|
On November 11 2018 07:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 06:06 ChristianS wrote:On November 11 2018 05:12 Danglars wrote: I imagine that some of the more regular posters here would look up whether Palm Beach has an African American supervisor of elections to make sure xDaunt didn't commit racist dog-whistle. I love how silly all the childish political plays look these days. I feel like this country has deserved Trumpian levels of political dialogue these past ten years or more. I'm reminded a little of LL's + Show Spoiler +say his name three times snd he'll appear old habit of intentionally saying the Ukraine (with emphasis) specifically because he knew it bothered people. Politics aside for a moment. If there's more than one way for you to say something, and people don't like one of those ways because to them it implies an ugly sentiment you never meant to imply, why wouldn't you just say it some other way? Or if you already said it and they're upset, why wouldn't you just say "I didn't mean to imply that ugly sentiment, I don't agree with that ugly sentiment, and I'll say that thing a different way next time to avoid this confusion"? That seems like the obvious tactful response. I mean, I can imagine reasons to keep saying it the way that offends people. Maybe offending people is the goal. Maybe you do actually agree with the sentiment they find ugly, or at least you're not sure you disagree with it, or you have some other reason to want to leave that door open. But if you're not an asshole and don't agree with the ugly sentiment, I don't understand why you wouldn't just say it differently. The purpose of commmunication, after all, is to convey your thoughts to other people, and if your choice of words is conveying something you didn't intend, then you're not communicating very effectively. To apply this to politics again, then: many people, both racists and anti-racists, think the phrase "monkey it up" implies racist sentiments, or at least it can contextually. If you're anti-racist and have no desire to embolden racists and offend anti-racists, why wouldn't you just a) not use the phrase in the first place, or b) if you already used it, clarify that you didn't mean to imply racist sentiments, you think racism is terrible, and you'll try to avoid the phrase in the future? I’d like to mimic your language to show my perspective. Many people think common phrases like “monkey it up” have nothing to do with racist undertones, and think their continuance is just conversation as usual. So what to do when a group suggests and asserts you meant it as a dog-whistle, it’s more likely than not you’re signalling to racists, and the whole affair emboldens racism and white supremacy? You dismiss those complaints made by the low partisans making them. They have hay to make and readily resort to accusations of racism on a slow news day or when a candidate isn’t doing so well. My biggest issue with this is that you're basically taking as a given the accusations are made in bad faith. Do you think P6 et al. secretly knew DeSantis had no racist intent and hates the idea of racists voting for him, but they're just engaging in an influence campaign to swing the votes of TLers? Or do you think that, maybe, the reason they say "that's racist" is because they actually think it's racist?
The worst thing you can do is show their poor attempts to flag phrases in common use is readily accepted and their point gained. It just emboldens their next conquest: white allyship, “where are you from?,” mansplaining, MS-13 animals. This is a great example of the communication thing. You've chosen these shorthands for all the "low partisans'" next "conquests" that leave me very confused what you actually think on those subjects. Are you opposed to "white allyship"? Do you think men aren't prone to condescending tones in discussing certain subjects with women? If I say the question "where are you from" can be impolite in certain contexts because it can focus attention on someone's ethnicity, do you think I'm a "low partisan" guilty of needing a subject on a slow news day? Those questions are rhetorical, only because each of those subjects is a whole topic of its own and we'll never have time to discuss them all simultaneously. But do you see how someone might read that and think you are opposed to the idea of whites allying with minorities?
Now, you’ve tried the whole “politics aside for a moment,” so I’ll try to make the only nuanced point that is devoid from politics. “People” don’t think it “implies an ugly sentiment,” but some “people” think it’s code words for a very nasty intent to punish minorities. That’s not a sentiment, that’s an accusation of malintent. That goes far beyond the part of politeness that is primarily given to individuals and sometimes to groups. Certain coarse and demeaning language falls under that label. Not the secretive racist implication towards furthering white supremacy with a wink and a nod. If the matter was only causing offense and being impolite, that would be quite another thing indeed. That's true, they think you're implying it purposefully, not just incidentally. But if you really wanted to combat the idea that you're secretly allying with horrible people, the easiest way would be to express your opposition to those people in no uncertain terms. Make clear not just that you don't ally with racists, but why you don't ally with racists.
Part of the problem here is that people (white people, especially) have started to think of racism as a set of traffic laws you're just supposed to follow, or at least not get caught breaking. If you follow the rules, you're not racist; if you slip up and say or do something you shouldn't, you pay the penalty. But even if you successfully avoid saying or doing anything racist, all you've managed to be is "not racist." But isn't racism supposed to be something we all despise? Why would we only aspire to neutrality on the subject?
