DCCC backs corporate Dems, shuns progressive Dems.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

The Intercept reports:

Prioritizing fundraising, as Democratic Party officials do, has a feedback effect that creates lawmakers who are further and further removed from the people they are elected to represent. In 2013, the DCCC offered a startling presentation for incoming lawmakers, telling them they would be expected to immediately begin four hours of "call time" every day they were in Washington. That?s time spent dialing for dollars from high-end donors.

But the increased party primary meddling in races in other parts of the country has come at a time when the DCCC is increasingly wedded to congressional moderates. In somewhat of a reprisal of the Emanuel strategy, the DCCC is leaning on business-friendly Democrats to take back the House.

For the first time since 2006, the Blue Dog Coalition, the right-leaning Democratic group that prides itself on promoting socially conservative, business-friendly lawmakers, has worked with the DCCC to select the party?s candidates for the 2018 midterms.

The new collaboration is a stunning reversal for a party that has seen a groundswell of support for progressive ideas ? such as a $15 minimum wage and single-payer health care ? that are staunchly opposed by the Blue Dog wing of the party. Operatives from the DCCC meet on a weekly basis with the Blue Dogs to discuss recruitment and how to best steer resources to a growing slate of centrist Democratic candidates, according to Politico.

A look at recent history:

If Democratic leaders are getting the sense that 2018 could be a wave election much like 2006, it's worth looking at the last time the party swept into the House. The DCCC that year was run by Rahm Emanuel, who institutionalized the practice of only endorsing candidates with a demonstrable ability to either fundraise or pay for their own campaigns. Democrats that year beat 22 Republican incumbents and picked up eight open seats that had previously been held by Republicans. Because winners write history, the strategy has become conventionally accepted as wisdom worth following. But taking a closer look at the races themselves suggests the DCCC was flying blind.

In New Hampshire, for instance, the DCCC backed state House minority leader Jim Craig over local activist Carol Shea-Porter, in a classic establishment-versus-grassroots campaign. The conventional wisdom suggested that Craig?s endorsements, his moderation, and his ability to fundraise were what was needed in the district. Instead, Shea-Porter took a firm stand against the war in Iraq and organized an army of foot soldiers on the ground. Vastly outspent, she smoked Craig by 19 points in the primary.

The DCCC, in its wisdom, wrote her off, declining to spend a dime on what they saw as a lost cause. She spent less than $300,000 and, on the back of progressive enthusiasm, won the general election. She is retiring in 2018.

In California, the DCCC backed Steve Filson, a conservative pilot, against Jerry McNerney, who Emanuel believed was hopelessly liberal. After McNerney beat him in the primary, a peeved Emanuel said the DCCC wouldn?t be helping him in the general. A coalition of environmental groups got behind him instead, and McNerney won anyway.

In upstate New York, Emanuel went with Judy Aydelott, a former Republican who was a tremendous fundraiser. She was crushed by environmentalist and musician John Hall, after which the DCCC shunned the race as unwinnable. Hall won.

Now they want Blue Dogs, because they get lots of cash from K street.

For party officials concerned about raising cash, Blue Dogs are a safe bet. Public disclosures with the Federal Election Commission show that the Blue Dog PAC is fueled by the biggest spenders on congressional campaigns on K Street, the term Washingtonians use colloquially to refer to a center of lobbyist shops. PAC money from the National Mining Association, AT&T, McKesson, Comcast, the National Restaurant Association, and other business interests have buoyed Blue Dog PAC coffers, which are spent recruiting and financing moderate Democrats.

But there is more than one way to raise big money. As for Jess King, a DCCC official said that the Pennsylvanian wasn?t invited to candidate week in Washington because her campaign has not been in close touch with the national party, and that party support is a two-way street. But by the party's favorite metric-- fundraising-- going it alone hasn?t hurt her. In the fourth quarter of 2017, relying on small dollars, King added another $200,000 to her war chest, bringing her above $300,000 for the first year.

Her fundraising broke a record last held by Christina Hartman.

They also seem to function as a scheme to reward consultants who worked at DCCC prior with money.

James Thompson, who lost a close special election in Kansas and is again running for the Wichita seat in 2018, said the DCCC is specific about why it wants candidates to raise money. "They want you to spend a certain amount of money on consultants, and it?s their list of consultants you have to choose from," he said. Those consultants tend to be DCCC veterans. A memo the party committee sent to candidates in December lays out some of the demands the DCCC made around spending.

Just another instance of the Democratic establishment being an obstacle to necessary change at the expense of electoral viability. One definition of corruption is the direction of an institution's resources away from its objectives and towards private interests. The prioritization of consultants by the DCCC seems to qualify; at best you could call it a sort of paternalism, but that rests on an ignorance of how poorly high-priced consultants for Democratic campaigns have performed over the past few decades.

