'17 Specials & '18 Midterms Thread

[ImTheCaptain]

Honestly not trying to stir shit up with you, but I post about plenty of events with legitimate articles that show establishment, centrist Democrats opposing and undermining progressive causes. Me posting more links for you to skim and dismiss isn't going to bring us closer together. Your understanding of party politics seems to be some grand naive vision of strategical geniuses just coincidentally getting rich by "compromising" with moneyed interests, who absolutely oppose their goals. Whatever half-measured bullshit legislation comes out of these comprimises you portray as the definite limit of potential policy progress.

I guess I just disagree that interpreting specific races where the Party pushes back against candidates they think will lose as opposing progressive goals. I don't think your frustration is illegitimate, I think I just disagree with the plausibility of success. Though maybe the Trump administration will prove your strategy more plausible.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Take for instance, the Crapo banking deregulation bill that was just passed. I post a well reasoned op-ed explaining the potential pitfalls of the larger scope of the bill, with multiple sources, and you just ignore it. As if those same 17 Democrats couldnt have introduced legislation limited to helping the smaller banks, without removing the rest of the protections. Then I post multiple things showing how much money those 17 Democrats have received from the investment banks, absolutely proving their self interest in the deregulation efforts. You dismiss it. So why should I post more links for you?

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Take for instance, the Crapo banking deregulation bill that was just passed. I post a well reasoned op-ed explaining the potential pitfalls of the larger scope of the bill, with multiple sources, and you just ignore it. As if those same 17 Democrats couldnt have introduced legislation limited to helping the smaller banks, without removing the rest of the protections. Then I post multiple things showing how much money those 17 Democrats have received from the investment banks, absolutely proving their self interest in the deregulation efforts. You dismiss it. So why should I post more links for you?

I've said all along that compromise is going to happen and I don't always see it as capitulation, especially when the GOP controls all branches of government. It's not surprising that reps from states with heavy banking interests represent their State/Constituent's interests, even if that goes against broader movements.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I can't even make sense of that. The protection and support of the most vulnerable citizens is far more important than the de-regulatory interests of large investment banks, especially when their interests contrast, as they most obviously do here. It's such a lazy disengenious punt on your part to write off legislative efforts like this as just supporting corporate constituents. It's not a given that congressmen will give preference to financial special interests - many congress people don't, in red or blue states. Do you think Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren don't have banking interests in their states? It's a choice, and i'm not going to let you off the hook without acknowledging that.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

I can't even make sense of that. The protection and support of the most vulnerable citizens is far more important than the de-regulatory interests of large investment banks, especially when their interests contrast, as they most obviously do here. It's such a lazy disengenious punt on your part to write off legislative efforts like this as just supporting corporate constituents. That's not a given - many congress people don't, in red or blue states.Are you going to honestly claim that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren don't have banking interests in their states? Its a choice, and i'm not going to let you off the hook without acknowledging that.

that just sounds like you don't like the reality that businesses are also constituents.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

that just sounds like you don't like the reality that businesses are also constituents.

The reality is that subjugation to corporate and large donor special interests isn't the inevitability that you so dishonestly imply it is. You're not even a defeatist, your preferred representatives actively stand in the way of progress.

You had the most popular, charismatic, multicultural pragmatist world leader in history, and what do you have 10 years later? Donald Trump and Republican control of all three branches of government. Your fascination with the myth of a liberal suburban middle class is nothing more than a shitty mcguffin. Your strategy lost, your team lost, give up the ball and get off the court. Or just be honest with yourself and join the Republican party.

 

[Shooshmoo]

The reality is that subjugation to corporate and large donor special interests isn't the inevitability that you so dishonestly imply it is. You're not even a defeatist, your preferred representatives actively stand in the way of progress.

You had the most popular, charismatic, multicultural pragmatist world leader in history, and what do you have 10 years later? Donald Trump and Republican control of all three branches of government. Your fascination with the myth of a liberal suburban middle class is nothing more than a shitty mcguffin. Your strategy lost, your team lost, give up the ball and get off the court. Or just be jonest with yourself and join the Republican party.

