Ocasio-Cortez beats Crowley (NY-14 Democratic Primary)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

CaitSeith:

WolvDragon:

CaitSeith:

If Trump is so unpopular, how did all republican candidates lost to him at the primaries?

I answered your previous question, now you're just moving the goal post.

How so? Since my first question my goalpost has been that losing to a reality tv star was as shameful in the Republican primaries for his opponents as in the presidential elections.

He's unpopular with a majority of voters in the country, which is combined of independents and democrats and a minority of republicans, he is still popular with the republican base.

To go even deeper, his GOP primary opponents all ran shitty campaigns or had shitty outcomes during the primaries. Jeb Bush, was mocked for being low in energy by Trump, he once asked people at a campaign event to clap after he finished a speech. Marco Rubio lost his home state of Florida against Trump and that caused him to get out of the race. Ted Cruz did decent, but he lost so many states and primaries that a path to the nomination looked impossible. Ben Carson...he just ran a really bad campaign. People weren't aware he even ran for president (joking about that). Then there's all the attacks Trump hurled at his opponents "Lyin Ted" "Little Marco," Low Energy Jeb". And let's not forget the media giving him billions of dollars in free air time.

Does that answer your question?

I just want to know in what universe Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz should be considered great beacons of competence and political savvy. We're talking about a party for whom the best they could muster for eight whole years was George W. Bush. A party that thought that Sarah Palin was a good Vice Presidential pick. A party that thought a literal robber baron was a good look for President in 2012.

Obama should not be too seriously congratulated for winning in 2008 and 2012; that should have been easy given the state that the country had been left in. His real accomplishment was in doing so without having to exorcise the Democratic Party of its reliance on the approval of reactionary capitalists. For that he needed charisma and for a large number of people to want not to make too much trouble for him personally. The complex of racist and unfair attacks on him from the right (and their representation of him as some kind of "radical" or "socialist") no doubt helped engage that tribalism in his favor among liberals and even parts of the left.

The result is that Obama got to say on television that he had delivered to us a "recovery"; implying, of course, that all the millions of people who had not in fact recovered probably weren't going to any time soon. Implying as well that if one personally was not part of that recovery, there's probably something wrong with that person-- and in any case, no help was coming as victory had been declared. A politically toxic implication, one that perhaps he was not aware he was making being so completely immersed in the Washington bubble, but nevertheless there it was.

The defense for all this? It could have been worse! Great, what a wonderful message. It is true, sure-- the rather quieted Keynesian fiscal policy did prevent a more extreme swing downward in the business cycle (an appropriate Keynesian countercyclical policy should have been much larger in its deficit and much better targeted at the pocketbooks of the poor). But it can always be worse. And there is absolutely no reason it should have been worse and plenty of ways it could have been much better if Democrats had been willing from the beginning to make bold proposals and go to some lengths to get them accomplished. But that would have required them to have bold ideas and not be paid by the people who actually did benefit from their policies: owners of capital, not limited to but especially financial capital.

The signature achievement of the Obama administration was as overcomplicated in its form as it was underperforming in its delivery, and as much a massive giveaway to the health insurance industry as it was a relief to some of the uninsured. And that's being kind. It was preemptive surrender dressed up as reform. It was the pretense of a humane policy.

The GOP, for its part, helped sell the illusion that it was going to do something substantial (at least among liberals) by opposing it so doggedly.

Both parties are doing what they are paid to do. Take turns governing with conservative, racist, openly warring against the poor capitalism and then switch it up with somewhat less racist capitalism that makes its war against the poor less obvious-- and receive less coverage in order to indulge the illusion that there is a substantial difference between the politics of the two parties. There isn't such a major difference; one is the good cop, the other is the bad cop and they are both there to do one thing: protect capitalism. The GOP sells increasingly rancid and hysterical christian white nationalism, and the Democrats sell incremental social progress with a few band-aids to the most egregious problems ordinary people face because of capitalism (generally in the least efficient or effective way possible, because profits, but they tried and you should really thank them for not being as bad as the other guys).

