Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Only Death Can Pay For Growth


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

get as many Democrats elected across the board as possible,

Except what you seem to be unable to understand is the goal of electing as many Democrats as possible necessarily means recruiting and supporting more "moderate" Democrats as opposed to the progressives you are pushing.  On top of that, you're not getting the statistical reality that Dems redistricting for more leftist purposes will only serve to pigeonhole such leftists.  Considering how leftists enjoy more than anything else how everybody that doesn't agree with them is not only wrong but immoral, I wouldn't think trying (and failing) to game the system is something you'd want to do -- even if it is an inevitably pointless endeavor.

27 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

suggest a way that could help lead to that goal, and suddenly the goalposts get shifted

I've argued gerrymandering has rather pointless effects on these threads since I've started posting down these parts when Trump got elected.  Frankly I don't get the hostility here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I've argued gerrymandering has rather pointless effects on these threads since I've started posting down these parts when Trump got elected.  Frankly I don't get the hostility here.

Gerrymandering has not a ton of effects on the national level - though it really doesn't have to have much in order to give a small majority in the house. Where it really is massive is in state legislations, which can basically lock out an entire party or ensure massive majorities that are veto-proof. That should be a lot more scary to people. 

2 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

When the fuck have I attacked anyone in this argument? I specifically said "hey, I agree with you all", and then use that agreement to push for progressive reform from inside the party and now I'm the one attacking people? Bullshit.

Yeah, I don't think I took that at all, especially with the idea of progressives playing hardball for their policy goals and acting like the tea party for the Republicans. That not only didn't end up great for tea partiers, it didn't end up super well for Republicans across the board, given that Trump came in and told them to get in line and they did (for the most part). Tea parties are fine when you're in opposition, but they're incredibly stupid when you're in actual power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Except what you seem to be unable to understand is the goal of electing as many Democrats as possible necessarily means recruiting and supporting more "moderate" Democrats as opposed to the progressives you are pushing.  On top of that, you're not getting the statistical reality that Dems redistricting for more leftist purposes will only serve to pigeonhole such leftists.  Considering how leftists enjoy more than anything else how everybody that doesn't agree with them is not only wrong but immoral, I wouldn't think trying (and failing) to game the system is something you'd want to do -- even if it is an inevitably pointless endeavor.

I've argued gerrymandering has rather pointless effects on these threads since I've started posting down these parts when Trump got elected.  Frankly I don't get the hostility here.

Your argument seems to be that Democrats should push further to the right, even as policy preferences among Democrats are increasingly pushing further to the left.

And the hostility might have something to do with being told that I'm somehow now attacking people who supported Biden over Sanders by agreeing with them that everyone should go all-in electing Biden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Gerrymandering has not a ton of effects on the national level - though it really doesn't have to have much in order to give a small majority in the house. Where it really is massive is in state legislations, which can basically lock out an entire party or ensure massive majorities that are veto-proof. That should be a lot more scary to people. 

Yeah, I don't think I took that at all, especially with the idea of progressives playing hardball for their policy goals and acting like the tea party for the Republicans. That not only didn't end up great for tea partiers, it didn't end up super well for Republicans across the board, given that Trump came in and told them to get in line and they did (for the most part). Tea parties are fine when you're in opposition, but they're incredibly stupid when you're in actual power. 

Except that you've explicitly said in the past that if progressives want more power in the party, they should work on getting their people elected, building coalitions, etc. And when I say, yeah, let's do that, the goalposts get further moved by saying that tactic didn't work out so well for Republicans, when all evidence to the contrary says otherwise.

I'm essentially saying, "progressives should get better at playing politics", and everyone jumps in to tell me how I'm wrong. That suggests to me that people are more interested in keeping to the status quo by shifting the goalposts rather than engaging realistically with progressives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

And the hostility might have something to do with being told that I'm somehow now attacking people who supported Biden over Sanders by agreeing with them that everyone should go all-in electing Biden.

