-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New Republic: The Left's Misguided Debate Over Kamala Harris
- Thread starter aeolist
- Start date
You can't win without taking any money from the big donor class in the healthcare and financial industries. Period.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.
Even Trudeau in Canada had to.
And you can't change that. Because guess what, if you do your opponent will take money and overwhelm you.
If the article claims nobody has done a good job, then who the hell are we supposed to elect?
It's New Republic.
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...
This must be the famous 7th-dimensional chess where Chuck Schumer explicitly says he's chasing after mythical moderates at the expense of blue collar Dem voters, but this secretly isn't a blatantly centrist position.
It was the most progressive platform the party had ever run on.
That's great, but nobody knew that besides GAF residents and policy wonks, because
a) the candidate was an unpopular hawk who rarely extolled their progressive platform (and to be fair rarely got the chance to extol it given the nature of the debates that were hijacked by Trump antics)
b) the platform was not actively conveyed to voters. The last thing most normal people want to do is go out of their way to research policy positions, hence the use of campaigning and advertising to convey these positions. Instead the reliance was on disgust of the other candidate and the horrible "I'm With Her" messaging.
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.
people want candidates who advocate for good policy instead of starting from a compromised position and moving even further right from there
literally no one expected sanders to immediately deliver on a sweeping revolutionary socialist agenda if he were elected, but starting from the left can get you more of what you really want than starting from the middle
Father_Brain
Banned
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.
Citation needed for the bolded. GOP bicoastal elites are not "most GOP primary voters."
Anyway, as I've said before in response to this line: there is not actually a fundamental difference between how left-of-center and right-of-center voters' brains process electoral politics. The difference is that the GOP is far more competent at electoral politics.
Fenderputty
Banned
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.
This isn't always the case. Obama got a ton of money from Wallstreet and passed Dodd Frank.
how many "moderates" did they win last year with their centrist candidate and campaign?
And you were doing so well in this thread
I'm not willing to condemn Harris just based on this one incident. It's too early. I'd vote for her over Gabbard or Booker or Delaney at this point.
I do wonder how "safe" of a candidate she is. How does Harris help us win back votes in states that Trump won in 2016? I know a lot of Dems value safe candidates. I'd rather have someone who can both pump up the base and appeal to independents, someone with a consistent progressive record.
I do wonder how "safe" of a candidate she is. How does Harris help us win back votes in states that Trump won in 2016? I know a lot of Dems value safe candidates. I'd rather have someone who can both pump up the base and appeal to independents, someone with a consistent progressive record.
Fenderputty
Banned
people want candidates who advocate for good policy instead of starting from a compromised position and moving even further right from there
I mean I get the shoot for the stars and maybe you'll hit the moon negotiating stance, but even Clinton's plan would have had to have been manipulated to get any R on board.
In any case, most people weren't complaining about that plan because it wasn't the best starting point for legislative negotiation. They complained because it wasn't free tuition
excelsiorlef
Member
This must be the famous 7th-dimensional chess where Chuck Schumer explicitly says he's chasing after mythical moderates at the expense of blue collar Dem voters, but this secretly isn't a blatantly centrist position.
That's great, but nobody knew that besides GAF residents and policy wonks, because
a) the candidate was an unpopular hawk who rarely extolled their progressive platform (and to be fair rarely got the chance to extol it given the nature of the debates that were hijacked by Trump antics)
b) the platform was not actively conveyed to voters. The last thing most normal people want to do is go out of their way to research policy positions, hence the use of campaigning and advertising to convey these positions. Instead the reliance was on disgust of the other candidate and the horrible "I'm With Her" messaging.
I'm not arguing any chess...
I'm arguing they literally believed Trump was Goldwater 2.0 and thus would be not palatable for some of the less racist people in the suburbs...
I've said it before, for all the shit Clinton got for being a Goldwater girl, it was her own personal narrative of rejecting him when it became clear he was running against the CRA that I think had one of the biggest influences on her campaign. She believed that enough Americans would turn away from Trump/GOP the way she did from Goldwater... and she was wrong. Deadly and tragically wrong.
Again though she did actually win economy voters in most of those election deciding states.
This isn't always the case. Obama got a ton of money from Wallstreet and passed Dodd Frank.
Nuance is just another form of concession apparently.
Fenderputty
Banned
I'm not willing to condemn Harris just based on this one incident. It's too early. I'd vote for her over Gabbard or Booker or Delaney at this point.
I do wonder how "safe" of a candidate she is. How does Harris help us win back votes in states that Trump won in 2016? I know a lot of Dems value safe candidates. I'd rather have someone who can both pump up the base and appeal to independents, someone with a consistent progressive record.
You should read a page or so ago where a counter argument was posted. There's been multiple attempts at getting one of these Berniecrats to acknowledge the damn counter article but ...
What's occurring is not a recession. It's a structural change in the nation's economy. Rural areas are declining due to the transition to a service-based economy. A Recession is a dip. This is a permanent change.
But even w/ those issues, those people are not the worst off. But they are the ones who are losing the most relative status. And that's where the racial issues and exploitation of them comes into play.
people want candidates who advocate for good policy instead of starting from a compromised position and moving even further right from there
literally no one expected sanders to immediately deliver on a sweeping revolutionary socialist agenda if he were elected, but starting from the left can get you more of what you really want than starting from the middle
People want to hear simple solutions to complex problems from a person who is charismatic and engaging.
The vast majority of people don't care whether or not that policy is sufficiently socialist because the vast majority of people aren't socialist. They care if the politician has an understandable plan that might solve their problems that is agreeable to their own beliefs and values.
They also want to be able to put their hopes and dreams on their candidate who they identify with so that they can feel connected and important. this requires that the candidate be charismatic, inspiring, and emotionally engaging.
Sanders was certainly better than that then Clinton. However, Sanders being better than that than Clinton says nothing about pure left versus moderate left. All it says is that Clinton was a bad candidate. I am also skeptical that Sanders could have won because his beliefs and values don't align with a lot of the people who actually vote. Obviously, in hindsight it would have been better to let Sanders win the nomination considering we already know Clinton is a failure.
how long until the sail boat guy shows up?
the looney left have lost their minds.
Kamala Harris would be awesome as Prez
no offense but "the looney left" sounds like something trump would tweet
on another note, acting like kamala harris is the perfect candidate is almost as absurd as acting like she's a hillary clone. she's been in the media spotlight for like a week now; jumping to conclusions re: her viability as a presidential candidate is unwise, i think
Lil'DigiOp
Member
Never understood why the "bailout" wasn't a loan that wallstreet and banks HAD to pay back.
Gov straight up gave them a fat check and said buy hookers and blow
Gov straight up gave them a fat check and said buy hookers and blow
VendettaRed07
Member
This isn't always the case. Obama got a ton of money from Wallstreet and passed Dodd Frank.
And even if Obama did it's more likely that a party that more-so consists of people who aren't so friendly with corporate or big money interests, that they won't wait for an event that nearly melted the economy to pass something that attempts to reign them in.
Nuance is just another form of concession apparently.
It isn't nuance so much as it is hard to argue that someone like Hillary who didn't see any issue with taking hundreds of millions of dollars in speaking fee payouts prior to running for office was someone who was going to be the one to unwind pay for play politics.
I fail to see a downside in moving in a direction where we encourage candidates to not engage in behaviors that muddy the waters and damage the messaging
And you were doing so well in this thread
i mean...they have a point??
Never understood why the "bailout" wasn't a loan that wallstreet and banks HAD to pay back.
Gov straight up gave them a fat check and said buy hookers and blow
It fucking was and they fucking did
Jesus Christ
VendettaRed07
Member
You should read a page or so ago where a counter argument was posted. There's been multiple attempts at getting one of these Berniecrats to acknowledge the damn counter article but ...
Because there isn't one. Anyone attempting link Kamala to someone like Hillary or Booker doesn't know what they are talking about and she does not have a damaging history that is comparable to either them or other problematic democratic officials.
Fenderputty
Banned
Never understood why the "bailout" wasn't a loan that wallstreet and banks HAD to pay back.
Gov straight up gave them a fat check and said buy hookers and blow
Man ... this is so off fucking base it's ... it's just ... wow
https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/
i mean...they have a point??
Yup, the first presidential candidate to talk openly about institutionalized racism on a debate stage was a centrist, because racism doesn't exist
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
They...didNever understood why the "bailout" wasn't a loan that wallstreet and banks HAD to pay back.
Gov straight up gave them a fat check and said buy hookers and blow
They paid it back
With interest
Big Baybee
Member
lol, thread is entertaining.Never understood why the "bailout" wasn't a loan that wallstreet and banks HAD to pay back.
Gov straight up gave them a fat check and said buy hookers and blow
Fenderputty
Banned
It isn't nuance so much as it is hard to argue that someone like Hillary who didn't see any issue with taking hundreds of millions of dollars in speaking fee payouts prior to running for office was someone who was going to be the one to unwind pay for play politics.
lol rail on about Nuance and completely miss the fact that I never claimed Hillary was the one to wind down pay for play.
They...did
They paid it back
With interest
You can't inform somebody out of a position they didn't inform themselves into
I fail to see a downside in moving in a direction where we encourage candidates to not engage in behaviors that muddy the waters and damage the messaging
The downside is they lose. You don't play fairly in a rigged game and expect to win. You play to win and make the game fair after you're the dealer.
eBay Huckster
Member
Never understood why the "bailout" wasn't a loan that wallstreet and banks HAD to pay back.
it literally was and they literally did
siht like this is what hawk2025 was posting about earlier, having strong opinions about economic issues without having the slightest bit of an idea what the fuck you're talking about
Never understood why the "bailout" wasn't a loan that wallstreet and banks HAD to pay back.