I really think the language here is abused by a minority, certainly showing by DeSantis’s numbers and the reaction, so, as a matter of fact, the language is used plainly to convey the information to the listener and does so quite well. It’s only the part of society that wishes they had the secret decoder rings and people like DeSantis didn’t know they posted them that try (with you, perhaps succeed) to convince others it’s dog whistle racism. DeSantis' numbers rising certainly doesn't prove that a large majority of people think his language was innocuous. There's any number of hypotheses that could account for his number rising - maybe all the people who disagreed with that language were already opposed to him. Or maybe the "dog whistle" worked. Personally I think it's perfectly obvious why saying Florida electing a black man would be "monkeying it up" might be questionable language for someone not trying to imply something they don't mean, but I don't think that proves intent. I don't doubt he uses the phrase regularly, and it wouldn't surprise me if the racial subtext didn't occur to him when he said it. A simple "I didn't mean anything racist by it, I think racism is bad" would be plenty for me. But these days, Republicans need that "bad boy" edgelord image to fire up the base, and an unfortunate consequence is a refusal to clarify questionable phrasings or, often, a refusal express any meaningful opposition to racism at all.
|
On November 11 2018 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 08:20 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2018 07:38 Plansix wrote: Meanwhile, as Trump wastes tax dollars doing nothing, accomplishing nothing and forcing troops to miss thanksgiving, we are thankful for a strong leader who couldn’t make it to a memorial service in the rain.
He straight up forgot about these troops.
Trump can monkey it up with the worst of them it seems. Silver lining is the next time he wants to use the military and millions tax dollars for a pathetic political show the generals will have to resist harder. I applaud your use of monkey it up. Also, what do you mean "the generals will have to resist harder." He is their commander in chief. Yeah, but he's wholly and completely militarily incompetent. His generals have to explain even the most rudimentary logistics to him and he's demonstrated he's unwilling or incapable of absorbing that kind of information. So next time he wants to use the military for his own political agenda (tactics and strategy be damned) they will have to more aggressively explain to him why they (in this case FP adviser) aren't going to do it, like they did ( reportedly) when he didn't understand why we had all these nukes if we aren't going to use them. Refusing a direct order isn't really an option but forcefully explaining to Trump why what he wants is completely idiotic is something they can do and will have to if they want to avoid a more direct conflict between the presidency and the military. The morale of those troops he exploited for political gain falls on their leaders shoulders and they can only do so much before it becomes a nasty feedback loop until someone snaps. They can think what they like of his state of emergency and orders. That still doesn't change my opinion on civilian-elected control of military generals. I don't trust them any more than I trust Trump in using judgement to second guess orders (of the kind below the biggest "nuke san fracisco/shoot up seattle" style order). You don't think the deployment does anything? Go vote him out in 2020: that's your act of resistance.
Every time I run through what you could possibly mean by "the generals will have to resist harder," I can't think of anything that wouldn't make things far far far worse.
|
On November 11 2018 08:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2018 08:20 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2018 07:38 Plansix wrote:Meanwhile, as Trump wastes tax dollars doing nothing, accomplishing nothing and forcing troops to miss thanksgiving, we are thankful for a strong leader who couldn’t make it to a memorial service in the rain. He straight up forgot about these troops. https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1061334045584490496 Trump can monkey it up with the worst of them it seems. Silver lining is the next time he wants to use the military and millions tax dollars for a pathetic political show the generals will have to resist harder. I applaud your use of monkey it up. Also, what do you mean "the generals will have to resist harder." He is their commander in chief. Yeah, but he's wholly and completely militarily incompetent. His generals have to explain even the most rudimentary logistics to him and he's demonstrated he's unwilling or incapable of absorbing that kind of information. So next time he wants to use the military for his own political agenda (tactics and strategy be damned) they will have to more aggressively explain to him why they (in this case FP adviser) aren't going to do it, like they did ( reportedly) when he didn't understand why we had all these nukes if we aren't going to use them. Refusing a direct order isn't really an option but forcefully explaining to Trump why what he wants is completely idiotic is something they can do and will have to if they want to avoid a more direct conflict between the presidency and the military. The morale of those troops he exploited for political gain falls on their leaders shoulders and they can only do so much before it becomes a nasty feedback loop until someone snaps. They can think what they like of his state of emergency and orders. That still doesn't change my opinion on civilian-elected control of military generals. I don't trust them any more than I trust Trump in using judgement to second guess orders (of the kind below the biggest "nuke san fracisco/shoot up seattle" style order). You don't think the deployment does anything? Go vote him out in 2020: that's your act of resistance. Every time I run through what you could possibly mean by "the generals will have to resist harder," I can't think of anything that wouldn't make things far far far worse.