Obama was a relatively charismatic (as far as US presidents go) guy who won against two nincompoops after another nincompoop wasted trillions on what became an unpopular war and then suffered the largest financial crisis in decades. Neither of these parties are efficient at turning out quality candidates; that's not what the money wants. They want effective maintenance of capitalism. Quiet the rabble and if possible rig the economic situation or outright loot the treasury for your biggest donors. These are people whose fundamental skillset is fundraising, not legislating or campaigning. They've bought into the idea that they "have to". They're surrounded by people who they pay lots of money to tell them that they "have to". And the most successful fundraisers are precisely those who inspire the least fear among political investors: they're selected to be dumb. They're selected to be inconsistent, muddled, shameless pieces of shit. They're selected to have no inclination to think outside the narrow constraints of Respectable Discourse™ in Washington D.C.. They are selected, in short, to be mediocre individuals who not only don't want to change the system but wouldn't be able to figure out how to do so even if they did. And yes, plenty of such people graduate from Harvard or Yale every year.

Hillary Clinton is not uniquely incapable. She is not uniquely corrupt. She is not uniquely subservient to capital. But she yet remains a dogshit speaker, a dogshit campaigner, a dogshit source of ideas; the Democrats have no excuse to lose to a reality star like Trump except that they couldn't square the difference between what the people wanted and what their sources of funding wanted. That's obviously a poor excuse for losing and so it is fair to call them incompetent-- or worse. To say that corporate-funded Democrats like Hillary Clinton are merely incompetent is probably too kind.

For their putative purpose, winning elections, they are abysmal (the Republicans, such as they are, really shouldn't be winning anything against a competent political party that was actually interested primarily in winning). For their real purpose, maintaining capitalism for their donors (same purpose as the GOP), they have been adequate at least until recently. And we'll see just how adequate in that respect they continue to be.

Meiam:

And I'm not saying that the private sector will be destroyed, I'm saying that this will cause many jobs in the private sector to stop existing because people wouldn't work them since they would always have the choice of taking the guaranteed federal job. Why would someone take a 15$ job in the private sector, when they could have the 15$ job in the federal version with better healthcare coverage and such? To compete the private sector would have to pay a lot more for even very mundane job, which would just cost them money, so they won't. So the system would destroy real valuable job to create fake useless one, I can't think of many worse economic policy.

Sorry this is from a bit ago but I have to say...

If the private sector cannot offer what sounds like a pretty basic wage and healthcare to people then the problem might be that the private sector is expecting too much of their workers for too little.

The Decapitated Centaur:

Meiam:

And I'm not saying that the private sector will be destroyed, I'm saying that this will cause many jobs in the private sector to stop existing because people wouldn't work them since they would always have the choice of taking the guaranteed federal job. Why would someone take a 15$ job in the private sector, when they could have the 15$ job in the federal version with better healthcare coverage and such? To compete the private sector would have to pay a lot more for even very mundane job, which would just cost them money, so they won't. So the system would destroy real valuable job to create fake useless one, I can't think of many worse economic policy.

Sorry this is from a bit ago but I have to say...

If the private sector cannot offer what sounds like a pretty basic wage and healthcare to people then the problem might be that the private sector is expecting too much of their workers for too little.

And if too much for too little is "the market rate", then maybe the system is the problem and we can do better.

Seanchaidh:

The Decapitated Centaur:

Meiam:

And I'm not saying that the private sector will be destroyed, I'm saying that this will cause many jobs in the private sector to stop existing because people wouldn't work them since they would always have the choice of taking the guaranteed federal job. Why would someone take a 15$ job in the private sector, when they could have the 15$ job in the federal version with better healthcare coverage and such? To compete the private sector would have to pay a lot more for even very mundane job, which would just cost them money, so they won't. So the system would destroy real valuable job to create fake useless one, I can't think of many worse economic policy.

Sorry this is from a bit ago but I have to say...

If the private sector cannot offer what sounds like a pretty basic wage and healthcare to people then the problem might be that the private sector is expecting too much of their workers for too little.

And if too much for too little is "the market rate", then maybe the system is the problem and we can do better.