Just being jonest here, but stop whining, win some fucking primaries, and I will vote for your candidate over the Republican because I'm not a whiny bitch. And take some responsibility for putting trump in office.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Just being jonest here, but stop whining, win some fucking primaries, and I will vote for your candidate over the Republican because I'm not a whiny bitch. And take some responsibility for putting trump in office.

You must be looking in a mirror, because I sure as fuck didn't put Trump in office. It's very amusing that you think political dissent on the ogboards is THAT powerful, though. What other important world events have been decided here?

 

[BarcaDeac]

The reality is that subjugation to corporate and large donor special interests isn't the inevitability that you so dishonestly imply it is. You're not even a defeatist, your preferred representatives actively stand in the way of progress.

You had the most popular, charismatic, multicultural pragmatist world leader in history, and what do you have 10 years later? Donald Trump and Republican control of all three branches of government. Your fascination with the myth of a liberal suburban middle class is nothing more than a shitty mcguffin. Your strategy lost, your team lost, give up the ball and get off the court. Or just be honest with yourself and join the Republican party.

did you not vote for Obama?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Also "win some primaries" fuck you. Your shit lib incumbent representatives get fucking red-assed hysterical when they are actually primaried from the left, yet when these discussions come up you're excited about the challenge.

Remind me, what did Hillary Clinton say about Bernie regarding him wanting a Democratic primary challenger for Obama in 2012. She thought that was a great idea, huh?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

did you not vote for Obama?

Of course I did. His presidency is still evidence that charisma and charm can only go so far, even for a President. The contrast between his hopeful populist rhetoric as a candidate, and his actual presidency, is stark. He expended way way way too much effort chasing after the approval of his conservative opponents. Obama's naive good faith in conservatives, to ever compromise with him or give him credit, was probably his worst flaw IMO. After a certain point in his presidency, he stopped "dancing with the one that brung him" and started chasing a legacy of being a great compromiser.

 

[BarcaDeac]

your solution seems to be for the Dems to just run progressive candidates everywhere. doesn't really work for everyone. speaking for myself, here are all the places I've been registered to vote in my lifetime:

Florida -- the district is currently served by Matt Gaetz. good luck getting any Dem to win let alone a real progressive
DC -- didn't matter
NC -- I currently live (by about a mile or two judging by Google Maps) in Mark Meadows' district. Good luck on that one, too. And I live just outside the city limits of one of the most progressive cities in the state.

should I just move to Vermont or San Francisco or something?

 

[BarcaDeac]

Of course I did. His presidency is still evidence that charisma and charm can only go so far, even for a President. The contrast between his hopeful populist rhetoric as a candidate, and his actual presidency, is stark. He expended way way way too much effort chasing after the approval of his conservative opponents. Obama's naive good faith in conservatives, to ever compromise with him or give him credit, was probably his worst flaw IMO. After a certain point in his presidency, he stopped "dancing with the one that brung him".

and yet, after Obamacare was passed, Congress went hard to the right. they didn't want to pass anything of his, so not sure how going more progressive would have helped things. and so when you say "your strategy, your team" it's yours as well, since you voted for the guy.

look, I would love things to be more progressive, but it can't just happen overnight. first step is getting some actual Dems in office.

 

[Shooshmoo]

Also "win some primaries" fuck you. Your shit lib incumbent representatives get fucking red-assed hysterical when they are actually primaried from the left, yet when these discussions come up you're excited about the challenge.

Remind me, what did Hillary Clinton say about Bernie regarding him wanting a Democratic primary challenger for Obama in 2012. She thought that was a great idea, huh?

It's not a challenge, dumbass. I will vote for them if I like them better. If the red-assed incumbent engages in dirty tactics or I don't like certain, that will impact my vote. Either way, I'm getting out to vote and voting for the dem. It would be nice if you and your bros did the same

 

[ImTheCaptain]

The reality is that subjugation to corporate and large donor special interests isn't the inevitability that you so dishonestly imply it is. You're not even a defeatist, your preferred representatives actively stand in the way of progress.