The DCCC is supposed to be in the business of getting Democrats elected; that mission seems to be in opposition to the impact of their operational decisions. They require money to be spent in the most inefficient ways-- advertising in traditional media-- and on consultants. I see how this makes well-connected people in the political and media establishment rich, I don't see how it wins elections. And especially I don't see how it moves forward a meaningful policy agenda helpful to constituents. Even if they win we lose.

Oh, good. I was wondering how the Dems could fuck up the 2018/2020 elections.

Thanks for being goddamned useless.

Yeah, this is to be expected.

'Professional' candidates, i.e. ones who have run and failed before, are the ones who spend time and effort building connections not just with rich donors but also within the party hierarchy. Those connections are what put them ahead of everyone else when it comes to getting funding from the national body. The lesson of 2016 was that the professional candidate is not always the best candidate, and just because someone feels that they are 'owed' a nomination doesn't mean you oughta give it to them. The DCCC is obviously having trouble absorbing that lesson.

This is a battle that has to be fought out in the primaries. Hopefully, either the progressive candidates can raise enough money from grassroots donors to make up for the lack of support from the DCCC, or the money turns out to be less of a factor than all the politicos say it will be.

Personally, I feel the effectiveness of a huge campaign slush fund is overrated. Candidates can receive millions and millions of dollars and still lose spectacularly because they're running in the wrong district or they're just not charismatic enough or their message just doesn't get the attention of the voters.

Look at Donald Trump. Dude ran his political campaign entirely from Twitter and call-ins to cable news shows. He barely spent anything up until he won the primary. He still won, just because he's an attention whore and was saying what people wanted to hear.

Even after losing against Trump and almost losing against a pedophile in Alabama, they're still completely out of touch.

Now, now. If you don't go along with what the DCCC is doing, you are voting for Trump, right? Because emotional blackmail is a great substitute for actual reform.

Whatever happened to the days when Politicans actually worked for the country and its people, whatever happeend to the likes of Julius Caeser, George Washington, and Napoleon?

Now modern western Politicans just wanna get rich quick and not do anything and retire so they can live on their own private island because fuck the people :P

Samtemdo8:
Whatever happened to the days when Politicans actually worked for the country and its people, whatever happeend to the likes of Julius Caeser, George Washington, and Napoleon?

Caesar - turned a republic into an empire, killed thousands and wound up getting stabbed in the back as a result of politics.

Washington - founded a republic, which arguably quite represents the Roman system where everything gets decided by a few families, these days.

Napoleon - turned a republic into an empire, despotically executing opponents without due process. Oh, and tried to decimalise the week.

Are you trying to say that you want a good, old school politician that will turn your democracy into a good old-fashioned dictatorship?

Catnip1024:

Samtemdo8:
Whatever happened to the days when Politicans actually worked for the country and its people, whatever happeend to the likes of Julius Caeser, George Washington, and Napoleon?

Caesar - turned a republic into an empire, killed thousands and wound up getting stabbed in the back as a result of politics.

Washington - founded a republic, which arguably quite represents the Roman system where everything gets decided by a few families, these days.

Napoleon - turned a republic into an empire, despotically executing opponents without due process. Oh, and tried to decimalise the week.

Are you trying to say that you want a good, old school politician that will turn your democracy into a good old-fashioned dictatorship?

At least they had conviction in what they are doing. And got shit done.

I just wish modern politicians had that conviction of doing good for the people and the nation.

Samtemdo8:
At least they had conviction in what they are doing. And got shit done.

I just wish modern politicians had that conviction of doing good for the people and the nation.

I daresay a lot of them do. Just their ideas of "good", "people" and "nation" often vary a lot. Even if they don't, their ideas on good methods and priorities.

Thaluikhain:

Samtemdo8:
At least they had conviction in what they are doing. And got shit done.

I just wish modern politicians had that conviction of doing good for the people and the nation.

I daresay a lot of them do. Just their ideas of "good", "people" and "nation" often vary a lot. Even if they don't, their ideas on good methods and priorities.

Which is why I made the comparison to the likes of Washington and Napoleon, because they had thier priorities straight.

Samtemdo8:
Which is why I made the comparison to the likes of Washington and Napoleon, because they had thier priorities straight.

Fair enough, though I'd not say the same about Caesar.

Catnip1024:
Now, now. If you don't go along with what the DCCC is doing, you are voting for Trump, right? Because emotional blackmail is a great substitute for actual reform.

That is how the "first past the post" national election system works in the US, yeah.

This battle's fought in the primaries, not the general.

Am I the only one that sees this as a great thing?

I mean, I don't want a different flavor of Bridle, even though Democrats at least try to do things for the public.

This gives Progressives a good standpoint in my opinion.

