• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official 2020 DNC Thread - VP Kamala; speakers announced

PhDeac said:
SC went for Jackson in 88, Edwards in 04, Obama in 08. None are as progressive as you’d like in 2020 but they were the more progressive candidate at the time.
Click to expand...

I can concede that each election has it's own context, but you just mentioned 2 black candidates and 1 from north carolina, with only 1 of those 3 being significantly more progressive than their opponent. So i'll give you credit for Jesse Jackson, mostly because I don't know shit about the 88 election.
 
PH I agree with you. I actually think the Progressive Party would have to rise out of minority heavy (and safe Dem) districts, which is why "The Squad" and other progressives of color excite me. All you need to do is have a popular incumbent progressive congressperson run for reelection as a member of the Progressive Party. They have the name recognition to get by without the D next to their name and all you need is for that party to gain 5 or 6 Congressional seats and our current corrupt two-party system gets turned on its head.

Grow that number to 15-20 House seats over time, maybe a Senate seat or two, and the Progressive Party becomes king maker. The Democratic Party will have no choice but to move left and work with the Progressive Party in order to get anything accomplished. The Progressive Party can choose to back the Democratic presidential nominee or not.

On the flip side the Democratic Party would probably gain disaffected fiscal conservatives who can't don't associate themselves with nativism, but also don't want to pay a humane tax rate. A win, win for everyone except the racists.
 
Last edited:
myDeaconmyhand said:
I can concede that each election has it's own context, but you just mentioned 2 black candidates and 1 from north carolina, with only 1 of those 3 being significantly more progressive than their opponent. So i'll give you credit for Jesse Jackson, mostly because I don't know shit about the 88 election.
Click to expand...

Why did you choose to dismiss the history rather than say this is a sign that progressive Black or southern candidates may fare well in SC?
 
I also forgot to mention that the nativist GOP party, who would lose their moderate corporatists in this scenario, might be willing to work with the Progressive Party on economic and tax policy. Without the constant misinformation of the GOP corporate leadership poor whites could possibly realize one day how slighted they are in our current economic system.
 
PhDeac said:
Why did you choose to dismiss the history rather than say this is a sign that progressive Black or southern candidates may fare well in SC?
Click to expand...

My original argument was that black voters wouldn't support a "risky" candidate, regarding the concept of nationwide electability, and I conceded that Jesse Jackson was an exception to my argument. Your other two examples, Obama and John Edwards are perfectly inline with the generalization that I made. Rashida Tlaib is far more progressive than either of those two, by a mile.
 
Obama wasn’t a risky candidate?
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
My original argument was that black voters wouldn't support a "risky" candidate, regarding the concept of nationwide electability, and I conceded that Jesse Jackson was an exception to my argument. Your other two examples, Obama and John Edwards are perfectly inline with the generalization that I made. Rashida Tlaib is far more progressive than either of those two, by a mile.
Click to expand...

Why are you focused so hard on the presidential election? Change doesn’t come from the very top. It filters up through local, state, and house elections.
 
PhDeac said:
Obama wasn’t a risky candidate?
Click to expand...

For whom? Ideologically he wasn't risky, IMO, and racially, was he "risky" for black voters? I don't know how to answer that. I think attempting to hold up Barack Obama as an example of a "risky" Presidential candidate, regarding the potential for leftist candidates, is silly. Even if you're serious, you're knowingly avoiding my point.
 
Glad to see that another PH-MDMH pissing match has drowned out my exciting third party plan!
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
For whom? Ideologically he wasn't risky, IMO, and racially, was he "risky" for black voters? I don't know how to answer that. I think attempting to hold up Barack Obama as an example of a "risky" Presidential candidate, regarding the potential for leftist candidates, is silly. Even if you're serious, you're knowingly avoiding my point.
Click to expand...

I responded to your point about voting for progressive candidates by showing who SC Dem primary voters have chosen in the past. You dismissed my response. I suggested that the facts perhaps indicated that a Black and/or southern progressive presidential candidate would fare well in SC.

Then you shifted the argument to "risky." Then you claimed Obama wasn't risky which is a joke. Even saying "ideologically he wasn't risky" is a joke. I just read an article earlier today where the whole premise was that Obama ruined politics for young progressives because he wasn't as progressive as they thought he'd be back in 2008. He ran as a progressive candidate. Again, he wasn't as progressive in 2008 and you'd like in 2020, but it's revisionist history to claim he didn't run as a progressive.

