teruterubozu
Member
Maybe, I've heard it before the internet even existed.
-
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.
RNC raises millions more than DNC in July
- Thread starter ponpo
- Start date
Maybe, I've heard it before the internet even existed.
Henchmen21
Banned
Too busy Dabbing w/ Mi Abuela
Shit. We dems need to get our shit together.
Have not donated since the campaign. But probably still in shock.
That and there is no leader at the moment.
I disagree. If anything, her team didn't account for the "Bitch eating crackers" effect that had solidified around her.
Bernie goes on Ellen, dances just like every other old person who goes on Ellen dances: "OMG look at how ADORABLE Uncle Bernie is!! This old white man from a rural state that nobody heard of until last year is SO RELATEABLE!"
Hillary goes on Ellen, dances just like every other old person who goes on Ellen dances: HILLARY did the DAB!? HOW DARE SHE!?! WE SEE RIGHT THROUGH YOU SHILLARY!
I'm actually curious as to how much they raised. I wouldn't be surprised if it was higher than what NRSC and the NRCC made.
Pretty much. Donate to the DNC in the build up to 2020, right now the DSCC and DCCC are the ones to donate money to before we see who is running where.
Aztechnology
Member
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Millions of people voted for Trump, he still has a 35% approval rating, and even a decent number of liberals were so curmudgeonly about Hillary that they considered voting (or did vote) 3rd party. We can't take it as a given that everyone agrees anything is better than what we currently have. There are plenty of people who either don't think Trump's been that bad or they outright support him. With that in mind, "a better deal" is a bad choice strategically to me because it seems most likely to sway disaffected Trump voters (the ones who might not agree that anything is better than what we currently have) rather than disaffected democrats (the ones who probably already know that anything is better than what we have now).
All we ever need to do in any national election is get our base to show up. That's it. Don't need a single republican to jump ship. With that in mind, I don't know why Dems are so terrified of hurting the feelings of moderate republicans. We don't need a single Kasich supporter to join our team. We need the Jill Stein and "Bernie or bust" types, even if they may come with a share of stupid, conspiratorial beliefs. That will at least propel some support for single payer and such, while bringing in the moderates at the cost of the far-left will get us things like milquetoast Merrick Garland nominations, a guy the Dems gave so little of a shit about that the principle of his nomination being denied was much more impactful than what his absence from the bench would actually mean for liberal ideals.
Holy shit. My initial reaction was there's no way they said that but of course they fucking did.
Conciliator
Banned
hey don't be mean to our abuela
VendettaRed07
Member
yeah but at the same time this sort of confusion for some people is part of the problem. I don't really see much reason why they need to be separate bodies. Why not just consolidate them like the GOP?
Because the GOP has more big money doners?
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Yass Queen?
excelsiorlef
Member
How is this now yet again detouring into Hillary Clinton eating crackers stuff.
Stop you're hurting me
The GOP doesn't consolidate them.
Unknown Soldier
Member
I wouldn't say that at all. Because money sure as hell didn't help Hillary.
VendettaRed07
Member
I agree which is why "Civil Rights & Labor, Labor & Civil Rights", or however you want to put it is a better slogan than a stupid riff on some old FDR/Papa John's slogan.
The RNC, NRSC, and the NRCC are the respective counterparts to the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC.
Frozenprince
Banned
"Money didn't help Hillary" pretty sure we can't actually qualify that until we see a spend per county sheet and see how it correlated.
Macro evaluation of "she had moar moneys and lost" doesn't tell us anything.
Macro evaluation of "she had moar moneys and lost" doesn't tell us anything.
Yeah, but that's not true at all.
Unknown Soldier
Member
The Democrats are anti-Labor too and have been for decades now though.
