U.S. Politics-Getting a Handel On Why the DNC Is Pissing Ossof

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Fez said:

Yeah, but the Republicans was not nearly as conservative then as it now. Back then there was majority support (or close enough) to what they wanted to do that it was fine to run on that. There isn't anymore, except on a few cultural issues, so they lie or don't talk about their economic and budget plans.

No it wasn't. People like Gerald Ford, and hell even Richard Nixon, weren't as conservative. But, the conservatives in the party managed, it would seem to me, to run people like Gerald Ford right out of the party and then drag the whole country to the right.

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Gorn said:

OK, let's imagine that Clinton managed to beat Obama in the 2008 and went on to win the general election. What would demonstrably and visibly improve in the life of an average American woman as a result of Clinton presidency (as opposed to Obama presidency)?

That's not addressing my point because (1) I was referring to women legislators and (2) I was referring to women legislators in the aggregate not any individual MC.  Doing so would be an ecological fallacy.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

The problem here is determining whether winning is more important than values.  If you stop combating misogyny because you just want to win, then the core values disappear and it's an entirely different party.  The fact is that women tend to be hated and reviled more than men for petty disgusting reasons.  The answer isn't to tell all the women to go away because 'that's just the breaks.' Certainly the Democratic Party needs something, progressive voters need to be different.  But no fucking way do we need to hide our women in the closet just so a bunch of white men will want to vote for the party again.  

That seems incredibly unfair, especially since four of the six most talked about potential nominees for 2020 are women. 

[Inigima]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I "buy" ideas that are based on facts and evidence.  Pelosi being a unique liability in terms of notoriety and subsequent unpopularity as a legislator - and the GOP's repeated use of this to gain an electoral advantage - undoubtedly is.

If you've figured out a way to determine decisive factors in elections please let me know; the point is she was a factor.

I don't agree. You're begging the question. You might be right, but what's your evidence? What's your evidence that Pelosi is unique and a replacement won't be painted exactly the same way with exactly the same result? What's your evidence that the anti-Pelosi ads were effective specifically because it's Pelosi?

[Dr. Pepper]

2 hours ago, Gorn said:

I agree with your general point, but I would argue that the race and gender of leadership personnel is symbolic and irrelevant compared to the effects of actual underlying policies. After all, the police brutality which led to Black Lives Matter movement happened during the terms of a black president and two black Attorney Generals.

For example, Bernie Sanders cannot magically turn himself into a young minority woman, but this doesn't mean he should quit politics and turn over his Senate seat to someone who checks the right boxes in the diversity checklist.

I'm not really sure what you're point is here.  Did it ever dawn on you that perhaps people didn't feel safe to create movements like BLM until there was a black president or black AG's?  

1 hour ago, Fez said:

But the thing is, going slow on civil rights works. For instance, the advancement of gay rights took an incredibly long time and Democratic legislators and the Supreme Court didn't act to implement them until there was majority support. And the result has been that post-gay marriage legalization there has been continued growth in support of gay rights, and its one of the only progressive policy areas that Republicans aren't trying to significantly rollback (there are throwbacks like Pence of course, but the party isn't there anymore and neither is Trump).

On the other hand, going fast on civil rights locks people's opinions and opposition in place and leads to resentment and continued pushback. For instance, support for abortion rights has stagnated since Roe v. Wade. There's a reason Ginsburg has criticised that case has moving things too far, too fast.

Wow.  Seriously, wow.  So basically, "Slow down on wanting that equality thing because white men will get mad."

Um, no.  

And yes, the Republican party is absolutely trying to rollback gay rights.  Have you been sleeping?  DeVos is doing all sorts of shit in the DoE.  Sessions in the AG office.  'Religious liberty' laws are popping up everywhere, absurd 'bathroom bills'.  Just because the GOP isn't creating a law that makes gay marriage illegal doesn't mean they aren't rolling back rights.  There's more to equality while gay than marriage.  Go take a stroll in the LGBT thread and see what we all have to say about what's going on.  

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

That seems incredibly unfair, especially since four of the six most talked about potential nominees for 2020 are women. 

Not sure if you're addressing this to me or to the people saying to send the women folk away.  Yes, I know telling women to go away is incredibly unfair.  I'm not confused about that. 

[DMC]

22 minutes ago, Inigima said:

I don't agree. You're begging the question. You might be right, but what's your evidence? 

I'm not begging the question.  I presented evidence in the links provided in a previous post that Pelosi is uniquely well-known and unpopular among legislators overall, and this was particularly heightened among voters in the Georgia 6th race.  Also, the GOP using Pelosi as an attack in countless House races is an easily verifiable fact, as is the losses House Democrats have incurred in two of the past four cycles.

22 minutes ago, Inigima said:

What's your evidence that the anti-Pelosi ads were effective specifically because it's Pelosi?