Now you're shifting the argument back to progressive.

I'm responding to all your points and you're dismissing them because it's not the answers you want.

How about this? Give me an example of a "risky" Presidential candidate and we can specifically talk about that candidate.

Brasky, any third party plan is a risk due to basic math. And the idea that white nationalists will align with the left is some pretty ugly wishful thinking.
 
good grief, where the hell did Brasky or I ever call for unity with white nationalists? fuck
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
good grief, where the hell did Brasky or I ever call for unity with white nationalists? fuck
Click to expand...

did you read Brasky's post?

BillBrasky said:
I also forgot to mention that the nativist GOP party, who would lose their moderate corporatists in this scenario, might be willing to work with the Progressive Party on economic and tax policy. Without the constant misinformation of the GOP corporate leadership poor whites could possibly realize one day how slighted they are in our current economic system.
Click to expand...
 
More evidence that MDMH doesn't read posts.
 
So I see we have some more "neoliberals are to the right of the base of the republican party" fan fiction going on here.
 
PhDeac said:
More evidence that MDMH doesn't read posts.
Click to expand...

Oh buddy, I certainly read. It just seems I don't throw around the label "white supremacists" as liberally as you do. You want to speak about contemptuous? Mr. Science & Math, Wake, Duke, Suburban College Professor, what comes to your mind when you read the words "poor whites"? Yeah, perfect platform from which to teach people about sociology.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
did you read Brasky's post?
Click to expand...

PhDeac said:
More evidence that MDMH doesn't read posts.
Click to expand...

Maybe...

c77650ebac1f1d0cbb2f1708eb309287.png
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Oh buddy, I certainly read. It just seems I don't throw around the label "white supremacists" as liberally as you do. You want to speak about contemptuous? Mr. Science & Math, Wake, Duke, Suburban College Professor, what comes to your mind when you read the words "poor whites"? Yeah, perfect platform from which to teach people about sociology.
Click to expand...

The fuck are you going on about?
 
BillBrasky said:
PH I agree with you. I actually think the Progressive Party would have to rise out of minority heavy (and safe Dem) districts, which is why "The Squad" and other progressives of color excite me. All you need to do is have a popular incumbent progressive congressperson run for reelection as a member of the Progressive Party. They have the name recognition to get by without the D next to their name and all you need is for that party to gain 5 or 6 Congressional seats and our current corrupt two-party system gets turned on its head.

Grow that number to 15-20 House seats over time, maybe a Senate seat or two, and the Progressive Party becomes king maker. The Democratic Party will have no choice but to move left and work with the Progressive Party in order to get anything accomplished. The Progressive Party can choose to back the Democratic presidential nominee or not.

On the flip side the Democratic Party would probably gain disaffected fiscal conservatives who can't don't associate themselves with nativism, but also don't want to pay a humane tax rate. A win, win for everyone except the racists.
Click to expand...

I don't think this turns the two-party system on its head. I think what it does is divide the vote to the left of the Republican Party into two factions which allows Republicans to gain a better foothold in previously safe Democrat districts. The Democratic Party wouldn't necessarily have to move left to work with the Progressive Party, they'd just hand the GOP a better chance at winning some of these elections.

As long as you have winner take all single member districts, there is not a very high likelihood that any third party has a legitimate chance at gaining widespread approval and if they do succeed in doing so then the very same winner take all districts would force realignment among the parties back into a two-party system. So you may end up with a realignment as far as ideology goes but you'd end back up with two parties. So maybe the end result is a little better after this process but you're not likely to get much beyond two relatively centrist parties in contrast with one another unless you end up with two increasingly polarized options as a foil with less political certainty from the center.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
The fuck are you going on about?
Click to expand...

oh fuck you. you're not gaslighting me - Brasky's post specifically referenced "poor whites", and even the worst fucking translation of nativists doesnt equal white supremacists. I've been saying this horseshit party is just turning into an elitist middle class party that wants to marginalize everyone else. You all are just trading racism for classism, and yeah i'm really fucking contemptuous of classism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top