The divide in the Democratic Party has been between social justice and economic justice. The problem is that the Democratic Party refuses to go all-in on either option. To go all in with economic justice means siding with the ones who favored Bernie in the past election, which the Democratic Party has been unwilling to do. However, going all in with social justice means making sure Trump is a boat anchor for the Republican Party. The Republicans shouldn't be allowed to wriggle out of it. Trump is their candidate and a perfect representation of what the Republican Party as a whole wants on social issues, and the Democratic Party should point that out every chance they get.
VendettaRed07
Member
I see, I was under the impression that their structure was different. Never attempted to donate to them so I guess I was wrong.
I think there's as much of an argument to make for it being true as the reverse. There's probably only two or three different factions of the party vs. the dozen different "types" of Republicans
I'm not really worried about them trying to campaign on a labor platform as most seem to agree the lack of economic messaging in 2016 was bad for them. I'm more so worried about them being too scared about pissing off people who freak out whenever they hear about Colin Kaepernick (i.e., people who aren't voted Dem anyway) to put Civil Rights or Social Justice as a main campaign issue, even during a time when the current Republican president and convservative media outlets are defending and aligning with Neo Nazis
Also, people need to keep in mind that Trump is already running for reelection and has been since like February. He's declared and everything. That changes the rules for him in terms of fundraising.
You're all seeing one organization that's in campaign mode, in terms of fundraising, and one that isn't.
You're all seeing one organization that's in campaign mode, in terms of fundraising, and one that isn't.
Unknown Soldier
Member
I'm not really worried about them trying to campaign on a labor platform either because they straight up simply will not do that anymore. Their corporate paymasters will not allow it.
The slow strangulation of the labor movement in the US is one of the biggest reasons why the middle class and poor are being starved out of politics not to mention house and home. And the reality is that the old beating heart of the Democratic base has long been labor and as the Democrats have abandoned labor, labor has abandoned them. Hillary's complete disaster in the Rust Belt should have been an obvious warning sign that labor is fed up with the Democrats but they don't seem to get it so enjoy continuing to lose I guess.
Frozenprince
Banned
God it must pain you whenever a dem does anything at all given how every single thread you're in it parroting the same tired narrative.
We get it.
The Democratic party has plenty of leaders. All I see are people making excuses as to why they won't vote for them.
Eventually, if liberal voters want any kind of progress in any way, they have to stop taking their balls and going home every time they don't get everything they want in a candidate, when they want it.
This is the downside of the Obama presidency. When you have a good leader doing so many good things for your country, it's easy to get complacent and forget we still have a ways to go for progress. And then we start being picky over small bullshit, rather than looking at the bigger picture. A large number of liberal voters in the West have lost the plot and can't see the forest for the trees. Not every candidate has to be an Obama, and to expect so is foolish and self-defeating. And we don't have to divide the party over what are often small differences in ideology.
But here we are. We have a chance to capitalize on the fallout from Trump's shenanigans over the year, but we're too busy picking fights with each other over bullshit and alienating key demographics in our own base.
Eventually, if liberal voters want any kind of progress in any way, they have to stop taking their balls and going home every time they don't get everything they want in a candidate, when they want it.
This is the downside of the Obama presidency. When you have a good leader doing so many good things for your country, it's easy to get complacent and forget we still have a ways to go for progress. And then we start being picky over small bullshit, rather than looking at the bigger picture. A large number of liberal voters in the West have lost the plot and can't see the forest for the trees. Not every candidate has to be an Obama, and to expect so is foolish and self-defeating. And we don't have to divide the party over what are often small differences in ideology.
But here we are. We have a chance to capitalize on the fallout from Trump's shenanigans over the year, but we're too busy picking fights with each other over bullshit and alienating key demographics in our own base.
You can't have organized labor when there is no labor to organize. As manufacturing has declined as a sector of the economy, so has the power of organized labor. There was no stopping this change to the economy, no magical bulwark that could stop the technological revolution we've seen over the past 30+ years from occurring.
The idea that the Democrats "haven't done enough to stop it" is ridiculous. They could no more stop the economic forces of the past 4 decades than they could stop a hurricane.
Very well said.
