googleplex
Member
Seriously best to ignore El_Tiguere.
-
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.
New Republic: The Left's Misguided Debate Over Kamala Harris
- Thread starter aeolist
- Start date
Seriously best to ignore El_Tiguere.
I can't wait for a ghoul who pushes truancy laws that jail parents to be front and center stage in this dying, pathetic party of centrist lanyards and technocrats and for it to somehow be the real left's fault that things go poorly
eBay Huckster
Member
best to ignore anyone who thinks a 1.5-term state senator from the safest district in cleveland is the way forward, really. i'd throw my hat in for an unelected leftist before anyone from the ohio democratic party (except sherrod, who is immortal)
anyway, reposting this for a new page
anyway, reposting this for a new page
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
It's impressive really. This old as fuck story is the only inclination of "dirt" they can find on her. I think this bodes well for her as long as she comes out day 1 of being asked this on the campaign trail and is like, "yo, I really had no power 10 years ago to do that, but I assure I'm not soft on banks."
Of course people will inevitably whine when she receives and donations from banks, but she seems like a really strong hopeful at the moment.
Angelus Errare
Banned
It'll be blamed on black folks long before people start blaming "the left".
Fenderputty
Banned
I'm still waiting for one berniecrat in this thread to acknowledge the counter article posted
El_Tiguere
Member
Newsflash guy: the majority of the country (including the 40% that stayed home) DID NOT pull the trigger for yet another corrupted centrist Democrat (NY and CA majorities don't count much when running for prez).
The only data we have about our "liberal/progressive fantasy" getting elected, are polls after polls showing consistent 8-10 point margins over Trump, while Hillary was rocking that low margin of error (that swung the other way come election time).
Outside the bastion of short-sighted Democrat party loyalists (and the above 45 crowd), Bernie commanded 60-40 leads with the independents and the young. It seems so many are stuck in the 60's, 80's and 90's to claim Americans are not currently clamoring for BOLD solutions under someone like Bernie.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Sadly most folks think fixing economic issues will fix social issues. A stupid privileged position to take that ignores history but it is something many folks believe.
Fenderputty
Banned
This point always makes me chuckle. It's moot until your unicorn can make it out of a primary
jack_package_200
Banned
El_Tiguere
Member
It baffles me that centrist Hillarystans don't think we can work on BOTH at the same time. Moreover, that one opens up many doors to tackle the other one.
True. Since the world now knows Bernie (and the progressive message) well, the sabotaging from the corporate media and the corporate lapdog candidate won't be as effective as it was in 2016.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Cue, he would have if not for the corrupt media and DNC/shillary cabal.
Wish Bernie would have just ran as a fucking independent, like he fucking is. Oh wait then he would have gotten even less attention.
Fenderputty
Banned
*ignores the super democratic caucuses bernie won when doing do*
Edit: dear lord his edit followed your post by seconds
not psycho
Member
There were a total of 6 months where Democrats and independents combined to have enough seats to get anything done with Obama. That is ignoring all health issues: 6 months where if we assume everyone is healthy, assume Joe Lieberman votes with them, assume all the right-leaning Bush-tax-cut-supporting democrats vote with them, they could get something done.
Once you take health issues into account (Ted Kennedy was dying for 2 of those months and didn't vote on anything, Robert Byrd was seriously ill) they had less than 4 months, still assuming Byrd beats his health problems and the right-leaning Democrats and independents stick with them.
In that context, how the fuck can you call Obamacare "slow progress"? Getting it through was incredible.
But no. Let's give Obama less than 4 months where he has to get every Bush-tax-cut-supporting democrats (the actual type that needs to be voted out) on board, and if all he can do in that situation is something as tiny as Obamacare, might as well vote Republican from now on.
El_Tiguere
Member
I wish voters weren't as gullible as to judge someone by the letter they are wearing on their foreheads, and instead judged people on principles and policies. Oh well...
well low turnout from black voters was a big problem in 2016.
knowing that we can either blame the voters or the party. i know which one i'd go for in that situation.