Exactly

There's a serious problem if people are expecting others to work for insufficient amounts and suddenly guaranteeing a sufficient amount from another source is seen as too competitive. Like... what, were you expecting people to be taking jobs that offer less than this?

I used to a social democrat until I realized that building height restrictions and Social Dem zoning laws are crap, and what makes San Francisco property values so high.

In San Francisco in order to build a building at market rate, you need to build some affordable housing buildings, AND you need to be approved by the community of which are a mixture of DSA, Rent-seeking NIMBYs, and Rent-seeking property owners, and rent-controlled renters.

This comes at the expense of new people who want coming to the city to get a job and immigrants.

Social Dem building regulations are exclusionary, implicitly racist like the gated community suburbs they hate so much.

Gergar12:
I used to a social democrat until I realized that building height restrictions and Social Dem zoning laws are crap, and what makes San Francisco property values so high.

In San Francisco in order to build a building at market rate, you need to build some affordable housing buildings, AND you need to be approved by the community of which are a mixture of DSA, Rent-seeking NIMBYs, and Rent-seeking property owners, and rent-controlled renters.

This comes at the expense of new people who want coming to the city to get a job and immigrants.

Social Dem building regulations are exclusionary, implicitly racist like the gated community suburbs they hate so much.

That, uh, seems like a rather parochial issue to have with Social Democracy. But by all means, support more radical reforms/revolution instead anyway.

Seanchaidh:

Gergar12:
I used to a social democrat until I realized that building height restrictions and Social Dem zoning laws are crap, and what makes San Francisco property values so high.

In San Francisco in order to build a building at market rate, you need to build some affordable housing buildings, AND you need to be approved by the community of which are a mixture of DSA, Rent-seeking NIMBYs, and Rent-seeking property owners, and rent-controlled renters.

This comes at the expense of new people who want coming to the city to get a job and immigrants.

Social Dem building regulations are exclusionary, implicitly racist like the gated community suburbs they hate so much.

That, uh, seems like a rather parochial issue to have with Social Democracy. But by all means, support more radical reforms/revolution instead anyway.

And what does this all have to do with Social Democracy anyway? Please enlighten me.

WolvDragon:

Seanchaidh:

Gergar12:
I used to a social democrat until I realized that building height restrictions and Social Dem zoning laws are crap, and what makes San Francisco property values so high.

In San Francisco in order to build a building at market rate, you need to build some affordable housing buildings, AND you need to be approved by the community of which are a mixture of DSA, Rent-seeking NIMBYs, and Rent-seeking property owners, and rent-controlled renters.

This comes at the expense of new people who want coming to the city to get a job and immigrants.

Social Dem building regulations are exclusionary, implicitly racist like the gated community suburbs they hate so much.

That, uh, seems like a rather parochial issue to have with Social Democracy. But by all means, support more radical reforms/revolution instead anyway.

And what does this all have to do with Social Democracy anyway? Please enlighten me.

I guess the landlords are all members of DSA maybe? That must be the case, because socialists are known for their love of landlords.

renegade7:

WolvDragon:

Seanchaidh:

That, uh, seems like a rather parochial issue to have with Social Democracy. But by all means, support more radical reforms/revolution instead anyway.

And what does this all have to do with Social Democracy anyway? Please enlighten me.

I guess the landlords are all members of DSA maybe? That must be the case, because socialists are known for their love of landlords.

The DSA aren't Social Democrats though.

Seanchaidh:

What does this say about the future of US politics?

The main take-away is this: the Left has returned to the US in force.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex isn't an isolated incident. Majorities, in fact large majorities, of adults in the US now believe that we should have single-payer healthcare. Universal basic income is no longer a fringe idea, at least one 2020 candidate (Andrew Yang) is openly embracing the idea. And if current trends continue, it will only be a few years before opinion polls start to show that a majority of Americans don't favor capitalism.

But if you really need proof, just look at how aggressively the status quo warriors are shitting their pants over this. They're scared, and they've got good reason to be. The behavior that we're seeing from the right wing is not the behavior of people who feel as though their positions in power are secure.

renegade7:

Seanchaidh:

What does this say about the future of US politics?