Frozenprince
Banned
Which also misses the fact that they DID try and stop it. It's not Bill Clinton's fault that he took Alan Greenspan's advice to be gospel and ignored hos other advisers like Robert Reich when he was trying to "save" labor. By the time Obama was in office it was beyond too late and the last Democratic president before that was Jimmy freaking Carter.
The Dems have had only two real swings at it and yet here we are seeing people say "THEY ABANDONED LABOR". It's a bit mad.
Praise this post.
Unknown Soldier
Member
This post is ridiculous. You're telling me that organized labor only applies to heavy manufacturing and other jobs pr professions can't unionize if they wanted? I don't even know what you're saying here. For some reason Europe has shifted it's economies primarily to service sectors just as the US has and yet they have strong labor movements there. Maybe it's time to stop reading only neoliberal sources and get out more, such as to anywhere in Europe.
hodayathink
Member
The smaller the race, the more important money is. Presidential election, it's nice but it isn't the end-all. Senate race, it's more important, but you can overcome with a good candidate or a good campaign strategy. House races, more important but not impossible to overcome. Anything lower than that, and generally whomever spends the most money wins unless the other person is incompetent or just plain evil.
One of the reasons Republicans control so many state legislatures is that their big money donors realized that it's much easier to sway the smaller elections with money than the bigger ones.
VendettaRed07
Member
The reduction in employee power wasn't just technological/automation related. It was politician supported McDonaldsization of creating large companies where the product and chain is exactly the same regardless of where they are or who they employ. If the products or business locations are all the same then the employee is disposable. Had the Koch Bros and other large companies not been able to lobby or get favorable laws approved to give them the financial ability to buy out and kill competition, maybe there would be significantly more smaller businesses with better paying jobs and employees who were allowed to better prove their worth to the company by having larger realms of responsibilities in various industries than there are now.
The same thing for example is going to happen to all of these Micro breweries that are popping up everywhere, Bud and others are going to buy them all out, cheapen their products and replace their talent with cheap patsies who excel at doing nothing other than what they are told. I think the Government does have the power to stop things like that.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
Well, at least they're getting money out of politics lol
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
It always pains me when I see people commenting "Another job lost..." on articles about some new form of automation. Like, do we just want to hault technological progress so your uncle can keep sticking labels on mustard bottles? What really scares me is that no Dems are willing to be truly progressive and fight for UBI. This is likely the position Zuckerberg is going to flank them from in 2020.
I have seen no sign that Zuckerberg is for UBI. Most of his political views seem to be rather moderate, and that's being generous.
Dirtyshubb
Member
Funny considering Pelosi defended being leader and losing the election and nearly every other vote by saying she could raise more money than anyone else.
Because you don't understand the core issue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries
Now, it's not a perfect match 1:1, but there might be a pretty good correlation between these two things and how they approach policy!
It's far easier to organize when you have a critical mass of people. When a large swath of your country is agrarian and rural, that tends to hold things back! (because if you're spread over a large amount of terrain, organization is rough!)
He's explicitly come out in favor of it.
Conciliator
Banned
I'll vote for the dude if I gotta but if it really comes down to Zuckerberg vs Trump 2020, I will be increasingly confident that we just ain't gonna make it in the long run
Frozenprince
Banned
Zuckerberg running for president gives me the willies.
Shit just feels slimy and like we've failed as a society. Where the billionaire technocrat runs against the reality TV star for who gets the nuke codes.
Shit just feels slimy and like we've failed as a society. Where the billionaire technocrat runs against the reality TV star for who gets the nuke codes.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Then I guess it's a good thing democrats aren't doing a presidential run in 2018
What? I missed this.
This genuinely surprises me.
EDIT: Shit he did. His brand of politics confuses me even more now.
VendettaRed07
Member
I think people should be more hopeful about who the nominee will be in 2020 rather than preemptively submitting to a candidate that will force many to take a trip to their local vomitorium shortly after visiting the polling booth.