Serious, earnest question:
When you guys fill your lungs to talk about technocrats, neoliberals, mortgage-backed securities, debt, interest rates, inflation and growth, economic inequality -- do you actually have a comprehensive, well-rounded, empirically-backed, educated opinion on these subjects?
If not, what leads you to have that strong of a belief in a matter of Economics, and not, say, Psychology?
When you guys fill your lungs to talk about technocrats, neoliberals, mortgage-backed securities, debt, interest rates, inflation and growth, economic inequality -- do you actually have a comprehensive, well-rounded, empirically-backed, educated opinion on these subjects?
If not, what leads you to have that strong of a belief in a matter of Economics, and not, say, Psychology?
eBay Huckster
Member
today i learned Osita Nwanevu is a centrist neoliberal shill for literally calling for a leftward shift in the democratic party at the end of a piece examining the white working class's behavior when presented with left candidates that tried to "do both"
lol
For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.
How can people still believe this after Trump riding into office on the back of a campaign that was a scandal-ridden trash fire? Where was the strategy there? Politics is about obtaining and applying power. The pragmatism, compromise, and incremental progress has nothing to do with obtaining power, it's related to policymaking, which is what happens after you have won. By constantly starting from compromised positions the Democrats do not energise a wide enough base and instead rely on either people's disgust at Republican fuckups like Iraq (which again, Democrats were happy to enable at the time, and liberals generally have done a great job at rehabilitating those criminals since), or the appearance of uncommonly charismatic figures like Obama, which is a losing proposition when the Republicans can now even run Trump and win.
If you're on the left in America, for your own sanity's sake I would recommend joining a local DSA chapter and working within that to advance left causes. You will probably get more satisfaction and sense of progress from that than just getting Extremely Mad Online at a Democrat apparatus that is seemingly contemptuous of the left.
Angelus Errare
Banned
I mean Hillary wasn't the one insisting that racial issues are merely economic, and that focusing on economics will fix social/racial...
There are plenty of things to roast Hillary over, this ain't one of them.
What's this? A Democrat not doing absolutely everything correctly at all times in all situations and pushing all correct plans of action (correct in my specific point of view and nobody else)? Time to write an article so she can't be the savior of the Democratic party!!!!!!!!!!!!
This party is going to be the death of itself.
This party is going to be the death of itself.
El_Tiguere
Member
If this question was directed at me, finance/banking is my field. Reading economic history is my passion. It is what tells me that we are living through an existential crisis of wealth/income inequality at levels seen around the 1920's (at the onset of the Great Depression), and we are living through the same societal dynamics that marked the collapse of most every empire dating back to Rome.
The extreme corruption of government by the wealthy is one of the biggest threats of our society, which in turn affects almost every other aspect of our lives (why we don't have affordable good health care in the US for example).
eBay Huckster
Member
well, it's not as comprehensive or well-rounded as it could be given that it was via an MPA curriculum, but i'd like to think i have a decent, empirically-backed grasp of these things
though mainly i just stay in my lane regarding the things i don't know as much about
If Obama wasn't progressive enough for you then you have no understanding of how to win an election.
This country just elected TRUMP and you want a purity test not even the progressive popular President in Obama would even pass?
Jesus Christ. People with this view is why Trump will be re-elected. Having purity tests is how you lose elections.
To make it through the political system to get to the point of running a viable presidential campaign you will have to have some unpopular votes and get your hands and little dirty .
As a die-hard Bernie progressive, the issue of Kamala Harris is simply this:
- Americans rightfully rejected (Hillary Clinton), and WILL again reject a politician that has been shown to be beholden to donors (Mnuchin in Kamala's case) instead of doing their job as representatives of the people or doing what is the right thing to do.
- Disenfranchised progressives and independents will be reeling if the party donors and the old corrupt party leaders ONCE AGAIN cherry pick who they want their pro-donor nominee to be. The mere notion that Clinton donors have picked their next anointed queen will bring back memories of 2016 in a furious way.
- The minute Kamala was criticized, the usual Clinton lapdogs in the media started barking at progressives for asking questions, as if we should just fall in place with what/who they have chosen for us (same shit as in 2016). This is having the OPPOSITE effect. Moreover, progressives have always been on the side of letting potential candidates square off on the ISSUES, instead of money dictating who the next candidate should be.