"Even Corporates are trying to buy your nation, America. They robbed you of Bernie and gave you Trump. They are too weak to fight him head on because they don't want to be seen as uncivil. We're already winning without their help. We will win for you without their help. Join us."

It's just up to us to get this word out. Corporates are a better flavor of the same shit in government. Let's just change the damn menu.

Well fucking great. Yay Murcia

Wait I'm confused, since when have corporate Dems and progressive Dems ever once had conflicting interests? Liberal Dems have a longstanding rivalry with both, but I've never heard of the other two having interests that didn't align.

Zontar:
Wait I'm confused, since when have corporate Dems and progressive Dems ever once had conflicting interests? Liberal Dems have a longstanding rivalry with both, but I've never heard of the other two having interests that didn't align.

Well, progressives tend to want things like higher corporation tax rates, commercial (and industrial) regulation, workers' protections and rights, and to weaken the role of money and lobbying in politics.

"Corporate" Democrats would be termed such by their opposition to such measures, or at least opposition to any meaningful change in these areas.

Zontar:
Wait I'm confused, since when have corporate Dems and progressive Dems ever once had conflicting interests? Liberal Dems have a longstanding rivalry with both, but I've never heard of the other two having interests that didn't align.

Never, ever comment about politics in the United States ever again.

Seanchaidh:

Zontar:
Wait I'm confused, since when have corporate Dems and progressive Dems ever once had conflicting interests? Liberal Dems have a longstanding rivalry with both, but I've never heard of the other two having interests that didn't align.

Never, ever comment about politics in the United States ever again.

To be fair he was asking a question first because his opinion was in doubt and asked for clarification.

Zontar:
Wait I'm confused, since when have corporate Dems and progressive Dems ever once had conflicting interests? Liberal Dems have a longstanding rivalry with both, but I've never heard of the other two having interests that didn't align.

Then again, I see your confusion. You assume anyone who is pro LGBT to be progressive, right? Even if the rest of their policy decisions are against the average people?

Here's a breakdown off the top of my head.

Progressive democrats:
- Want a Canada-Style Medicare-for-all type system.
- Want a living wage so that if you work full time you aren't living in abject poverty.
- Want to end the 8 military interventions around the word because they're mostly unjust, not the US's business, or cost way too much.
- Want to improve the infrastructure of the country so that everyone has necessities like clean drinking water.
- Want to make sure that all minority groups (LGBT, black hispanic, etc) have their rights respected.
- Want to stop companies and billionaires from hiding their money overseas and dodging taxes that could be used to improve things at home.
- Want stricter regulations on banking and stocks because they worry that they'll cause yet another economic crash unless regulated.
- Want to spend more on education.
- Want to take climate change seriously and focus more on green energy instead of outdated and deadly coal, and starting to get outdated (and sometimes disastrous) oil.
- Want to fight the GOP tooth and nail because most of their policies are horrendous.
- Want to end the drug war and legalize tax and regulate pot, because pot isn't even all that bad and ending it would cut crime substantially, and fix a whole host of problems.
- Don't want any more globalist trade deals that harm workers.
- Want to get money out of politics so that politicians can't be legally bribed with campaign donations and revolving door jobs/lobbying.

Most of these things poll at well above 50% popularity among the american people.

Corporate democrats:
- Think Obamacare is as far as anyone needs to go for healthcare, and that anything more would cost way too much (Because the health insurance companies gave them lots of money)
- Are kinda maybe in favor of a 15 dollar minimum wage if they get elected en-masse in 2020, probably. (Because their corporate donors don't want to pay their workers more)
- Are totally fine with all the military interventions and billion dollar military budget increases for war, and won't even debate how much money to spend, they'll just vote in lockstep with the GOP on it. (because the defense contractors gave them lots of money)
- Aren't really all that interested in improving the infrastructure, because it costs too much.
- Are in favor of minority rights, so long as it doesn't piss off their donors (Because this makes them look good to a lot of people and wins the votes of minority groups who want protection for their human rights)
- Occasionally wag their finger at billionaires, and offer to let them bring their money back into the country at a much reduced tax rate.
- Don't want to regulate Wall street more (Because they gave them lots of money)
- Aren't really wanting to fund education all that much (Because there's not a lot of big donations coming from there)
- Are tepidly in favor of green energy, as long as it makes a good photo op, but many of them (Like Joe Manchin) are still pushing coal energy despite the calamitous health risks involved and how inefficient it is, or oil despite the problem with spills and the glut on the global market (Because they get lots of money from those companies).
- Will put up a very mild fight against the GOP on most things, but then instantly care not two weeks later even when they have huge leverage, and just give the GOP what they want.
- Are mostly opposed to ending the drug war or legalizing pot (Because they get lots of money from pharmaceutical companies)
- Totally want more globalist trade deals that screw the american workers (because lots of industries gave them lots of money).
- Totally don't want money out of politics and will still keep pushing unpopular peoiple like Nanci Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Shultz who are good fundraisers (Because they get rich from money in politics).