The main take-away is this: the Left has returned to the US in force.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex isn't an isolated incident. Majorities, in fact large majorities, of adults in the US now believe that we should have single-payer healthcare. Universal basic income is no longer a fringe idea, at least one 2020 candidate (Andrew Yang) is openly embracing the idea. And if current trends continue, it will only be a few years before opinion polls start to show that a majority of Americans don't favor capitalism.

But if you really need proof, just look at how aggressively the status quo warriors are shitting their pants over this. They're scared, and they've got good reason to be. The behavior that we're seeing from the right wing is not the behavior of people who feel as though their positions in power are secure.

It'll be a very long time, or heck several life times before any progressive policies are put into place and we're about to get a very hard right SCOTUS who can just screw things up even further for progressives.

The U.S. isn't gonna get those porgressive policies at all.

WolvDragon:

renegade7:

WolvDragon:

And what does this all have to do with Social Democracy anyway? Please enlighten me.

I guess the landlords are all members of DSA maybe? That must be the case, because socialists are known for their love of landlords.

The DSA aren't Social Democrats though.

Really because I haven't seen one of them want a command-economy.

Seanchaidh:

Gergar12:
I used to a social democrat until I realized that building height restrictions and Social Dem zoning laws are crap, and what makes San Francisco property values so high.

In San Francisco in order to build a building at market rate, you need to build some affordable housing buildings, AND you need to be approved by the community of which are a mixture of DSA, Rent-seeking NIMBYs, and Rent-seeking property owners, and rent-controlled renters.

This comes at the expense of new people who want coming to the city to get a job and immigrants.

Social Dem building regulations are exclusionary, implicitly racist like the gated community suburbs they hate so much.

That, uh, seems like a rather parochial issue to have with Social Democracy. But by all means, support more radical reforms/revolution instead anyway.

I agree with the healthcare system, and the general ideology of reducing income inequality, I don't agree with regulations design akin to I win you lose, that is what we are trying to avoid.

Also many social dem. European and Progressive cities like San Francisco have building height restrictions. It's not a very functional way to run a city. Cities need to have medium sized buildings to large size skyscrapers.

On the other head of the spectrum Hong Kong limits the number of buildings that can be build because developers want the prices high, they are also wrong. That's what happens when you let the free market dictate the terms. Also, you have many fuel-inefficient cities in America like Phoenix Arizona where single-family homes are subsided by the US government and thus contribute to climate change.

Also, a DSA affiliate in New York literally would rather have a paid non-public garden instead of an apartment complex for people. Boo.

Gergar12:

WolvDragon:

renegade7:

I guess the landlords are all members of DSA maybe? That must be the case, because socialists are known for their love of landlords.

The DSA aren't Social Democrats though.

Really because I haven't seen one of them want a command-economy.

Yes really https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/

WolvDragon:

Gergar12:

WolvDragon:

The DSA aren't Social Democrats though.

Really because I haven't seen one of them want a command-economy.

Yes really https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production this is according to Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey.

Bernie Sanders does not want his shoe shop to be under the control of the government, maybe the employees, but not the government. Also, don't buy into the Republican lie that the police stations and the military are socialist aka everything in the government, they are a mixed economy things. Bernie Sanders and the DSA are asking for the Mixed economy that skews towards more government spending vs traditional Anglo-Saxon neoliberalism which is a "lighter" Mixed economy more depended on the free market.

The Nordic countries are all social democracies and mixed economies. The debate is over which mixed economy does best.

Edit: 50% tax rate does not necessarily make you a more free market economy vs a 40% tax rate, lots of rent-seeking regulations, and inefficient subsidies.

Gergar12:

WolvDragon:

Gergar12:

Really because I haven't seen one of them want a command-economy.

Yes really https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production this is according to Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey.

Bernie Sanders does not want his shoe shop to be under the control of the government, maybe the employees, but not the government. Also, don't buy into the Republican lie that the police stations and the military are socialist aka everything in the government, they are a mixed economy things. Bernie Sanders and the DSA are asking for the Mixed economy that skews towards more government spending vs traditional Anglo-Saxon neoliberalism which is a "lighter" Mixed economy more depended on the free market.