The last page of this thread has felt needlessly antagonistic as people argued of relatively small points or misinterpretations of other posts.  We're all stressed out these days, maybe we should just take a breath. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

When the fuck have I attacked anyone in this argument? I specifically said "hey, I agree with you all", and then use that agreement to push for progressive reform from inside the party and now I'm the one attacking people? Bullshit.

You said:

Quote

I mean it's pretty telling when @Simon Steele says Biden is a terrible candidate, and gets jumped on.

Which is inaccurate - we all fucking agree that he isn't a good candidate. I won't dig into it any further. You either get it or you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Except that you've explicitly said in the past that if progressives want more power in the party, they should work on getting their people elected, building coalitions, etc. And when I say, yeah, let's do that, the goalposts get further moved by saying that tactic didn't work out so well for Republicans, when all evidence to the contrary says otherwise. 

So getting their people elected is good, building coalitions is better, and the tea partiers absolutely did NOT do the latter. 

That tactic worked fine when they were the opposition party and they basically dictated how the opposition would occur - and that Republicans don't care one little bit about doing things like actually passing laws. It works far less when you're assuming a Biden win and obstruction doesn't work as a message for your entire party. 

Quote

I'm essentially saying, "progressives should get better at playing politics", and everyone jumps in to tell me how I'm wrong. That suggests to me that people are more interested in keeping to the status quo by shifting the goalposts rather than engaging realistically with progressives.

I guess I disagree with the idea that progressives should get better at playing politics by obstruction and holding things like the budget hostage like the tea partiers did, because that tactic doesn't really work when you have the executive branch. If they want to do that sort of thing when Trump wins again? Cool cool cool. But if your strategy when your party has the most power is to obstruct your own party, you're gonna have a bad time. 

 

To be really, really clear - what I think they should do is to work to get people across the board in positions of power (which with Pelosi they've done a pretty good job of) and then show that they can create popular policies that get put in. They should emphatically NOT block things because they're not getting enough of their way; that was the thing that AOC called Sanders out for, as an example. The point is to bring more people into the views of the progressives and meet them where they are, and make the progressives more of a stronger coalition across the board because more people have those views; it should not be to primary out the more moderates, especially in more risky seats. And it really should not be to oppose Biden on basic stuff to get things vaguely done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Where the consternation comes in is when the same people (not you) who have advocated adopting that very tactic suddenly decide that it isn't applicable anymore. Why? What changed? 

What changed was a self calculated political reality. It happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

though it really doesn't have to have much in order to give a small majority in the house. Where it really is massive is in state legislations, which can basically lock out an entire party or ensure massive majorities that are veto-proof. That should be a lot more scary to people. 

Small majorities in the House are rare.  Maybe they'll increase, yes.  Which is why I commit time and money to organizations devoted to reforming redistricting in states.  But it grinds my gears when it's used in political arguments as if the only thing holding back one's particular preference is because of that goddamned gerrymandering.

There is research out there, including from people I know, that indeed do show gerrymandering is far more rampant at the state level.  State legislatures of course matter and "it's a travesty" and all, but gods...I've just never been able to bring myself to care about state politics.  It's literally the only remaining blindspot when it comes to courses taught on my CV.

9 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Your argument seems to be that Democrats should push further to the right, even as policy preferences among Democrats are increasingly pushing further to the left.

That's never been my argument, and certainly was not in the first post when I responded to you.  I said the main lesson from the primary should be Sanders' enduring strength with young voters, NOT Biden's comparatively isolated victory.  I don't think the Democrats should push further to the right, policywise.  Plus, they're not.  Biden is pushing left.  And if someone, anyone, much better than either of those two old fucks, I'm sure it'd be verging left as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Week said:

You said:

Which is inaccurate - we all fucking agree that he isn't a good candidate. I won't dig into it any further. You either get it or you don't.

