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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 

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.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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