The Nordic countries are all social democracies and mixed economies. The debate is over which mixed economy does best.

Edit: 50% tax rate does not necessarily make you a more free market economy vs a 40% tax rate, lots of rent-seeking regulations, and inefficient subsidies.

Hugo Chavez was a democratic socialists, which isn't the same as being a social democrat.

WolvDragon:

Gergar12:

WolvDragon:

Yes really https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production this is according to Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey.

Bernie Sanders does not want his shoe shop to be under the control of the government, maybe the employees, but not the government. Also, don't buy into the Republican lie that the police stations and the military are socialist aka everything in the government, they are a mixed economy things. Bernie Sanders and the DSA are asking for the Mixed economy that skews towards more government spending vs traditional Anglo-Saxon neoliberalism which is a "lighter" Mixed economy more depended on the free market.

The Nordic countries are all social democracies and mixed economies. The debate is over which mixed economy does best.

Edit: 50% tax rate does not necessarily make you a more free market economy vs a 40% tax rate, lots of rent-seeking regulations, and inefficient subsidies.

Hugo Chavez was a democratic socialist, which isn't the same as being a social democrat.

He and Maduro were authoritarian socialists who seized companies "for the people" he was a crappy one at that putting all his faith into a volatile commodity. His welfare state literally depended on oil standing above 100 dollars a barrel when their are electric cars, and cities are banning plastic left, and right.

He can call himself a democratic socialist all he likes but democratic socialism does not seize private property, and least they aren't telling us that.

Gergar12:

WolvDragon:

Gergar12:

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production this is according to Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey.

Bernie Sanders does not want his shoe shop to be under the control of the government, maybe the employees, but not the government. Also, don't buy into the Republican lie that the police stations and the military are socialist aka everything in the government, they are a mixed economy things. Bernie Sanders and the DSA are asking for the Mixed economy that skews towards more government spending vs traditional Anglo-Saxon neoliberalism which is a "lighter" Mixed economy more depended on the free market.

The Nordic countries are all social democracies and mixed economies. The debate is over which mixed economy does best.

Edit: 50% tax rate does not necessarily make you a more free market economy vs a 40% tax rate, lots of rent-seeking regulations, and inefficient subsidies.

Hugo Chavez was a democratic socialist, which isn't the same as being a social democrat.

He and Maduro were authoritarian socialists who seized companies "for the people" he was a crappy one at that putting all his faith into a volatile commodity. His welfare state literally depended on oil standing above 100 dollars a barrel when their are electric cars, and cities are banning plastic left, and right.

He can call himself a democratic socialist all he likes but democratic socialism does not seize private property, and least they aren't telling us that.

The DSA are also authoritarian leftits. So they're not social democrats.

WolvDragon:

Gergar12:

WolvDragon:

Hugo Chavez was a democratic socialist, which isn't the same as being a social democrat.

He and Maduro were authoritarian socialists who seized companies "for the people" he was a crappy one at that putting all his faith into a volatile commodity. His welfare state literally depended on oil standing above 100 dollars a barrel when their are electric cars, and cities are banning plastic left, and right.

He can call himself a democratic socialist all he likes but democratic socialism does not seize private property, and least they aren't telling us that.

The DSA are also authoritarian leftits. So they're not social democrats.

Your power-level is showing.

The DSA are very much democratic socialists. It's just that the US has been demonizing neo-liberalism, the politics of Thatcher and Reagan, as "commu-socialism" for so long that they don't have the language to deal with somebody who's actually on the left.

altnameJag:

WolvDragon:

Gergar12:

He and Maduro were authoritarian socialists who seized companies "for the people" he was a crappy one at that putting all his faith into a volatile commodity. His welfare state literally depended on oil standing above 100 dollars a barrel when their are electric cars, and cities are banning plastic left, and right.

He can call himself a democratic socialist all he likes but democratic socialism does not seize private property, and least they aren't telling us that.