Most of these policies polls at below 50% popularity, and with them still running the Democratic party faith in the party is tanking pretty bad.

TLDR:
Progressive Democrats are in favor of things that the american people generally want, and which help the country and are NOT beholden to corporate interests, and they're in favor of social justice type stuff because by and large it's the right thing to do.

Corporate democrats are in favor of whatever big business wants, don't really care about what the american people want and need outside of social justice which doesn't cost them anything to get those free votes, and they're corrupt and bought by big business.

And you can see this conflict playing out by how established corrupted corporate democrats are shutting out people who want to run as democrats but are not raising lots of corporate money or are running a too "lefty" platform that would cost the big donors money.

aegix drakan:

Then again, I see your confusion. You assume anyone who is pro LGBT to be progressive, right?

Why do so many people pretend that 100% of the things I've posted in the past didn't happen in an attempt to justify asking questions to me they know are not something anyone who've seen my post history could justify asking?

Here's a breakdown off the top of my head.

Progressive democrats:
- Want a Canada-Style Medicare-for-all type system.

Then why support the ACA? It doesn't even more American health care into that direction.

- Want a living wage so that if you work full time you aren't living in abject poverty.

For the 3% of those working full time that would help, but I think promoting more full time jobs would be better as a focus.

- Want to end the 8 military interventions around the word because they're mostly unjust, not the US's business, or cost way too much.

Can't say I disagree with this as a concept, but then when something like what's happening in Syria it gets hard to say it's not our problem when the problem ends up coming to us.

- Want to improve the infrastructure of the country so that everyone has necessities like clean drinking water.

It amazes me that a third party hasn't managed to overthrow the Democrats and GOP in Michigan, but party loyalty is a thing.

- Want to make sure that all minority groups (LGBT, black hispanic, etc) have their rights respected.

And then vote for increasing the government's violation of those rights and back those who have repeatedly assaulted those rights.

- Want to stop companies and billionaires from hiding their money overseas and dodging taxes that could be used to improve things at home.

Last time I checked those loopholes came from non-partisan sources.

- Want stricter regulations on banking and stocks because they worry that they'll cause yet another economic crash unless regulated.

And do so with economically disastrous ideas like taxing exchanges at levels that make it not economically viable to even have a stock exchange (such as with the 1% tax on transactions, in an industry where most make 3% returns in a year).

- Want to spend more on education.

Which will accomplish nothing given how much the US spends per capita on education. The problem isn't lack of resources, it's resource management. Even pretending otherwise makes solving the problem impossible.

- Want to take climate change seriously and focus more on green energy instead of outdated and deadly coal, and starting to get outdated (and sometimes disastrous) oil.

Yes we all want nuclear (the only viable green energy until we get fusion), but as it stands the demand for coal it still in place (to the point 10 Chinese workers die each day to bring America the coal that powers it)

- Want to fight the GOP tooth and nail because most of their policies are horrendous.

So blind partisanship that's so dedicated that one's willing to become the bad guy if the GOP proposes something that's inarguable good. Insane but perfectly in line with modern prograssivism. I feel sorry for American liberals for having to deal with there only being one party for both ideologies.

- Want to end the drug war and legalize tax and regulate pot, because pot isn't even all that bad and ending it would cut crime substantially, and fix a whole host of problems.

Not a bad idea, though the inner city will need to be convinced given that's where the support for tough on crime stems from.

- Don't want any more globalist trade deals that harm workers.

That's something that if true the leaders of progressive organisations and political groups need to get the memo on, since that's one of the largest sources for the working class taking its recent right turn.

- Want to get money out of politics so that politicians can't be legally bribed with campaign donations and revolving door jobs/lobbying.

That's a tall order given both parties being corporate owned.

Corporate democrats:
- Think Obamacare is as far as anyone needs to go for healthcare, and that anything more would cost way too much (Because the health insurance companies gave them lots of money)

That makes sense.

- Are kinda maybe in favor of a 15 dollar minimum wage if they get elected en-masse in 2020, probably. (Because their corporate donors don't want to pay their workers more)

15 dollar minimum wage is something anyone with a high school level understanding of economics or above would oppose if they don't have malevolent intentions. If they oppose it, it's a case of accidentally being right for the wrong reasons.

- Are totally fine with all the military interventions and billion dollar military budget increases for war, and won't even debate how much money to spend, they'll just vote in lockstep with the GOP on it. (because the defense contractors gave them lots of money)

I was always under the impression that the bipartisan support for that stemmed from local constituencies having construction done in their jurisdiction due to those military contracts.

- Aren't really all that interested in improving the infrastructure, because it costs too much.