P.S.Nina Turner is better than Kamala Harris anyways!
Honestly, piss off then and enjoy another term of full Republican control of the country because you're too damn stubborn to meet someone 90% the way there and would prefer to see the world burn.
These damn Berniecrats are the fucking worse and ill be damned if they are allowed to take the country hostage because their old as dirt do nothing savior had his feelings hurt.
IrishNinja
Member
these are both good/sound posts
that's not at all why hillary lost, speaks only to berniebro bullet points - please see stumpkapow's post above
they didn't cherry-pick anything last time; voters did, en masse
fortunately the # of people this backlash will affect - based on the primaries last time, anyway - doesn't seem high. would i like a more leftist candidate? sure, but if that's not what people elect in the primaries, i move on, like sensible people do
P.S.Nina Turner is better than Kamala Harris anyways!
are you serious with this? turner's well to the right of harris on a number of things
yeah, that's because it's not a good theory
i think we can critique this post without this tired defeatist bit too, though
yeah, low information voters are the worst
well, the south, then them
amen - keep decrying "identity politics" & prattle on about how it's about class, not race...and wonder why minority groups don't ride for you
It is IMPOSSIBLE to win a national election unless you get money from big business types and Super PACs.
If you don't like "corporate interests" focus on local elections because you are setting a standard no viable candidate who could actually win could ever meet.
We don't live in a liberal utopian world.
If you don't like "corporate interests" focus on local elections because you are setting a standard no viable candidate who could actually win could ever meet.
We don't live in a liberal utopian world.
see: Trudeau and concessions made due to Alberta's oil industry.
and when you're beholden to billionaires in order to get elected it ensures that the serious fundamental problems afflicting our country will never get fixed
this is not a sustainable situation
Thay blog post concludes with saying that the white working class is gone and isn't coming back. And that it was driven to the GOP due to race and social issues, not economic ones.
Trying to rope in a shrinking demographic is a bad idea anyway. We should be galvanizing our own base to GOTV. Fuck appealing to the GOP.
Also whoever made that blog needs to add spaces between their paragraphs and images. Messes up the text on mobile.
excelsiorlef
Member
That they thought they could get suburbans on to their side... because they thought Trump was Goldwater 2.0, doesn't make the campaign centrist...
It was the most progressive platform the party had ever run on.
jack_package_200
Banned
Wasn't Bernie really proud of that platform too? He let his buddy Cornell "Obama is a house nigger" West contribute to it.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
What's fucking hilarious is Bernie swallowed pride and bent the knee. Cause he isnt a troll and realized what was on the line. It's his basement dwelling internet defense force that needs to roll off the cliff to their unicorn utopia.
It is sustainable. We just had a decade of a President who managed it. Barack Obama successfully navigated it and was a highly successful, very popular progressive President who brought real advancement many areas.
Obamacare WAS a huge progressive victory. His two SC appointments were essential to make gay marriage legal across the land.
If someone like Obama doesn't meet your standards then you will never ever be happy.
and because his administration was an economic disaster for the worst off among us people weren't willing to get out and vote for someone promising nothing more than a continuation of the status quo
now we have the most reactionary government in US history wiping out almost everything obama did in a matter of months
not sustainable
Blowing up the system is not on the table or even remotely possible . I want a billion dollars but that isn't on the table either. Both are just as viable to talk about.
We aren't a liberal country. A liberal "pure" socialist candidate can't win nationally, period. They can't even win a democratic primary.
Compromise is the name of the game in politics. It was since before you were born and will be after you die. Purity candidates never win. Not just here but ANY democracy with nationally elected leadership. Even Trudeau had bow to "corporate interests" and that's CANADA.
And who are "the worst off among us" by your definition, exactly?
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Shh don't say that too loud you are going to scare people.
eBay Huckster
Member
well, a liberal "pure" socialist candidate might be able to win if they aren't a million years old, don't ignore minorities throughout the primary process, and are actually charismatic. (this country's political system works like a pendulum, and if trump represents a massive rightward lurch...)
however, no one named so far itt is that candidate
however, no one named so far itt is that candidate
excelsiorlef
Member
People did not vote in Trump because of economic anxiety that's been shown again and again.