Holy fucking shit. I say "this is what Simon said", and them said - which you apparently didn't even fucking bother to read before you popped off - that I said exactly the opposite of what Simon said, attempting to point out the contrast that even when I agree with you, you still treat me like I am saying what Simon said. And then you fucking double down on that bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I guess I disagree with the idea that progressives should get better at playing politics by obstruction and holding things like the budget hostage like the tea partiers did, because that tactic doesn't really work when you have the executive branch. If they want to do that sort of thing when Trump wins again? Cool cool cool. But if your strategy when your party has the most power is to obstruct your own party, you're gonna have a bad time. 

When the fuck have I said that in this argument? Where? Fucking point it out to me. I specifically said that Democrats should gerrymander the shit out of things at the state and federal level as much as possible. That's the entirety of the fucking argument I made and you're pulling extraneous shit out of your ass to give you something to argue with me about, and then trying to fucking gaslight me on top of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

When the fuck have I said that in this argument? Where? Fucking point it out to me. I specifically said that Democrats should gerrymander the shit out of things at the state and federal level as much as possible. That's the entirety of the fucking argument I made and you're pulling extraneous shit out of your ass to give you something to argue with me about, and then trying to fucking gaslight me on top of it.

You said:"I think the left should absolutely hold party leaders' feet to the fire and should not settle for less than somewhat painful concessions from moderates."

I took somewhat painful concessions as meaning exactly that. How are you holding the leaders feet to the fire if you're not doing obstruction? That certainly has nothing to do with gerrymandering. You then later compared the progressives to the Tea Party as far as wielding power, and it's a bit disingenuous to act outraged when I point out the tactics the tea party used. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The last page of this thread has felt needlessly antagonistic as people argued of relatively small points or misinterpretations of other posts.  We're all stressed out these days, maybe we should just take a breath. 

Arguing about pointless shit is one of the few ways left to feel like things are still regular.

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I agree that Democrats could get pretty well shellacked in 2022 and 2024*, that's often how these things go. But I'm finding it increasingly unlikely that Biden wins but Democrats don't pick up the senate. Certainly possible of course.  

Yeah, I don't find it useful worrying about the downstream effects of winning the presidency.  Just win the presidency.  Of course it's going to lead to a backlash, that's how things work.  Once you start the process of "Well if Biden wins then that means..." you're usually overthinking things.

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Therefore, I would say that you are correct: by choosing a single candidate before Super Tuesday the moderates were making sure that Sanders could no longer win.

One could say it was done in the interest of quickly ending the nomination campaign and increase the chances of defeating Trump, of course. It is very difficult for us (regular joes) to know what was the main purpose. Nor is it even certain that all the moderates had the same.

This isn't well-founded.  Or, just, ya know, reality.  The voters decided they didn't want Sanders.  Implications that that was otherwise are irresponsible.  Was there a coalescence among elites around Biden shortly before Super Tuesday?  Of course, we were all there.  But endorsements from the mayor of South Bend or senator from Minnesota did not change the obvious general consensus of the Democratic primary electorate.  Give me a break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The last page of this thread has felt needlessly antagonistic as people argued of relatively small points or misinterpretations of other posts.  We're all stressed out these days, maybe we should just take a breath. 

Look, I'm not trying to drag you into this fight when you're trying to play peacemaker, but the fact that this is directed at me instead of anyone else involved in this speaks volumes. 

I use (or used) this place for years as a safe space to vent my spleen, as I'm a pretty fucking liberal person in a very red state, so 95% percent of the time I have to either temper my views in public or actively pretend to hold opposite views just so I won't get blackballed at my job or lose friends as long as they're not just racist or totally off-the-wall for Trump. So when I post here, it's about how I feel, not about what I do.

What I rarely post about is how I have been texting and calling with Bernie supporters here in Oklahoma, urging them to wait-and-see, to hold off on rushing to judgment with Tara Reade, that we should wait to see if more women come forward to corroborate her story. That even if they can't vote for Biden, they should still turn out to vote for Abby Broyles and Kendra Horn here. I'm donating to both even though Horn voted against the HEROES Act. That they should turn out to vote for the important state questions, and state legislators.