One would think corporatists above most would understand the value of good quality infrastructure. Those up here certainly do.

- Are in favor of minority rights, so long as it doesn't piss off their donors (Because this makes them look good to a lot of people and wins the votes of minority groups who want protection for their human rights)

This doesn't seem that different from many progressives given the overt white supremacist views many progressives have and that dominates the political side of progressivism.

- Occasionally wag their finger at billionaires, and offer to let them bring their money back into the country at a much reduced tax rate.

Is that why a bunch of blue states are suing the feds for making it so that the rich of their states aren't getting subsidised by red states anymore under the new tax plan?

- Don't want to regulate Wall street more (Because they gave them lots of money)

More regulation isn't the answer, smart regulation is. America already has a shit ton of downright moronic regulations, but then most countries do.

- Aren't really wanting to fund education all that much (Because there's not a lot of big donations coming from there)

Given how much money American already spends on education, it's unrealistic to pretend throwing more money into the pit will solve anything.

- Are tepidly in favor of green energy, as long as it makes a good photo op, but many of them (Like Joe Manchin) are still pushing coal energy despite the calamitous health risks involved and how inefficient it is, or oil despite the problem with spills and the glut on the global market (Because they get lots of money from those companies).

Well at least it's economically viable as a means of energy, something we can't say for solar and wind on the national level. I'd love nothing more then seeing everyone adopt nuclear, but there's an irrational fear of it that'll take decades to overcome.

- Will put up a very mild fight against the GOP on most things, but then instantly care not two weeks later even when they have huge leverage, and just give the GOP what they want.

Must be a state or local level thing, since that's not a thing in national level politics.

- Are mostly opposed to ending the drug war or legalizing pot (Because they get lots of money from pharmaceutical companies)

Again, we sure this is corruption or due to their local constituencies? After all, the inner city started the war on drugs by demanding it begin and pretty much every time something new happened that many of us believe to be worst was an idea their representatives, with the backing of their voter base, pushed for. The war on drugs needs to end, but it didn't start for corporate reasons, and certainly hasn't continued due to them either. You'll need to convince the inner city that it needs to stop, and while they hate police brutality every time there's a vote it's always the tough on crime types who win.

- Totally want more globalist trade deals that screw the american workers (because lots of industries gave them lots of money).

Much as it pains me to say, a lot of people have delusions that globalist trade deals are a good idea in their present form, as well as globalist views on culture and immigration. One, two, or all three, plenty of people will support them just because they sound good. How many people claim to be pro-mass immigration and pro-worker, despite the inherent conflict both groups have and it being by definition impossible to support both? This could, again, be a case of people falling for ideas that don't work, especially if those Dems are from California or New York, states that have quite a few people under the illusion globalist politics work.

- Totally don't want money out of politics and will still keep pushing unpopular peoiple like Nanci Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Shultz who are good fundraisers (Because they get rich from money in politics).

That sounds like quite a few politicians. Hell up here out progressive PM removed an Admiral because one of his corproate backers didn't like his ideas, and compromised American national security (at potentially the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars for our economy) for a quarter million dollar donation to his family's foundation. I don't really see a significant difference between these two groups in that regard, none exists up here between the two.

TLDR:
Progressive Democrats are in favor of things that the american people generally want, and which help the country and are NOT beholden to corporate interests, and they're in favor of social justice type stuff because by and large it's the right thing to do.

Corporate democrats are in favor of whatever big business wants, don't really care about what the american people want and need outside of social justice which doesn't cost them anything to get those free votes, and they're corrupt and bought by big business.

And you can see this conflict playing out by how established corrupted corporate democrats are shutting out people who want to run as democrats but are not raising lots of corporate money or are running a too "lefty" platform that would cost the big donors money.

Given how most Americans, and most of those of either party on top of that, support putting sanctuary cities/states to an end and upholding immigration law, as well as closing loopholes that allow for chain migrations, ending the lottery and making qualification standards more in line with those of Canada, will Progressive Democrats start supporting those too? Because despite being supported by most Americans and most Democrats I've yet to see progressives make any statements of support for these, in fact I've only seen the opposite, pushing the incredibly unpopular views that there should be more immigration, lower standards and that immigration law should not go enforced. Suffice to say, given how that would collapse the welfare state of any nation, I've not seen any liberals support their ideas.

Seanchaidh:

Zontar:
Wait I'm confused, since when have corporate Dems and progressive Dems ever once had conflicting interests? Liberal Dems have a longstanding rivalry with both, but I've never heard of the other two having interests that didn't align.

Never, ever comment about politics in the United States ever again.

