rural areas across America just waiting to be activated.
whyamihere
Banned
I just think he kinda sucked.
GoldenEye 007
Member
I understand it wasn't DNC money, but it was 6 million dollars. For a Montana US house race. That alone is ridiculous. The DNC throwing more money in would not have closed the gap.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
If Handel wins, how much blame does Kathy Griffin bear? His polling began to slide right after her desperate stunt for attention.
whyamihere
Banned
Quist performed very, very well, earning a higher vote share than any Democrat in his district in 17 years. But he wasn't infallible. His tax past and apathy from the Democratic leadership prevented him from winning.
But because of his platform and his charisma, Quist vastly outperformed previous Democrats. Sure, Quist didn't win, but neither have any of the straight-laced centrists you would prefer. Whining about populism certainly won't win a single district.
if this is satire this is very good
https://www.voterstudygroup.org/reports/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond
They're activated- just not for dems. This is the population at the intersection of socialism and racism. And they vastly prefer the racism to the socialism.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
This too. He might've won if he had paid his taxes.
But he might've also won if he positioned himself to be more like Bullock and Tester, Democrats who have had actual success in Montana.
But turns out it's the DNC or something.
TestOfTide
Banned
Except creating a boogeyman TAKES TIME. You can't just create a boogeyman with a snap of the fingers. It has to involve spending years building a negative narrative around someone.
BlastProcessing
Member
The GOP will use Pelosi to scare people for years after she finally retires. They are still using Jane Fonda for christsake.
whyamihere
Banned
Yes, we know that you think all left wing populists are Bad because socialism is Bad.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
His district is literally the entire state. Go look at Jon Tester and Steve Bullock if you want an example of how to win as a Democratic in Montana.
Also because racist, xenophobic homophobes are bad, and that's what appealing to these types of voters is. These rural areas are full of people that actively hate me, hate the people I live around, and will pursue policies to actively hurt them.
And yes, socialism (the non-Democratic kind) is trash w/ a complete lack of actual constructive ideas for the future. It's killing two awful birds with one stone.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Ehhhh I mean Schweitzer tried to set up single payer in Montana and won two terms and is really popular so I don't think supporting single payer is what killed him. I just think Quist kind of sucked.
The Cavs keep losing right after you say that they're going to win, how much blame do you bear for that?
edit: for the record I didn't care enough to remember which team you care about and posted this anyway
whyamihere
Banned
This is how you win as a Democrat in Montana:
Tester 06
Schweitzer 08
Tester 12
Bullock 12
Bullock 16
Here's how you lose as a Democrat in Montana
Obama 08
Obama 12
Curtis 14
Clinton 16
Quist 17
Now you know.
Tester 06
Schweitzer 08
Tester 12
Bullock 12
Bullock 16
Here's how you lose as a Democrat in Montana
Obama 08
Obama 12
Curtis 14
Clinton 16
Quist 17
Now you know.
balladofwindfishes
Member
She won't have any effect on the race
If Ossoff wins, it'll likely be on the back of healthcare.
whyamihere
Banned
There it is!
Futurevoid
Member
Cantwell just killed it on the Senate floor concerning healthcare.
Curious, how do you propose the Democrats address voters who want some progressive policy but also have odious convictions?
Because the US is a nation founded on white supremacist values, most Americans -- especially white Americans -- are racist to some extent. Treating blue state whites as holy progressives and red state whites as KKK sleeper agents is dangerous and doesn't win elections. You can't believe that all the whites who hate Kaepernick voted for Trump. Suburban whites can be just as virulently racist as white people in rural areas, but Democrats don't seem interested in addressing this.
Racist attitudes in America won't go away unless we work to change them. We can't do this if we're not in power. Quist and Thompson prove that left-wing candidates can do well in red areas if they speak out strongly against austerity (whether it be selling off parcels of public land or gutting austerity), and Democrats need to use this to their advantage if they want to win elections.
Trash economics is trash economics whether it's on the right (Kansas, the Laffer Curve, Austrian Economics) or the left (Socialism, Marx)
I'm consistent in my opposing things that ignore how the world actually functions and seek to implement self-destructive policy solutions.
I'm confused. Socialism (especially the capital-S kind, whether it be Marxian or anarchist) tends to be very forward-looking, offering proactive visions of tomorrow in ways that liberals never do.
What's the mainline Democratic vision of the future? Promoting private-sector growth while also speaking out against bigotry?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
He's drawing the same conclusions I did from that data earlier: progressive economic politics are not as unpopular as they seem in the abstract but they are prioritized far lower than racial and identity politics among a large chunk of the population (and of course those two things aren't cleanly extricable, they're on board with progressive economic politics for white people)
It's definitely a difficult problem. How do you think we should address this?
I like the idea of proactive anti-racist campaigns but I don't know how to do this without being preachy. It also requires a kind of federal power that Democrats currently lack.