Not sure who you mean by they, but the military isn't a machine. They are people with emotions, desires, expectations, and the rest. Now we do systematically restructure those within our troops (to varying degrees of effectiveness), but we can't remove them altogether.
So you can suggest that instead of the military forcefully explaining to the president that he's acting like a wasteful idiot and devastating the morale of his troops they should just follow orders and vote in 2020, but at this rate the conflict will come to a head before that.
|
On November 11 2018 09:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 08:58 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2018 08:20 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2018 07:38 Plansix wrote:Meanwhile, as Trump wastes tax dollars doing nothing, accomplishing nothing and forcing troops to miss thanksgiving, we are thankful for a strong leader who couldn’t make it to a memorial service in the rain. He straight up forgot about these troops. https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1061334045584490496 Trump can monkey it up with the worst of them it seems. Silver lining is the next time he wants to use the military and millions tax dollars for a pathetic political show the generals will have to resist harder. I applaud your use of monkey it up. Also, what do you mean "the generals will have to resist harder." He is their commander in chief. Yeah, but he's wholly and completely militarily incompetent. His generals have to explain even the most rudimentary logistics to him and he's demonstrated he's unwilling or incapable of absorbing that kind of information. So next time he wants to use the military for his own political agenda (tactics and strategy be damned) they will have to more aggressively explain to him why they (in this case FP adviser) aren't going to do it, like they did ( reportedly) when he didn't understand why we had all these nukes if we aren't going to use them. Refusing a direct order isn't really an option but forcefully explaining to Trump why what he wants is completely idiotic is something they can do and will have to if they want to avoid a more direct conflict between the presidency and the military. The morale of those troops he exploited for political gain falls on their leaders shoulders and they can only do so much before it becomes a nasty feedback loop until someone snaps. They can think what they like of his state of emergency and orders. That still doesn't change my opinion on civilian-elected control of military generals. I don't trust them any more than I trust Trump in using judgement to second guess orders (of the kind below the biggest "nuke san fracisco/shoot up seattle" style order). You don't think the deployment does anything? Go vote him out in 2020: that's your act of resistance. Every time I run through what you could possibly mean by "the generals will have to resist harder," I can't think of anything that wouldn't make things far far far worse. Not sure who you mean by they, but the military isn't a machine. They are people with emotions, desires, expectations, and the rest. Now we do systematically restructure those within our troops (to varying degrees of effectiveness), but we can't remove them altogether. So you can suggest that instead of the military forcefully explaining to the president that he's acting like a wasteful idiot and devastating the morale of his troops they should just follow orders and vote in 2020, but at this rate the conflict will come to a head before that. I have no bone to pick with the "forcefully explaining to the president that he's acting like a wasteful idiot and devastating the morale of his troops." I expect no less, should they believe so. It's just that #resist has taken on something of a different character than just explaining something forcefully through the proper channels. Every one also has the vote, so feel free to express it that way as well. It's a form of resistance. I just take issue with the thought that more than a verbal caution of stern difference of opinion is warranted.
|
The generals can go to congress members or state the troops are at risk and move them. Given Trumps complete lack of education on the army(and everything else), I have no doubt he has issued more than a few orders that were refused due to being illegal. He likely ordered these troops to detain asylum seekers, which is unlawfully to do. Judging by how much Trump dislike Mattis, I’m sure he gets resistance all the time.