Given how in Canada and the UK corporatists and progressives are so intermixed and intertwined to the point where it's legitimately hard to tell where one ends and the other begins (such as my PM being very unambiguously both) forgive me for being confused as to what the difference is for them in the US, especially since with the exception of Sanders I've yet to see anyone who people claim to be a progressive who isn't a corporate shill as well.

Sanders, the incompetent, economically illiterate socialist who gets regularly run circles around by high schoolers and is the only person I've ever seen loose a debate against Hillary Clinton or Ted Cruz, is the only one who I can firmly see as being one but not the other.

Samtemdo8:

To be fair he was asking a question first because his opinion was in doubt and asked for clarification.

No, he wasn't. See above: he used the response exclusively as a platform from which to sling shit at the Left, regardless of whether it was relevant to whether or not progressives and corporatists were in line.

Zontar:
15 dollar minimum wage is something anyone with a high school level understanding of economics or above would oppose if they don't have malevolent intentions. If they oppose it, it's a case of accidentally being right for the wrong reasons.

I guess Target is run by morons, then.

Or maybe a high school understanding of economics (which isn't typically taught to most students in high school) isn't sufficient.

Seanchaidh:

I guess Target is run by morons, then.

If you knew how much money they lost trying to operate in Canada before pulling out, you wouldn't say that unirronically. One company, that aims at the upper middle class as its primary demographic, being able to afford it, doesn't change the fact that places like fast food, such as Wendies, cannot mathmatically make it work without significant (40%+) price raises due to how thin margins are for those that aim at the middle and lower class.

There's a reason why when a location adopts a 15$ minimum wage, average income goes down amongst minimum wage users (as hours are cut). I know reality isn't something that people like to confront, and the coming end to low income tax states subsidising high income tax states is another thing people dislike, but economic reality is just that. If everyone could afford the 15$ minimume wage, simple competition would make it happen without the need for government intervention. Factory work isn't a good few bucks above minwage due to unions after all.

Adam Jensen:
Even after losing against Trump and almost losing against a pedophile in Alabama, they're still completely out of touch.

Given the polarisation of US politics and that most Republican voters were never going to believe the allegations against Roy Moore (evil progressive media conspiracy and all that), Roy Moore was always going to keep most of the Republican vote. Given the Republicans would normally carry the seat ~65-35, Moore was always going to still be in with a decent shot.

Zontar:
If you knew how much money they lost trying to operate in Canada before pulling out, you wouldn't say that unirronically.

Why?

Even the cleverest guys on the planet have at some point tried to push through a door saying "pull". Competence is better measured by the sum of activity than any one individual case, because every individual or organisation screws up sometimes.

I know reality isn't something that people like to confront

Is that why you spend so much time presenting gossip and conspiracy theory from Reddit as fact?

and the coming end to low income tax states subsidising high income tax states is another thing people dislike

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Generally, intranationally, wealthy states subsidise poorer because they pay proportionally more in federal tax. The provincial tax rates have little to do with it, because they only go to the provincial budget.

Differences in provincial taxation may affect competitiveness, nudging workers and companies to lower tax provinces. But in practice, I don't see hordes of Canadian workers fleeing to Nunavut for its low provincial tax rates, because economic attractiveness covers far more factors than tax rates.

Hmm, this seems like a more general problem with some of the more financial people in organisations. They tend to see money as the end goal and production as a means to that goal. Such is expected (sadly) from a lot of private organisations but it seems to seep into other institutions as well. See from the perspective of some people a good campaign gets a lot of votes cheap. But from the perspective of the people focussed on income a good campaign raises a lot of money. What that money is used for is of secondary concern. The same can be seen in the production of large scale media and art or in some universities. The purpose of a video game or movie is to make money. Whether it is good is a secondary, more utilitarian, concern. A computer science curriculum which focusses heavily on programming and ignores all that hard math regarding turing machines attracts more students and hence more cash. Preparing people for a PhD? Well PhD's can be syphoned off from the math's department students, right?

Samtemdo8:
To be fair he was asking a question first because his opinion was in doubt and asked for clarification.

I'm pretty sure that was a rethorical question. Even if Zontar (or you) wants to pretend it wasn't (and I'd like to give Zontar more credit than that) its still rather transparent that Zontar is not in much doubt here.

Agema:

Adam Jensen:
Even after losing against Trump and almost losing against a pedophile in Alabama, they're still completely out of touch.

Given the polarisation of US politics and that most Republican voters were never going to believe the allegations against Roy Moore (evil progressive media conspiracy and all that), Roy Moore was always going to keep most of the Republican vote. Given the Republicans would normally carry the seat ~65-35, Moore was always going to still be in with a decent shot.

True, but if you believe that the democrats need to appeal to more leftwing voters rather than what passes for moderate republicans and centrists in the states that would be a good reason why. If people will still vote for a child molester rather than a democrat, they should not be the democrats' campaign's target audience. Both for tactical and for moral reasons.