The DSA are also authoritarian leftits. So they're not social democrats.

Your power-level is showing.

The DSA are very much democratic socialists. It's just that the US has been demonizing neo-liberalism, the politics of Thatcher and Reagan, as "commu-socialism" for so long that they don't have the language to deal with somebody who's actually on the left.

And yours is showing as well. And again democratic socialism is different from social democracy.

Gergar12:
He can call himself a democratic socialist all he likes but democratic socialism does not seize private property, and least they aren't telling us that.

Even capitalism seizes private property, ever heard of eminent domain? The question is whether the policy of seizing private property arose because of a democratic process.

WolvDragon:
And yours is showing as well. And again democratic socialism is different from social democracy.

DSA is a multi-tendency organization. It includes social democrats, democratic socialists, and others.

An opinion on how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was able to pull it off: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbn58/how-twitter-helps-leftists-like-alexandria-ocasio-cortez

Definitely seeing a lot of leftist candidates on Twitter, I will say. Some have a better social media presence than others. Ocasio-Cortez was and is one of the stronger ones.

Oh, my heavens! A counter-revolution: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/sanders-wing-party-terrifies-moderate-dems-here-s-how-they-n893381

I can't wait for the struggle sessions.

Seanchaidh:
Oh, my heavens! A counter-revolution: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/sanders-wing-party-terrifies-moderate-dems-here-s-how-they-n893381

I can't wait for the struggle sessions.

"Party members and fundraisers gathered for an invitation-only event to figure out how to counteract the rising progressive movement."

Now that's comedy.

Seanchaidh:
Oh, my heavens! A counter-revolution: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/sanders-wing-party-terrifies-moderate-dems-here-s-how-they-n893381

I can't wait for the struggle sessions.

The lanyards are revolting!

BreakfastMan:

Seanchaidh:
Oh, my heavens! A counter-revolution: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/sanders-wing-party-terrifies-moderate-dems-here-s-how-they-n893381

I can't wait for the struggle sessions.

The lanyards are revolting!

And they're also in revolt.

"Republicans have chosen the far right, which means that they have ceded a good portion of the middle of the road," said former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, who is considering a presidential run. "The Democrats, in my opinion, would make a big mistake if they decide to run a base election and just say, ?Our base is bigger than your base.'"

I called it again, they want to move right to become the Republicans. They would rather be Republicans than actually do anything to appease the left.

crimson5pheonix:

"Republicans have chosen the far right, which means that they have ceded a good portion of the middle of the road," said former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, who is considering a presidential run. "The Democrats, in my opinion, would make a big mistake if they decide to run a base election and just say, ?Our base is bigger than your base.'"

I called it again, they want to move right to become the Republicans. They would rather be Republicans than actually do anything to appease the left.

They want to make a grand coalition with all 50 never-trump conservatives in the US.

crimson5pheonix:

"Republicans have chosen the far right, which means that they have ceded a good portion of the middle of the road," said former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, who is considering a presidential run. "The Democrats, in my opinion, would make a big mistake if they decide to run a base election and just say, ?Our base is bigger than your base.'"

I called it again, they want to move right to become the Republicans. They would rather be Republicans than actually do anything to appease the left.

It's a basic strategic error. On paper, if your opponent has alienated key allies, it makes sense for you to make overtures to those allies in the hopes of depleting his support and adding to your own. But in reality, Republicans are too hidebound and partisan to actually cross the aisle like that. A political migration of that scale hasn't happened in the US since before the Civil War - ironically, when the Republican Party was founded by a union of abolitionist ex-Democrats and establishment Whigs.

There are still a lot of Democrats who make that mistake. Right now, what's needed is for the Democrats to invigorate their base - particularly all the people who would vote Democrat, but who abstain out of apathy or disillusionment. They've had the popular vote locked down for over a decade. They just need to mobilise it.

You ask me, the reason why the Democrat's projected lead in the midterms has faltered in recent months has less to do with Trump suddenly becoming more popular and more to do with Democrats being disillusioned by the DACA shutdown debacle at the start of the year. Schumer chose the easy way over the smart way. Backing down on DACA netted the party a lot of real, material concessions in the budget, but the optics of it were terrible.