Autodidact
Banned
Umm... promoting private sector growth whose fruits can be taxed and used to expand the social safety net and educational and career opportunities?
Like every social democracy in Europe.
whyamihere
Banned
No, you have a 1950s view of socialism that's irrational and has made you overly antagonistic towards potentially winnable races like KS-04 because you think socialism is Bad and left wing populism is Bad so fuck them.
^ this.
Oh, I know. And I'm not disagreeing.
Look, Quist did much better than Hillary. Bullock and Tester did much better than Hillary. There's something there. I'm not sure what! But it's not that socialism is Bad.
Easy, you run a racist who supports progressive policies. See: Joe Manchin.
Real answer is you frame your progressive agenda in a way that doesn't sound like handouts for the poor, which will always be interpreted as disproportionality favoring minorities by racists.
Autodidact
Banned
But I think Kirblar would agree with my description, which isn't the same thing as democratic socialism. I answered that poster's question about what Democrats' vision is.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
The poll in the PBS article says whites disapprove of the protests 63-30. Trump won whites 58-37, so like a 5% difference.
So, yes, there are some racist Democratic voters. Just not nearly as many.
They're not going to go away because people are really shitty. What we have to hope for is that in the future, less people are growing up in the areas that produce the worst variety of people and that we can outvote their white identity politics as much as possible.
This is complete horseshit. We want universal healthcare, We want police, prison, and sentencing reform. We want a better world. We just don't believe that capitalism is the enemy..
Yup. Just straight up normal Capitalism + a strong welfare state.
Like seriously, that's. not. socialism.
whyamihere
Banned
I mean, at that point, you're arguing around the margins? A European-style social democracy is actually the goal for most American democratic socialists!
Autodidact
Banned
Because I think many of them confuse the two terms. Their description of neoliberalism could actually be applied to the Nordic countries, which they erroneously hail as beacons of democratic socialism.
I'm not sure if Democrats are very interested in expanding the social safety net, though. Look at the opposition to single-payer. In 2009, when Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses of congress, they let a bill fail that could have allowed millions of workers to unionize.
Reliance on the private sector is really dangerous, because the interests of capital are generally opposed to the interests of everybody else. When Democrats focus on spurring economic growth, their other goals can easily be forgotten.
It's great that you want all these things, but capital is the reason why we don't have them. I'm not asking every Democrat to be Rosa Luxemburg, because we're a pretty conservative country, but some movement against the private domination of industry is necessary to keep our country liveable. Because capitalism kills people and our democracy, Democrats should address business with more skepticism and a little less enthusiasm.
whyamihere
Banned
They might, but they're wrong. The goal for almost all American Democratic Socialists has always looked like a European-style social democracy.
That also includes limiting capitalism. Which, great!
VendettaRed07
Member
And what being proposed currently is trash economics
Also what is the Kiblar agenda. You have super majorities in both houses. What legislation do you pass? You have to actually propose an alternative platform if you are going to knock other ideas all day
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I think some of what happens here is the number of actual "demolish the state, shrink the community" socialists/communists just take up a disproportionate (not a majority, nowhere near it, just disproportionate to their actual membership) amount of the discourse online
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
I would say most American democratic socialists view European-style social democracies as an incremental step and also an improved material reality.
Of course, the key to success there is not "taxed private sector with larger welfare state", since the United States has a far smaller public sector than any of these countries. Ultimately I'd say the goal of American democratic socialists is to nationalize a lot of stuff and also turn the stuff that isn't nationalized into coops. There's a lot more to the socialist vision of the future than an expanded welfare state.
Of course, the key to success there is not "taxed private sector with larger welfare state", since the United States has a far smaller public sector than any of these countries. Ultimately I'd say the goal of American democratic socialists is to nationalize a lot of stuff and also turn the stuff that isn't nationalized into coops. There's a lot more to the socialist vision of the future than an expanded welfare state.
Autodidact
Banned
But you're just proving my point. The Nordic countries don't believe in limiting capitalism. As I said, they believe in harnessing and capitalizing (hah hah) upon it to fortify their welfare state and expand opportunity. If democratic socialists in American want European-style social democracy, then they've predicated their goals upon misunderstandings.
One of my biggest beefs with Bernie Sanders was his constant mislabeling of himself, not least of all because social democrat sounds more marketable than democratic socialist.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
When it comes to making people less racist? The only thing that I've seen that seems to really work is "living around more diverse people", which means getting people into cities, which means investing in helping people in dying rural communities relocate. That's an angle I'd like to see
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Kirblar would probably abolish all zoning regulations and tax luxury homes by $100B more per year to pay for a higher EITC. Also, amnesty and higher immigration limits.
But beyond those four things, centrist economists are very divided on major economic policies.
It's more "interacting with diverse people."
Living next to minorities while not talking to them makes white people actually a lot more racist.
But beyond those four things, centrist economists are very divided on major economic policies.
It's more "interacting with diverse people."
Living next to minorities while not talking to them makes white people actually a lot more racist.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked