• 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.

Vox: Panic is setting in on the left.

Let's see you:
1) Continue to ignore decades of Democrat history of throwing minorities/the poor under until it's convenient to slam a leftist
2) Continue to defend centrists with the ridiculous claim that leftists are worse
3) Continue to try to play gotchas instead of recognizing what's going on....


I give up.

You're going to have to provide a quote where I defended Pelosi's stupid remarks.

I've been saying "this Tweet was dumb because more than just centrists compromise with racists" and you took that to mean I'm defending compromising with racists and I personally hate you or whatever. Not really sure how you managed to get to that point...
 

kirblar

Member
Right. Leftists don't want to appeal to white workers because they're white, but because they're workers. The Democrats have since the 1970s abandoned most of their traditional advocacy for working people. While workers of color had other urgent reasons to keep voting against Republicans, workers who didn't suffer from white supremacy switched teams or stayed home on election day.

Leftists prefer a more inclusive (or intersectional!) platform that acknowledges the relevance of class, particularly as it affects people from further marginalized backgrounds. These issues are closely interconnected, especially as right-wing demagogues like Trump and Le Pen regularly exploit economic malaise to propel themselves (and their vitriol) to higher office. A Democratic platform that is critical of capitalism, and identifies its interconnectedness with other forms of social depression, would appeal to a wider swath of people. As young voters run toward the left with no sign of slowing down, a shift toward more progressive policy will also preserve the long-term viability of the Democrats. We shouldn't chase after white workers to the exclusion of black or brown workers. Instead, Democrats need to offer sensitive and comprehensive class-based policies that appeal to all workers, regardless of race.

The worst way to appeal to white workers is somebody like Joe Manchin, a nominal Democrat with a horrible record on civil rights who votes with the GOP on every other bill. No leftist wants this.
Joe Manchin is unfortunately perfect for WV. A Union state w/ a long history of organized labor awash in confederate flags.
 
The tweet is wrong because it paints the picture that it's the centrists that do the compromising and the left are a bastion of morality in regards to race.

I think this is perfectly reasonable.

And for anyone having trouble parsing this, it ISN'T saying centrists don't compromise with racists. It's just pointing out that it's disingenuous to infer that the far left don't have their own race related problems. Which they absolutely do.

That tweet tries to argue a moral high ground that I'm not convinced exists here.
 

aeolist

Banned
Right. Leftists don't want to appeal to white workers because they're white, but because they're workers. The Democrats have since the 1970s abandoned most of their traditional advocacy for working people. While workers of color had other urgent reasons to keep voting against Republicans, workers who didn't suffer from white supremacy switched teams or stayed home on election day.

Leftists prefer a more inclusive (or intersectional!) platform that acknowledges the relevance of class, particularly as it affects people from further marginalized backgrounds. These issues are closely interconnected, especially as right-wing demagogues like Trump and Le Pen regularly exploit economic malaise to propel themselves (and their vitriol) to higher office. A Democratic platform that is critical of capitalism, and identifies its interconnectedness with other forms of social depression, would appeal to a wider swath of people. As young voters run toward the left with no sign of slowing down, a shift toward more progressive policy will also preserve the long-term viability of the Democrats. We shouldn't chase after white workers to the exclusion of black or brown workers. Instead, Democrats need to offer sensitive and comprehensive class-based policies that appeal to all workers, regardless of race.

The worst way to appeal to white workers is somebody like Joe Manchin, a nominal Democrat with a horrible record on civil rights who votes with the GOP on every other bill. No leftist wants this.

What I don't understand is the lack of accountability on establishment democrats' parts. Like, we tried it your way, and we got Trump. Clinton was Walter Mondale in centrist drag, with approval ratings worse than Barry fucking Goldwater, and establishment democrats were so contemptuous of public opinion they refused to acknowledge how toxic she was to the electorate. I'm not sure that tacking hard left is the best plan electorally - and of Bernie's main planks in really only gung ho about single payer - but I do know that the Clinton debacle is indicates a dramatic flaw in the thinking of democratic leadership and base, and the complacency they've shown about the massive and systematic errors in their thinking is not reassuring.

On the other hand, any Bernie supporter that tried to tell you that his attacks didn't effect the election is trying to sell you a bill of goods.

Still, imagine if Bernie had pulled off an upset on the primaries - and lost to Trump by the same margin Hillary did. We would never hear the end of how Bernie supporters put ideological purity over practical results and gave us the racist cheeto. But centrists are held to a different standard, always.

both of these are good posts
 

Ekai

Member
You're going to have to provide a quote where I defended Pelosi's stupid remarks.

I've been saying "this Tweet was dumb because more than just centrists compromise with racists" and you took that to mean I'm defending compromising with racists and I personally hate you or whatever. Not really sure how you managed to get to that point...

You literally ask for proof of centrists being the problem and claim you've been asking numerous times and when given answers you ignore them and act like you didn't get then....even if they get repeated to you numerous times.

Again, I give up. You clearly don't want an answer but just want to say leftists are just as bad (and always make sure to note they could be worse, even though that's false on both counts by and large when we look at the history of the Democrats over the past few decades).
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Right. Leftists don't want to appeal to white workers because they're white, but because they're workers. The Democrats have since the 1970s abandoned most of their traditional advocacy for working people. While workers of color had other urgent reasons to keep voting against Republicans, workers who didn't suffer from white supremacy switched teams or stayed home on election day.

Leftists prefer a more inclusive (or intersectional!) platform that acknowledges the relevance of class, particularly as it affects people from further marginalized backgrounds. These issues are closely interconnected, especially as right-wing demagogues like Trump and Le Pen regularly exploit economic malaise to propel themselves (and their vitriol) to higher office. A Democratic platform that is critical of capitalism, and identifies its interconnectedness with other forms of social depression, would appeal to a wider swath of people. As young voters run toward the left with no sign of slowing down, a shift toward more progressive policy will also preserve the long-term viability of the Democrats. We shouldn't chase after white workers to the exclusion of black or brown workers. Instead, Democrats need to offer sensitive and comprehensive class-based policies that appeal to all workers, regardless of race.

The worst way to appeal to white workers is somebody like Joe Manchin, a nominal Democrat with a horrible record on civil rights who votes with the GOP on every other bill. No leftist wants this.

I mean I agree with this in theory, but we have just so much evidence showing that what many white workers find to be in their interest is the explicit oppression of minorities
 

Valhelm

contribute something
Joe Manchin is unfortunately perfect for WV. A Union state w/ a long history of organized labor awash in confederate flags.

I think you're disingenuously using Joe Manchin, and WV, as an excuse to slam labor at large.

Would you support stronger unions in America? And the organization of workers in the service industry?
 
Corporate Democrats are on damage control looking at anything and everyone but themselves to blame. They're creating alternate universes were establishment loses mean victory, while their constiuency gets screwed more frequently and harder. No amount of dark money their donors is given them can save them.

Democrats on the left are taking an objective look at things and finally realizing that the gangrenous part of the party near the center need to be amputated if the party is to survive.

The party needs to split.

So your solution is to create permanent Republican rule.
 

Trouble

Banned
Pretty much every 'Dems in Disarray' opinion piece written in the past decade was by someone on the left throwing a tantrum with zero evidence to back it up.
 
Still, imagine if Bernie had pulled off an upset on the primaries - and lost to Trump by the same margin Hillary did. We would never hear the end of how Bernie supporters put ideological purity over practical results and gave us the racist cheeto. But centrists are held to a different standard, always.

The bolded part doesn't seem true from where I'm sitting.

If you don't think those of us who supported Clinton over Sanders aren't still hearing it from Sanders supporters about supporting Clinton despite being part of the oligarchy, etc etc, then you should talk to some of us.

Yes, if Sanders had won the Primary and then lost to Trump, his supporters would be hearing it from angry Clinton supporters.

You're not hearing the shit Clinton supporters are getting right now, presumably because you didn't favor her over Sanders, but it's absolutely happening.

And it's not remotely useful.
 

aeolist

Banned
Democrats fighting among themselves right now is the worst they can do right now and benefits their opponents.

telling people to shut up and vote for democrats without criticizing them is what we did last year

having a serious debate about what the party needs to change is the only way we can learn the right lessons from our historic loss
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
telling people to shut up and vote for democrats without criticizing them is what we did last year

having a serious debate about what the party needs to change is the only way we can learn the right lessons from our historic loss

Oh I absolutely agree. But some of those answers aren't what we want them to be. I'm just so sick of "my personal politics exactly are the thing that will make the Democrats win again" from pretty much everybody no matter where they are on the spectrum
 

Sianos

Member
What strategy do the "Clinton" Democrats have for campaigning in Trump Country, then?
i can't remember if we're supposed to be too far to the left or not far enough any more

I thought that giving reasonable and detailed policy implementation plans in contrast to the loud asshle just blatantly throwing out whatever would get the Republican base to like him and making racist dogwhistles ("identity politics" again).

I was wrong, because people projected onto that asshole that he totally wouldn't take their healthcare away whereas people were turned off by Hillary's acknowledgement of some rough realities and speaking too much about the incremental steps.

We need more charisma and more "identity politics" to fire people to vote for a grand vision.
 

aeolist

Banned
Oh I absolutely agree. But some of those answers aren't what we want them to be. I'm just so sick of "my personal politics exactly are the thing that will make the Democrats win again" from pretty much everybody no matter where they are on the spectrum

yeah but one side of this argument had it their way and lost dramatically. maybe we should try the other way?
 
telling people to shut up and vote for democrats without criticizing them is what we did last year

having a serious debate about what the party needs to change is the only way we can learn the right lessons from our historic loss

Nothing wrong with a healthy debate but panicking over a loss that was always going to be a toss up and throwing people under the bus for it is wrong.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
I mean I agree with this in theory, but we have just so much evidence showing that what many white workers find to be in their interest is the explicit oppression of minorities

Historically this has often been true, yeah. Many working class individuals and entire movements have been used as a bulwark to reinforce white supremacy. But this doesn't have to be true. Coalitions of working people under the banner of justice and equality have worked in the past and can work again... especially when our president is the mascot of both capitalism and white supremacy.

I don't expect the Democrats to become socialist anytime soon, and rejecting capitalism outright would scare off huge swaths of the electorate. But a leftward evolution is necessary for the Democrats to remain viable as a party. Trump is so widely hated that this is an opportunity to rebrand and appeal to a wider selection of voters, most importantly working-class people of any race who usually don't vote at all. But the Democrats' behavior since November suggests they're more content to party like it's 1999.

My biggest advice would be, to paraphrase Hailun, is to stop trying to solve market problems with market solutions.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
yeah but one side of this argument had it their way and lost dramatically. maybe we should try the other way?

I mean sure in a "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" sort of way that logic makes some sense, but I'm seeing a lot of claims about how the people are clearly behind the progressive revolution that the centrists just don't see because they're bought by the banks

We should run on more progressive politics, because its the right thing to do and will probably win, especially in the current political climate. But, again, I am skeptical of the popular mandate that the current Dems are apparently just so blind for ignoring
 

kirblar

Member
I think you're disingenuously using Joe Manchin, and WV, as an excuse to slam labor at large.

Would you support stronger unions in America? And the organization of workers in the service industry?
The direct answer to your question: It depends. It's a contextual thing.

More broadly: I do not see unions as a panacea for the issues facing American workers today as a whole, no. In WV, when coal mining collapsed, the unions' power collapsed with it. They're a double edged sword- they're good as a pushback against corporate overreach, but also tend to work to keep themselves insulated from competition. (see: WV's history with wanting to protect themselves from competition from black labor newly entering the market, more recently- pushes for minimum wage increases that also allow unions an exception to it) The biggest issues facing American workers are a lack of strong social safety nets for those that are unemployed or unable to work, and those people are not covered under a union.
 

aeolist

Banned
The bolded part doesn't seem true from where I'm sitting.