This question asks me to determine causality, something that is incredibly difficult in general and impossible with publicly available data (i.e. I'd have to run a survey experiment to even begin to make a statistical case).  However, that does not mean one cannot make reasonable interpretations based on very obvious data trends.

22 minutes ago, Inigima said:

What's your evidence that Pelosi is unique and a replacement won't be painted exactly the same way with exactly the same result?

Obviously no one can provide evidence for a counterfactual.  I have, however, detailed my reasoning in a previous post and again, the argument she is unique is backed by evidence.

[Dr. Pepper]

Yeah, but Pelosi is well known because she was the speaker for some time.  If there is another female democratic speaker, it will be the same issue.  

Look, Ossof was never going to win if he didn't win outright at the first election.  It's a very red district and progressives just don't vote in the numbers they should.  It's admirable that he got really close, but he still wasn't going to ever win that run-off no matter what attack ads the GOP candidate used or didn't use.  

[Gorn]

25 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'm not really sure what you're point is here.  Did it ever dawn on you that perhaps people didn't feel safe to create movements like BLM until there was a black president or black AG's? 

My point is that Obama hasn't actually done anything to improve the lives of African-Americans that an average white Democrat wouldn't also do in his place (actually, he might have done less). Also, that Nancy Pelosi being replaced by, say, Keith Ellison, doesn't mean that Democratic Party is backsliding into misogyny.

The mere fact that someone checks the sams census boxes as you do doesn't mean they have your best interests at heart.

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Yeah, but Pelosi is well known because she was the speaker for some time.  If there is another female democratic speaker, it will be the same issue.

Exactly - she's been the Democratic House leader for 14+ years.  That's why she has such high name ID and unfavorables.  It will take awhile for an incoming female Democratic leader to achieve such high levels.

18 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Look, Ossof was never going to win if he didn't win outright at the first election.

My argument for ousting Pelosi is not isolated to the Georgia election - and I tend to agree Ossoff would have lost whether Pelosi was made an issue or not.  The argument is very simple - she is a clear electoral liability with no discernible upside in terms of what's good for the party.  Turning the page on the old Democratic regime to begin Trump opposition in earnest, however, has intuitive upside.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

27 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Not sure if you're addressing this to me or to the people saying to send the women folk away.  Yes, I know telling women to go away is incredibly unfair.  I'm not confused about that. 

Nobody said women in general need to go away or stay down. Quit being so hyperbolic.

[Zorral]

10 hours ago, S John said:

Agree 100%.  I completely understand that class, race, and gender are inextricably tied together in the United States, but I think the Dems need to be realistic about what they can offer to actually solve via government policy and take the position that economic security helps all Americans.  Going to bat for the poor and middle class is something that they can do, and it's something they should be well positioned to do after the latest injection of supply side economics further poisons the patient.  

 

A lot of the problem with jobs i-- and housing -- is centralization.  They go to where the big cities are, so people with the skills, people who have acquired the skills, who live in less populated areas are forced to move out, whether they prefer to or not -- where it is more expensive all the way down the line, starting with housing, because there isn't enough.

This tight centripetal centralization is all part of the conglomeratization of technology and industry.  It's how pop music got less creative and original, once the record companies in NYC started to buy them up, and big radio congloms bought up all the radio stations and their bands, the big non-news corporations bought up all the local newspapers.

It's also why so few hinterland communities have decent health care or   We need more localization instead of the con$tant cry for the efficiency of centralization of everything -- because it makes more money and co$t$ less.  Except of course where it would do both, such allowing single payer negotiation with Big Pharm for medications, etc.

[Fragile Bird]

Great change to the thread title!

[Dr. Pepper]

20 minutes ago, Gorn said:

My point is that Obama hasn't actually done anything to improve the lives of African-Americans that an average white Democrat wouldn't also do in his place (actually, he might have done less). Also, that Nancy Pelosi being replaced by, say, Keith Ellison, doesn't mean that Democratic Party is backsliding into misogyny.

The mere fact that someone checks the sams census boxes as you do doesn't mean they have your best interests at heart.

Sure, Niki Haley doesn't have anyone's best interest at heart unless it's a rich white person.  Obama definitely improved the lives of black people in pretty meaningful ways.  A male replacing a female isn't backsliding into misogyny.

But none of this is the point here.  The point is there are posters who keep repeating things about female politicians being the problem and needing to step down because they are distractions.  Those same posters tend to be the ones who say things like we need to slow down civil rights or that there isn't been a backlash against certain equality measures.  It's outrageous and ridiculous and what feeds into the general air of misogyny or racism.  There are dozens of articles on this white liberalism problem.  I encourage people to read them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=white+liberalism&oq=white+liberalism&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2198j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

19 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Exactly - she's been the Democratic House leader for 14+ years.  That's why she has such high name ID and unfavorables.  It will take awhile for an incoming female Democratic leader to achieve such high levels.