Now, there's an opportunity for that to change with the family separation kerfuffle, the devastatingly high Puerto Rican death toll, and Trump's roller-coaster crash of a European tour. But they need to bang their hands on the table and shout about those issues so that people don't forget about them. It's easy to forget, for example, that twice as many Americans died in Hurricane Maria than died in Hurricane Katrina, and that the federal government worked to cover that up by fudging the death toll by an order of magnitude. That's a huge goddamn scandal. It's not getting the attention it ought to, and I think that's because Democrats don't think they can mobilise the "moderates" by pointing to the deaths of thousands of second-class citizens who most Americans mistake for foreigners.

That's a mistake. They won't win by tacitly smoothing over the current administration's obvious racism in the name of appearing approachable and welcoming to potential defectors. But they can win by mobilising the Hispanic voters who feel like neither party represents them, and there's no better way to do that than by hammering home the fact that the current administration is willing to literally let American citizens die on the basis that they're brown and speak Spanish.

bastardofmelbourne:
ironically, when the Republican Party was founded by a union of abolitionist ex-Democrats and establishment Whigs.

What is more accurate to say is that the Whig party disintegrated because it was centrist on the issue of slavery.

* * *

In other news, the establishment is quite shook that Ocasio-Cortez is popular, and is grasping at straws to come up with any reason they can find to oppose her. The latest, Tom Watson and a bunch of other liberals (sometimes known as "shitlib twitter"), which Katie Halper criticizes here:

Of course the answer is that "two dudes in Kansas" share her political beliefs, and electing them would help her agenda become law. Sharice Davids, on the other hand, does not share her political beliefs; doesn't endorse Medicare-for-All, and is less progressive on a range of other issues. It's almost like there are things that are more important than gender and skin color.

https://ballotpedia.org/Sharice_Davids

"Davids earned her associate's degree in liberal arts from Johnson County Community College in 2003, her B.A. in business administration from the University of Missouri-Kansas City in 2007, and her J.D. from Cornell Law School in 2010.[2]

Davids' career experience includes working as a White House Fellow in the Department of Transportation, as chair of the board of directors of Twelve Clans, Inc. for the Ho-Chunk Nation, as deputy director for the Thunder Valley Community Development Corporation on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, as director of economic development at Red Cloud Indian School, as an associate at SNR Denton, and worked as of-counsel at Ceiba Legal."

Brent Welder on the other hand.

2015-2016: Bernie Sanders for President; Senior Advisor
2010-2016: National Designated Legal Counsel, BMWE Division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
2008: International Brotherhood of Teamsters; National Campaigns Coordinator and National Field Director
2012: Graduated from Saint Louis University School of Law with a J.D.
2007-2008: Obama for America; Senior Field Staff
2007: U.S. Congressman Patrick J. Murphy; Outreach Director
2006: Patrick Murphy for U.S. Congress; GOTV Director
2003-2004: John Kerry for President; Regional Field Director/National Press Assistant
2003: Graduated from Iowa State University with a B.A. in political science and journalism

You know, after seeing a whole bunch of Republican former mouthpieces back Cohen's Gunimals and Kinderguardians program and how 4 year olds could benefit from 'practical understanding of mortar operations' ...

Maybe there's some hope yet for American democracy.

Social Democracy, of the kind offered by Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is the rightmost edge of where politics starts to coherently address issues of wealth inequality and the dominance of wealth over our political system. And in the least drastic way possible. If you're scared by the socialism of Ocasio-Cortez, then you'll be terrified of real economic justice.

Gergar12:
https://ballotpedia.org/Sharice_Davids

Perhaps more relevant is that Brent Welder and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are both Justice Democrats who share a platform. Career and campaign positions are (or should be) somewhat less relevant than policy agenda when it comes to who gets a politician's endorsement. If you're not endorsing to advance your own agenda, what are you doing?

Seanchaidh:

That video. Jesus christ, shut your goddamn piehole and let the other people say something. Is this really the people you want to invite to your shows?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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