Zontar:
If everyone could afford the 15$ minimume wage, simple competition would make it happen without the need for government intervention.

Absolutely not. "Simple competition" is what drives wages down; it's not a matter of whether employers can afford the wages. There are few employers and many employees (or unemployed). Employers are in the position of perhaps not making as much profit if they don't hire enough workers. Employees are in the position of losing their house, or not being able to pay their medical bills if they don't sell their labor. And they know that plenty other people are just as desperate to have a job, or yet more desperate. There's your "simple competition". And it militates against higher wages for labor irrespective of whether businesses can afford higher wages.

Republicans want 8 men in the country to have all the money

Democrats want 4 of those men to be women

The Democrats really just don't care about meaningful change or policy; a lot of what the Blue Dogs want is just too close for comfort to what the GOP has been pushing and it's safe to say that it's turned a lot of millennials off on "fiscal" policy. If they don't change their tune they won't have chance against the GOP long-term. Already plenty of leftists like myself are at the point where we may as well make our own party.

So much of your reply was wrong on so many levels, and some stuff I guess I didn't explain right, so I was gearing up for a good half hour to make a reply...

Then I saw this.

Zontar:
This doesn't seem that different from many progressives given the overt white supremacist views many progressives have and that dominates the political side of progressivism.

Zontar, Buddy, Pal, Mon Ami, stuff like that is why I have a lot of trouble thinking your posts are serious.

I've never seen you call out the GOP or anyone on the right for stuff like that, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I would remember that. Despite all the racist dogwhistling that GOP politicians do. Despite the Alt-Right holding a white supremacist rally that led to people being run over. Despite the overt obvious white supremacy of people like Bannon, Jeff Sessions, and Spencer.

And yet, you claim that progressives, who tend to attract the overzealous SJW types in their causes because they already care about social justice causes, or be people you accuse of having "white guilt"...THEY have overt white supremacist views and it dominates the political side of progressivism?

So the actual white supremacists, most of whom are extreme right wingers, they get a pass. But the people who oppose them are the real white supremacists?

Forgive me if this is another moment where you lose credibility with me. Like that time you said Trudeau was a commie sympathizer because he met with chinese leadership and they call themselves commies, so they MUST be commies because that's the name of their party, despite their country not actually running on a communist system at all.

Oh, and to circle back to trudeau...Just because he's a little nuts on the social justice type front doesn't mean he's a progressive. You have to have a people-centric economic vision too.

Agema:

and the coming end to low income tax states subsidising high income tax states is another thing people dislike

I'm not sure what you mean here

A bunch of blue states are suing over the current tax plan because the rich are having to pay their dues. See in the previous tax plans high tax states could have the income they tax at the state and local level be deducted from your federal income tax. So if I made 10 million dollars, and had to pay 40% of that in federal income tax, and 30% of it in state and country/municipal income tax, I'd end up paying 30% on state and local and 10% for the federal government. This is incidentally where a lot of the money for wasteful spending programs that accomplish nothing that New York and California love to talk about getting rid of but never do get funded.

Well in the new tax plan there's a cap on how much you can deduct using this method, 10,000 dollars in taxes. For 99.something of the population, that changes nothing (almost half don't even pay income tax after all), but for the top fraction of a percent in high tax states this is devastating because they're actually going to have to pay what the local Democrats pretend they already do, which means for the first time ever there will be rich people in America who will be taxed as if they where rich people in any other first world country that isn't a city state.

Or more likely the rich will leave even faster then they already are (as California, New York and other high tax states have already been seeing a long standing problem of the rich and middle class leaving for better states to live in, particularly Texas, Washington and Georgia, though Illinois is also seeing significant traffic into it), meaning they'll have to either accept this or lower their taxes and cut a lot of wasteful spending. Since they want to do neither and keep having low tax states like Texas effectively subsidise them, they're suing even though they know it won't work (or at least I hope they aren't so stupid as to think it'll work).

Seanchaidh:

Absolutely not. "Simple competition" is what drives wages down; it's not a matter of whether employers can afford the wages

This is true, and is also why the Labour movement was the one group that was most against immigration before the rich took it over.

There are few employers and many employees (or unemployed). Employers are in the position of perhaps not making as much profit if they don't hire enough workers. Employees are in the position of losing their house, or not being able to pay their medical bills if they don't sell their labor.

You seem to think that every employer is a megacorporation despite the fact that the vast majority (over 95%) of employers have less then 50 employees under them and the vast majority make 5 digit income. The guy who owns the fast food brands you're aware of, they may make a lot of money, but the employers, the guys who own those places, they aren't millionaires, most aren't even upper class, most are upper middle class at best and make margins that, when faced with the minwage going up to 15$, well there's a reason why we've yet to see a single instance of it happening that didn't directly lead to less hours for employees (and thus less pay) and higher prices just to keep the places profitable.