You had the most popular, charismatic, multicultural pragmatist world leader in history, and what do you have 10 years later? Donald Trump and Republican control of all three branches of government. Your fascination with the myth of a liberal suburban middle class is nothing more than a shitty mcguffin. Your strategy lost, your team lost, give up the ball and get off the court. Or just be honest with yourself and join the Republican party.

finally a normal dialogue and then Mr. Hyde comes back out. Classy

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

and yet, after Obamacare was passed, Congress went hard to the right. they didn't want to pass anything of his, so not sure how going more progressive would have helped things. and so when you say "your strategy, your team" it's yours as well, since you voted for the guy.

look, I would love things to be more progressive, but it can't just happen overnight. first step is getting some actual Dems in office.

1. Obamacare is highly flawed, much of the criticism was reasonable, and it was not passed in a vacuum.

2. In this context, social "progressivism", authoritary "progressivism", and economic "progressivism" are all seperate, and the belief that red state voters aren't economically "progressive" is mostly bullshit. It's a false narrative maintained by both parties throughout history to discourage a populist movement.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Centrist pundits like Joy Reid have this ignorant shit to say about West Virginia
968554995967758336

The Democratic party dominated West Virginia for 80 fucking years.

"The scope of Democratic dominance in West VirginiaEdit

To measure success of a party, one looks at the extent and depth of the party's electoral success. Out of all the 121 terms of statewide office that have been regularly elected since 1932, only seven were lost by the Democrats. Three of those seven terms were won by the same person, Arch A. Moore Jr. Moore Jr. is the only Republican candidate from West Virginia to fare well in state and national office races. From 1930 to 2014, Democrats have held majorities in both chambers of the West Virginia Legislature.[4]

West Virginia voters almost always prefer the Democratic candidate for national offices. They have sent only two Republicans to the U.S. Senate, one in 1942 and the other in 1956. Out of the 168 contests for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives between 1932 and 1994, Republicans have won just twenty-three times. Six of those victories were secured by Arch A. Moore Jr. The people have voted for a Democratic President in every election except 1956, 1972, and 1984.[5] Since the 2000 election however, Republican candidates for president have enjoyed electoral victories in the state."

Yet, according to the shoos ,ITCs, and Joy Reids, these people are dyed in the wool conservatives and wouldn't support economic populism?

 

[BarcaDeac]

1. Obamacare is highly flawed, much of the criticism was reasonable, and it was not passed in a vacuum.

2. In this context, social "progressivism", authoritary "progressivism", and economic "progressivism" are all seperate, and the belief that red state voters aren't economically "progressive" is mostly bullshit. It's a false narrative maintained by both parties throughout history to discourage a populist movement.

yeah but the people who passed the bill were thoroughly campaigned against. as an anecdote, my sister was interning for Allen Boyd (Blue Dog from FL) at the time of its passage. they had very loud, very vocal protesters at his office on the Hill for months on end after that and plenty of people campaigning to basically send his ass home for being a socialist or whatever. and it worked, he got voted out at the end of 2010. and he's just one of many Dems who lost their seats in the House based upon one bill vote.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

yeah but the people who passed the bill were thoroughly campaigned against. as an anecdote, my sister was interning for Allen Boyd (Blue Dog from FL) at the time of its passage. they had very loud, very vocal protesters at his office on the Hill for months on end after that and plenty of people campaigning to basically send his ass home for being a socialist or whatever. and it worked, he got voted out at the end of 2010. and he's just one of many Dems who lost their seats in the House based upon one bill vote.

Every Democrat passed the bill - they were all labeled as socialists. That still happens nowz the same way every republican attack ad connects every Democrat to Nancy Pelosi and San Francisco values. Where you are wrong is to blame Obamacare for that. There is absolutely no strategy for a Democrat to run away from that.

 

[BarcaDeac]

right, but in more fragile districts like that one, the vote for Obamacare was the deciding issue in getting him bounced from office. and so that was in 2010. how the fuck was Obama going more progressive going to get anything accomplished?