But apparently because I had a problem immediately feeling cool with voting for Biden, in at least a small part simply because I was disappointed that he won over Sanders, that means I'm just a Bernie-stan, even though I know for goddamn sure that at least some of the usual suspects would be saying the exact same fucking thing if roles were reversed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Arguing about pointless shit is one of the few ways left to feel like things are still regular.

Yeah, I don't find it useful worrying about the downstream effects of winning the presidency.  Just win the presidency.  Of course it's going to lead to a backlash, that's how things work.  Once you start the process of "Well if Biden wins then that means..." you're usually overthinking things.

This isn't well-founded.  Or, just, ya know, reality.  The voters decided they didn't want Sanders.  Implications that that was otherwise are irresponsible.  Was there a coalescence among elites around Biden shortly before Super Tuesday?  Of course, we were all there.  But endorsements from the mayor of South Bend or senator from Minnesota did not change the obvious general consensus of the Democratic primary electorate.  Give me a break.

Are you seriously trying to argue that if Biden had ended up underperforming on Super Tuesday relative to his actual performance because people who dropped out and endorsed him didn't do so in the counterfactual, that Biden's path to the nomination would not have been significantly more difficult?

In that instance, if I'm betting Sanders against the field, I'm still taking the field, but a Sanders vs. Biden matchup would have played out significantly differently. It's bizarre that this is even a fucking argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The last page of this thread has felt needlessly antagonistic as people argued of relatively small points or misinterpretations of other posts.  We're all stressed out these days, maybe we should just take a breath. 

Blessed be the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You said:"I think the left should absolutely hold party leaders' feet to the fire and should not settle for less than somewhat painful concessions from moderates."

I took somewhat painful concessions as meaning exactly that. How are you holding the leaders feet to the fire if you're not doing obstruction? That certainly has nothing to do with gerrymandering. You then later compared the progressives to the Tea Party as far as wielding power, and it's a bit disingenuous to act outraged when I point out the tactics the tea party used. 

"Moderates" play brinkmanship all the fucking time, by literally saying that they're going to vote for the other fucking candidate. Progressives should just vote for the Democrats, even if those Democrats have made clear that they have no fucking desire to have a substantive discussion of the issues, and that you better vote for us because we will just blame you if we lose? No fucking thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

Are you seriously trying to argue that if Biden had ended up underperforming on Super Tuesday relative to his actual performance because people who dropped out and endorsed him didn't do so in the counterfactual, that Biden's path to the nomination would not have been significantly more difficult?

Yes.  People drop out because they anticipate, and depending on your perspective on polling even know, they are going to lose support.  That's what happens in primaries.  Would those two (they both have annoying names to type out) staying in have prolonged Biden's victory?  Maybe by a bit, but just a bit.  Anyway, this counterfactual is also complicated by how closely covid lockdowns happens after Super Tuesday.  I'd argue that'd actually help Biden, but that's obviously speculation on speculation.

4 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

In that instance, if I'm betting Sanders against the field, I'm still taking the field, but a Sanders vs. Biden matchup would have played out significantly differently. It's bizarre that this is even a fucking argument.

I...just don't know how to respond to how illogical this is.  Sanders vs. Biden IS how it played it out.  And Biden won, handily.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes.  People drop out because they anticipate, and depending on your perspective on polling even know, they are going to lose support.  That's what happens in primaries.  Would those two (they both have annoying names to type out) staying in have prolonged Biden's victory?  Maybe by a bit, but just a bit.  Anyway, this counterfactual is also complicated by how closely covid lockdowns happens after Super Tuesday.  I'd argue that'd actually help Biden, but that's obviously speculation on speculation.

I...just don't know how to respond to how illogical this is.  Sanders vs. Biden IS how it played it out.  And Biden won, handily.

 

For fucks sake, I fucking give up.

I mean, in one fucking breath you admit that what I was saying actually happened; that the moderates dropped out and endorsed Biden specifically to stop Sanders from winning the nomination, yet in the same fucking breath say that if that had not have happened, things would have played out exactly the same way anyway. And I'm the fucking illogical one somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...