Gov straight up gave them a fat check and said buy hookers and blow
It was a loan
https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/
This isn't clear and the takeaway of "Clinton lost, so Sanders definitely would have won" bothers me to no end, because it's very possible that "Clinton lost by a hair, Sanders would have lost by more and we would have picked up fewer House/Senate Seats" would have been the end result of him running.Sanders was certainly better than that then Clinton. However, Sanders being better than that than Clinton says nothing about pure left versus moderate left. All it says is that Clinton was a bad candidate. I am also skeptical that Sanders could have won because his beliefs and values don't align with a lot of the people who actually vote. Obviously, in hindsight it would have been better to let Sanders win the nomination considering we already know Clinton is a failure.
We will eternally have a problem with 18-25yo voters and D candidates running at the end of 8 years of a D president, no matter how popular.it literally was and they literally did
siht like this is what hawk2025 was posting about earlier
"Both sides" came up in 2000, again in 2016 (south park even dredging it up and trying to point out it wasn't true) and it will happen again.
The downside is they lose. You don't play fairly in a rigged game and expect to win. You play to win and make the game fair after you're the dealer.
what incentive does any political party have to fix the system they benefit from?
eBay Huckster
Member
We will eternally have a problem with 18-25yo voters and D candidates running at the end of 8 years of a D president, no matter how popular.
"Both sides" came up in 2000, again in 2016 (south park even dredging it up and trying to point out it wasn't true) and it will happen again.
man it's gonna rule hearing this shit again in 2028 at age 37
This isn't clear and the takeaway of "Clinton lost, so Sanders definitely would have won" bothers me to no end, because it's very possible that "Clinton lost by a hair, Sanders would have lost by more and we would have picked up fewer House/Senate Seats" would have been the end result of him running.
When I say better, I am saying that Sanders was better at giving people simple solutions to complex problems in a charismatic and inspiring way.
I am also skeptical because beliefs and values are extremely important, and Sanders' beliefs and values arent shared by a lot of people who actually vote.
Trust me, it sucked hearing it again at age 32.man it's gonna rule hearing this shit again in 2028 at age 37
Fenderputty
Banned
man it's gonna rule hearing this shit again in 2028 at age 37
Screw you youngin'
what incentive does any political party have to fix the system they benefit from?
Ask McCain, who said
regarding Citizens United."there's going to be, over time, a backlash ... when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns"
Stop insisting on seeing everything in black and white and ignoring that gray exists.
It fucking was and they fucking did
Jesus Christ
While the bailout did come in the form of (low interest) loans, that poster is somewhat right in that there weren't many restrictions on the bailout money. Banks used that bailout money to buy up smaller banks, or pay out executive bonuses, and ultimately many of them did profit.
Not that I was against the bailout. It could have done more for actual homeowners, mind you, and been regulated more strictly. The fucking banks were still paying out massive bonuses to the executives and brokers who caused the crash after the bailout hit. That should never have happened.
You should read a page or so ago where a counter argument was posted. There's been multiple attempts at getting one of these Berniecrats to acknowledge the damn counter article but ...
Got a link? I think I missed it.
IamDodongo
Member
I honestly check out of a thread if El Tiguere is posting. No real discussion is going to happen
That seems wise, judging by what I've seen in this thread.
Ask McCain, who said regarding Citizens United.
Stop insisting on seeing everything in black and white and ignoring that gray exists.
ah yes john mccain, famous for following up on bold statements and acting with principle
what incentive does any political party have to fix the system they benefit from?
Yes, because the democratic party has been doing amazing since January 2010.
ah yes john mccain, famous for following up on bold statements and acting with principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act
I honestly check out of a thread if El Tiguere is posting. No real discussion is going to happen
ditto.
ah yes john mccain, famous for following up on bold statements and acting with principle
Ah yes, another disingenuous statement with no content or viable argument. Exactly what I've come to expect from leftist purists.
Bending over backwards to appease the fringe is a losing strategy because they don't even vote.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.
how long until the sail boat guy shows up?
the looney left have lost their minds.
Kamala Harris would be awesome as Prez
Sup gutter trash do you have any more badly misunderstood historical anecdotes or completely mindless centrist hot takes for me today
Fenderputty
Banned
Got a link? I think I missed it.
I was incorrect in that it wasn't an article. Just some facts on Wiki that counter the articles supposition.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=245775556&postcount=19
Sup gutter trash do you have any more badly misunderstood historical anecdotes or completely mindless centrist hot takes for me today
In fairness, it is pretty funny that he blames the Communists for starting the Spanish Civil War by getting elected like a bunch of jerks.
I was incorrect in that it wasn't an article. Just some facts on Wiki that counter the articles supposition.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=245775556&postcount=19
Thanks for this, I did see it, and it's a good counterpoint to the attacks made against her. I'm not ready to dismiss Harris on the basis of the Mnuchin thing, not when she has a pretty good record overall. I get the attacks on one level, because it seems like the "establishment" is coalescing around her, but we are very far from the next election, and it's going to be a crowded field.