If you don't think those of us who supported Clinton over Sanders aren't still hearing it from Sanders supporters about supporting Clinton despite being part of the oligarchy, etc etc, then you should talk to some of us.

Yes, if Sanders had won the Primary and then lost to Trump, his supporters would be hearing it from angry Clinton supporters.

You're not hearing the shit Clinton supporters are getting right now, presumably because you didn't favor her over Sanders, but it's absolutely happening.

And it's not remotely useful.

clinton supporters still run the institutions of the democratic party

that's the difference
 
You will do anything to defend the people who want to throw me under, won't you? Geeus you're so incredibly disingenuous. And you still seem to deny decades of Democrat history since you conveniently ignore that post...twice now. You are all about gotchas and not at all about substance. God.

It's not a defense of centrists who want to throw minorities under the bus, it's an admission that there are prominent people on the far left who also want to screw minorities over to win and that they can both fuck off.

Pelosi thinks we should be willing to accept people who would be okay with taking away women's rights? Screw her! Bernie thinks the exact same thing? Screw him also!

Ekai said:
3) Continue to try to play gotchas instead of recognizing what's going on....

What's going on is a whole bunch of straight white cisgender people across the Democratic party's political spectrum have shown their willingness to abandon everyone else in order to win. Centrists or leftists, they should not be allowed to get away with it, otherwise the party will change for the worse before it's too late.
 
telling people to shut up and vote for democrats without criticizing them is what we did last year

having a serious debate about what the party needs to change is the only way we can learn the right lessons from our historic loss

Telling people to shut up and vote democrat is exactly what you should do AFTER the primaries. It will, AND SHOULD, happen by the time we have our candidates running against the candidates the GOP have. There are and will be chances for candidates to run for seats from further left on the political spectrum than Ossoff. There are people already elected that are having those debates right now in the party.

The debate is happening. Included in that are people who think we have basically the right strategy. You don't seem to want a debate about whether or not the party should change, but how it should change, and it doesn't seem like you want a debate there either, as it sounds like you already know what you want it to be.

The only measure I know of that paints this loss as historic, is the one wherein no one had ever lost an election with such a large win in the popular vote.

What we need to do, I think we can all agree on, is to acknowledge that our support is too focused, and to figure out how to appeal to people in more places across the country. In a place like GA-6, the answer remains rallying behind someone like Ossoff. That isn't going to be the answer everywhere else.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
I mean sure in a "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" sort of way that logic makes some sense, but I'm seeing a lot of claims about how the people are clearly behind the progressive revolution that the centrists just don't see because they're bought by the banks

We should run on more progressive politics, because its the right thing to do and will probably win, especially in the current political climate. But, again, I am skeptical of the popular mandate that the current Dems are apparently just so blind for ignoring

More to the point, I don't see any evidence of an actual progressive revolution anywhere. Occupy Wall Street fizzled. Frankly, nothing concrete has come from BLM's push at a state or national level. Stuff like free or reduced college, single payer, etc. is coming from liberal states as a result of lack of national movement, not because there's some grassroots groundswell where people suddenly realized the values of progressivism.

I see the validity of complaints from marginalized communities about the Dems not properly recognizing them, but that's a spot where the Republican talking points about how "we're never gonna' win the blacks" is right, in a twisted sense: Republicans seem to be in no hurry to not be tremendously racist, so that leaves those marginalized communities with very little recourse but the Dems.
 

aeolist

Banned
In a place like GA-6, the answer remains rallying behind someone like Ossoff.

i still don't see why this is true for ossoff in particular. the only policy position i know he ran on was reducing the deficit, and if that's someone's main issue they're voting republican. he was bland, boring, and just because he's centrist doesn't mean he stands more of a chance in a right-leaning district than an alternate candidate.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
i still don't see why this is true for ossoff in particular. the only policy position i know he ran on was reducing the deficit, and if that's someone's main issue they're voting republican. he was bland, boring, and just because he's centrist doesn't mean he stands more of a chance in a right-leaning district than an alternate candidate.