And Clinton won the under 50k a year vote and the economy voters in those battleground states.
you didn't read my post if you think i said that
You're claiming that the Obama admin was a disaster for the "worst off among us".
You need to define that group to avoid people taking you the wrong way.
Father_Brain
Banned
Low-income voters had the biggest pro-GOP swing of any income bracket relative to 2012, but I guess that doesn't matter as long as Clinton still eked out a majority.
Obama did more to help those in economic anxiety than any US president since FDR with Obamacare and Medicaid expansion. If your requirement is "free college for all" and what have you then well are going nowhere. Ignoring what Obama did and deeming him not pure enough is insanity.
Fenderputty
Banned
Lets assume this is accurate, because I actually believe it is to some extent. The only way to stop it is to work within the system that's in place. You can't upend the system without first working through it. Until the system is fixed, money in politics is a necessary evil that we have to live with. We either deal with that reality the best we can, or we can toss a tantrum go home and settle with what the GOP hand us.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I honestly check out of a thread if El Tiguere is posting. No real discussion is going to happen
We could learn a thing or two from republicans. Most GOP primary voters didn't vote Trump. Most hated him. But guess what? They united and turned out for him to beat Democrats.
That's how you win. You work within the party and do whatever you can to elect whoever they nominate, even if your preferred nominee lost.
Joe Mancin has had a lot of votes and opinions I disagree with. But if I lived in WV I would knock on doors for him like my life dependented on it in 2018. Because that is how you WIN. That is how you have a majority to enact policies.
That's how you win. You work within the party and do whatever you can to elect whoever they nominate, even if your preferred nominee lost.
Joe Mancin has had a lot of votes and opinions I disagree with. But if I lived in WV I would knock on doors for him like my life dependented on it in 2018. Because that is how you WIN. That is how you have a majority to enact policies.
people who take money from financial institutions and health insurance companies will never be able to commit to the radical solutions needed to make those systems work for the average citizen.
it's really that simple. yes you need money to campaign, but at the very least you have to be picky who it comes from if you're going to support good policy.
CitizenVectron
Member
As a die-hard Bernie progressive, the issue of Kamala Harris is simply this:
- Americans rightfully rejected (Hillary Clinton), and WILL again reject a politician that has been shown to be beholden to donors (Mnuchin in Kamala's case) instead of doing their job as representatives of the people or doing what is the right thing to do.
- Disenfranchised progressives and independents will be reeling if the party donors and the old corrupt party leaders ONCE AGAIN cherry pick who they want their pro-donor nominee to be. The mere notion that Clinton donors have picked their next anointed queen will bring back memories of 2016 in a furious way.
- The minute Kamala was criticized, the usual Clinton lapdogs in the media started barking at progressives for asking questions, as if we should just fall in place with what/who they have chosen for us (same shit as in 2016). This is having the OPPOSITE effect. Moreover, progressives have always been on the side of letting potential candidates square off on the ISSUES, instead of money dictating who the next candidate should be.
P.S.Nina Turner is better than Kamala Harris anyways!
Trump is also beholden, though. The narrative was that Clinton was corrupt and did something with emails, and people didn't like her because of it. It didn't matter if she was or not, because the narrative took hold, but didn't for Trump (who is likely even more beholden to corporate interests, including his own).
The next Democratic leader will have a narrative attached to them as well by the GOP, regardless of its truth. That's how American (well, all) politics work. If it's Bernie, then they might play on how racist he is (because his base is largely white), or if it's Biden it might be that he hates the free market since he helped craft Obamacare. They can say anything and a certain percentage will eat it up, just like you are eating up stuff without questioning it.
Both sides have machines that feed their base.
I think you're just deep in the bubble.
Fenderputty
Banned
One of my favorite (or least favorite depending on the perspective) things about the last election was the free college for all crowd getting upset that Clinton suggested a more moderate (work some part time for federal college tuition credit) solution. Clinton's was more likely than the other to pass. Flat out. It just wasn't enough for them. All or nothing sums up the far left pretty succinctly right now.
Similar threads
- Locked