My argument for ousting Pelosi is not isolated to the Georgia election - and I tend to agree Ossoff would have lost whether Pelosi was made an issue or not.  The argument is very simple - she is a clear electoral liability with no discernible upside in terms of what's good for the party.  Turning the page on the old Democratic regime to begin Trump opposition in earnest, however, has intuitive upside.

And when the next female leader in the Democratic Party begins to have unfavorable ratings with Republicans, what then?  Should we tell her to leave, too?  This is always going to be the case.  Though, yes I agree that it's time to recreate the Democractic party, which means steadily replacing the old regime, men and women alike, whether they have name recognition or not.

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Nobody said women in general need to go away or stay down. Quit being so hyperbolic.

Except they do, repeatedly.  Quit trying to downplay it.  

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

And when the next female leader in the Democratic Party begins to have unfavorable ratings with Republicans, what then?  Should we tell her to leave, too?  This is always going to be the case.

Sigh.  Once again, it is not going to be the case for quite awhile - it takes a long time for MCs to build that type of name ID.  If it eventually happens I don't know.  You're asking me to answer a question about a hypothetical person with a hypothetical situation in the distant future with no context.

13 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Except they do, repeatedly.  Quit trying to downplay it.  

I think it's pretty clear @Tywin et al. is referring to posters in this thread.  When has anybody said that?

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'm not really sure what you're point is here.  Did it ever dawn on you that perhaps people didn't feel safe to create movements like BLM until there was a black president or black AG's?  

Wow.  Seriously, wow.  So basically, "Slow down on wanting that equality thing because white men will get mad."

Um, no.  

And yes, the Republican party is absolutely trying to rollback gay rights.  Have you been sleeping?  DeVos is doing all sorts of shit in the DoE.  Sessions in the AG office.  'Religious liberty' laws are popping up everywhere, absurd 'bathroom bills'.  Just because the GOP isn't creating a law that makes gay marriage illegal doesn't mean they aren't rolling back rights.  There's more to equality while gay than marriage.  Go take a stroll in the LGBT thread and see what we all have to say about what's going on.  

Not sure if you're addressing this to me or to the people saying to send the women folk away.  Yes, I know telling women to go away is incredibly unfair.  I'm not confused about that. 

White men are the people who vote the most, so yeah, if you want to get things done, don't piss them off too much. Or you can figure out a way to get other people to vote more; I wish you all the best.

And yeah, they're trying to roll back some things, but its at the margins and the push back has always been incredibly intense. Its social conservatives trying to salvage some symbolic victories before they are utterly crushed on the issue. They've gone from denying marriage benefits and adoption to arguing about wedding cakes.

[DMC]

Both NBC and CNN are reporting at least 3 GOP Senators will oppose the Senate's version of the AHCA.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

56 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Except they do, repeatedly.  Quit trying to downplay it.  

Nobody here does, and next to no one in the Democratic Party does either. Otherwise Senators Harris, Klobuchar, Warren and Gillibrand wouldn't be leading early contenders to be the nominee in 2020. The reason why some people are calling for Clinton and Pelosi to go away isn't because they are women. It's because their presence presents liabilities for Democrats. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Both NBC and CNN are reporting at least 3 GOP Senators will oppose the Senate's version of the AHCA.

It will be interesting to see how many Senators vote no if they go into the vote knowing it's already going to fail. It would be unwise to support a bill that is only polling at 17% approval. 

[Fez]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It will be interesting to see how many Senators vote no if they go into the vote knowing it's already going to fail. It would be unwise to support a bill that is only polling at 17% approval. 

Paul's put out a joint statement with Cruz, Lee, and Johnson saying they oppose the bill as it currently stands.

Its not clear if Heller, Murkowski, Collins, Capito, Portman, etc. support it either. I did see it noted that the bill is currently missing some easy-to-add sweeteners that could probably get them on board. But that's based on where the bill currently is; if the conservatives get the bill moved significantly further to the right, that'll probably be much harder.

 

Also, to be clear, I fully support women running for all sorts of elected offices. But the current female Democratic leadership are a specific electoral handicap for the party and I want to see them go; just as I want to see any future Democratic leaders that hurt the party to go as well. Some current male Democratic leaders are ineffectual and hurt the party that way and should also go, like Hoyer; but others, like Biden, are not hurting the party.

[Cas Stark]

I would think, again, me being a libertarian, I know I'm allegedly mentally challenged, that the current leadership of the Democratic Party needs to go based on their record since 2009.  They have lost a tremendous amount of seats in Congress and at the state level since they kicked out Edwards and his 50 state strategy.  They embarrassed their candidate for president and their party by getting hacked via a lame email scam. It shouldn't really matter if they are men, women, white, black, asian, whatever.  The results have been uniformly bad except for maybe Scott Brown losing.  Why shouldn't they all be replaced?