I'm not one of those people who thinks a Bernie-style candidate would have won GA-06, but Ossoff was... not great.

nFxwXvw.png

It's hard to imagine any Dems getting excited by this platform, even if he's kind of cute.
 
clinton supporters still run the institutions of the democratic party

that's the difference

I don't want to be patronizing, but a party made up of elected members changes by different types of people getting elected to it.

The tea party didn't steer the GOP further to the extreme right by saying 'You had your way, so now support people like us' or by saying 'Isn't it our turn now?'. They changed the direction of the GOP by getting people that agreed with them elected to the party.

Run candidates further to the left. If they get elected, then the party will move further left. If that's what people want, it will happen, whether the establishment want it or not.
 
Oh I absolutely agree. But some of those answers aren't what we want them to be. I'm just so sick of "my personal politics exactly are the thing that will make the Democrats win again" from pretty much everybody no matter where they are on the spectrum

Hearing "this is why Trump won" or "this is why Dems will continue to lose" for the millionth time

tenor.gif
 
i still don't see why this is true for ossoff in particular. the only policy position i know he ran on was reducing the deficit, and if that's someone's main issue they're voting republican. he was bland, boring, and just because he's centrist doesn't mean he stands more of a chance in a right-leaning district than an alternate candidate.

So why did he get a fuck ton more votes than the other Democrats who ran against him?
 
I mean I've been shying away from this comparison for various reasons but people are talking about them both so much anyway that the hypocrisy is starting to get annoying. Corbyn outperforming expectations to almost achieve victory cannot be an astonishing energizing comback for the left while every Dem run thus far in a special election, from the Bernielike in Montana to the bank exec in South Carolina, coming close to victory represents a "failure of the centrists". Either Corbyn failed, or Dems are poised for a huge success.
I hadn't even noticed the stark contrast in narrative between the two.
 
I'm not one of those people who thinks a Bernie-style candidate would have won GA-06, but Ossoff was... not great.



It's hard to imagine any Dems getting excited by this platform, even if he's kind of cute.

Fun fact: the fuckin' Goldman Sachs Dem who lost by a slightly narrower margin in SC on Tuesday ran on a more progressive platform than Ossoff.

I fully accept that full-on leftism is not a one-size-fits-all solution for every district, but for god's sake, at least stand for something.
 

pigeon

Banned
Here we go again.

Let me know when the leftists are actually ready to engage with the people in their own flock who want to throw social justice over the side.

Paying lip service to the importance of intersectionality but tolerating racism, sexism and anti-semitism because it's used to agree with you is exactly the kind of pragmatic compromise with evil you accuse the rest of the Democratic Party of making.
 
Since everyone is riled up in factional battles, I'll make a general argument:

Historically bad string of defeats and no leadership changes afterwards means a party is out of touch and content to merely exist.
 

Spuck-uk

Banned
The American 'left' really doesn't offer any solutions to the concerns of vast members of the population.

Just more Neoliberalism and being somewhat less shit than the republicans.
 

KHarvey16

Member
Since everyone is riled up in factional battles, I'll make a general argument:

Historically bad string of defeats and no leadership changes afterwards means a party is out of touch and content to merely exist.

What historically bad defeats are you referencing?
 
Since everyone is riled up in factional battles, I'll make a general argument:

Historically bad string of defeats and no leadership changes afterwards means a party is out of touch and content to merely exist.
Please, elaborate on why the special election losses are historical.
 

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
What historically bad defeats are you referencing?

The White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, the state legislatures.. Maybe in the next couple years when the GOP has the numbers to amend the Constitution that might be considered a bad defeat.
 
Can anyone explain how going further left is going to get the WWC to vote their own interests? Like, I'm all for it, but I feel like going too far the other way is going to backfire. I firmly believe given a choice between Bernie and Trump, they will choose Trump 9 times out of 10. How do you combat that?
 

KHarvey16

Member
The White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, the state legislatures.. Maybe in the next couple years when the GOP has the numbers to amend the Constitution that might be considered a bad defeat.

The Supreme Court? How about you throw the super bowl and the World Series in there too?

It's not historic.
 
Top Bottom