There's a reason why every 10% increase in the minimum wage sees a direct 8% increase in unemployment that only goes down as inflation brings the value of that minwage back to what it was originally to begin with. Given how few people with full time jobs are in poverty, or fuck how few with full time jobs even get paid the minwage, the real, concrete solution to the problem is to enact policies that promote full time job creation instead of solutions that don't work and have objectively only ever benefited part time teenage workers and literally no one else.

aegix drakan:

I've never seen you call out the GOP or anyone on the right for stuff like that, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I would remember that. Despite all the racist dogwhistling that GOP politicians do. Despite the Alt-Right holding a white supremacist rally that led to people being run over. Despite the overt obvious white supremacy of people like Bannon, Jeff Sessions, and Spencer.

Before Trump took over the party I didn't support the GOP and I've never stated anything in support of Bannon,
Sessions or Spencer outside of pointing out that Spencer is morally superior to the people who assaulted him due to the fact that he holds reprehensible beliefs while those who attacked him hold reprehensible beliefs and act in a reprehensible way.

And yet, you claim that progressives, who tend to attract the overzealous SJW types in their causes because they already care about social justice causes, or be people you accuse of having "white guilt"...THEY have overt white supremacist views and it dominates the political side of progressivism?

Much of modern progresivism is built on the notion that white males are inherently superior. Like it or not there's a reason why there is such opposition to a meritocratic system that doesn't take race or sex into account, because like progressive Thomas Johns stated that will lead to white men dominating society. The support for "positive"
discrimination is rooted in a belief that white men are superior to everyone else in the face of reality telling us otherwise,
though Asians now have to deal with that fact since they too are discriminated against (but then again, whether Asians are considered white depends on the phase of the moon these days).

So the actual white supremacists, most of whom are extreme right wingers, they get a pass. But the people who oppose them are the real white supremacists?

You act as if one being white supremacist excludes the other from being the same. That isn't the case, much like how both the Alt Right and Regressive left being socialist at their core doesn't change the fact the other is as well.

Forgive me if this is another moment where you lose credibility with me. Like that time you said Trudeau was a commie sympathizer because he met with chinese leadership and they call themselves commies, so they MUST be commies because that's the name of their party, despite their country not actually running on a communist system at all.

Communism has been tried and it always fails.
This line of reasoning can be used for literally any ideology, under it you also must inherently believe that capitalism and fascism have never been tried and are valid ideas that we should experiment with, because that's the only intellectually honest position someone pretending communism hasn't been tried can take.

Oh, and to circle back to trudeau...Just because he's a little nuts on the social justice type front doesn't mean he's a progressive. You have to have a people-centric economic vision too.

He certainly pushed progressive policies (hell most of the controversies regarding his policies stem form the fact he's pushing explicitly unconstitutional laws into effect in the name of progressivism) and he is most definitely no liberal. He isn't going to lead to a lost decade like his father did, and Sheer will only need one, maybe two terms to fix his mess instead of 30 years of liberal/conservative cooperation in fixing the damage done by his father, but that stems more form the fact he's doomed in the 2019 election.

Zontar:
This doesn't seem that different from many progressives given the overt white supremacist views many progressives have and that dominates the political side of progressivism.

List of progressive that hold overt white supremacist views, please.

Zontar:

Much of modern progresivism is built on the notion that white males are inherently superior. Like it or not there's a reason why there is such opposition to a meritocratic system that doesn't take race or sex into account, because like progressive Thomas Johns stated that will lead to white men dominating society. The support for "positive" discrimination is rooted in a belief that white men are superior to everyone else

First of all, the "positive discrimination" that you're thinking of is an hysterical misinterpretation of something that only sort of exists.

But more to the point, even if it did work the way you think it does, the argument has nothing to do with white people being superior and opposition to a meritocracy. The argument is that we do not have a meritocracy because the lingering effects of centuries of oppression have resulted in certain people being put at a disadvantage relative to others despite having the same potential, and if you want to have a meritocracy then you need to work towards eliminating those lingering effects.

But you don't need to take my word for it. Why don't you try to share some sources here of progressive leaders explicitly stating their belief in the inherent superiority of white men?

undeadsuitor:
Republicans want 8 men in the country to have all the money

Democrats want 4 of those men to be women

Is there such a thing as sad laughter? Because that post caused it in me. Not because I think it's wrong, but because it's dead-on.

Zontar:

There's a reason why every 10% increase in the minimum wage sees a direct 8% increase in unemployment that only goes down as inflation brings the value of that minwage back to what it was originally to begin with.

Every time you've made specific economic claims like this in the past, and I've asked for a source or citation, I've not been provided with anything, and could find nothing myself. Will this be the same? Let's find out!

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here