|
On November 11 2018 09:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 09:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2018 08:58 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2018 08:20 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2018 07:38 Plansix wrote:Meanwhile, as Trump wastes tax dollars doing nothing, accomplishing nothing and forcing troops to miss thanksgiving, we are thankful for a strong leader who couldn’t make it to a memorial service in the rain. He straight up forgot about these troops. https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1061334045584490496 Trump can monkey it up with the worst of them it seems. Silver lining is the next time he wants to use the military and millions tax dollars for a pathetic political show the generals will have to resist harder. I applaud your use of monkey it up. Also, what do you mean "the generals will have to resist harder." He is their commander in chief. Yeah, but he's wholly and completely militarily incompetent. His generals have to explain even the most rudimentary logistics to him and he's demonstrated he's unwilling or incapable of absorbing that kind of information. So next time he wants to use the military for his own political agenda (tactics and strategy be damned) they will have to more aggressively explain to him why they (in this case FP adviser) aren't going to do it, like they did ( reportedly) when he didn't understand why we had all these nukes if we aren't going to use them. Refusing a direct order isn't really an option but forcefully explaining to Trump why what he wants is completely idiotic is something they can do and will have to if they want to avoid a more direct conflict between the presidency and the military. The morale of those troops he exploited for political gain falls on their leaders shoulders and they can only do so much before it becomes a nasty feedback loop until someone snaps. They can think what they like of his state of emergency and orders. That still doesn't change my opinion on civilian-elected control of military generals. I don't trust them any more than I trust Trump in using judgement to second guess orders (of the kind below the biggest "nuke san fracisco/shoot up seattle" style order). You don't think the deployment does anything? Go vote him out in 2020: that's your act of resistance. Every time I run through what you could possibly mean by "the generals will have to resist harder," I can't think of anything that wouldn't make things far far far worse. Not sure who you mean by they, but the military isn't a machine. They are people with emotions, desires, expectations, and the rest. Now we do systematically restructure those within our troops (to varying degrees of effectiveness), but we can't remove them altogether. So you can suggest that instead of the military forcefully explaining to the president that he's acting like a wasteful idiot and devastating the morale of his troops they should just follow orders and vote in 2020, but at this rate the conflict will come to a head before that. I have no bone to pick with the "forcefully explaining to the president that he's acting like a wasteful idiot and devastating the morale of his troops." I expect no less, should they believe so. It's just that #resist has taken on something of a different character than just explaining something forcefully through the proper channels. Every one also has the vote, so feel free to express it that way as well. It's a form of resistance. I just take issue with the thought that more than a verbal caution of stern difference of opinion is warranted.
Perhaps the word "resist" threw off the communication, but my point was that they can't lose like they did with this border stunt.
|
Reporting strongly suggests that Mattis has ignored orders from Trump at times. Trump recently said that Mattis "might be a democrat" which seems to back up the reporting. I would think it to be self explanatory that we need a secretary of defense who is willing to defy orders from Donald Trump.
|
saying "monkey it up" is just poor manners and insensitivity even if it is not definitely an ill-intentioned racist jab
|
On November 11 2018 08:56 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2018 07:34 Danglars wrote:On November 11 2018 06:06 ChristianS wrote:On November 11 2018 05:12 Danglars wrote: I imagine that some of the more regular posters here would look up whether Palm Beach has an African American supervisor of elections to make sure xDaunt didn't commit racist dog-whistle. I love how silly all the childish political plays look these days. I feel like this country has deserved Trumpian levels of political dialogue these past ten years or more. I'm reminded a little of LL's + Show Spoiler +say his name three times snd he'll appear old habit of intentionally saying the Ukraine (with emphasis) specifically because he knew it bothered people. Politics aside for a moment. If there's more than one way for you to say something, and people don't like one of those ways because to them it implies an ugly sentiment you never meant to imply, why wouldn't you just say it some other way? Or if you already said it and they're upset, why wouldn't you just say "I didn't mean to imply that ugly sentiment, I don't agree with that ugly sentiment, and I'll say that thing a different way next time to avoid this confusion"? That seems like the obvious tactful response. I mean, I can imagine reasons to keep saying it the way that offends people. Maybe offending people is the goal. Maybe you do actually agree with the sentiment they find ugly, or at least you're not sure you disagree with it, or you have some other reason to want to leave that door open. But if you're not an asshole and don't agree with the ugly sentiment, I don't understand why you wouldn't just say it differently. The purpose of commmunication, after all, is to convey your thoughts to other people, and if your choice of words is conveying something you didn't intend, then you're not communicating very effectively. To apply this to politics again, then: many people, both racists and anti-racists, think the phrase "monkey it up" implies racist sentiments, or at least it can contextually. If you're anti-racist and have no desire to embolden racists and offend anti-racists, why wouldn't you just a) not use the phrase in the first place, or b) if you already used it, clarify that you didn't mean to imply racist sentiments, you think racism is terrible, and you'll try to avoid the phrase in the future? I’d like to mimic your language to show my perspective. Many people think common phrases like “monkey it up” have nothing to do with racist undertones, and think their continuance is just conversation as usual. So what to do when a group suggests and asserts you meant it as a dog-whistle, it’s more likely than not you’re signalling to racists, and the whole affair emboldens racism and white supremacy? You dismiss those complaints made by the low partisans making them. They have hay to make and readily resort to accusations of racism on a slow news day or when a candidate isn’t doing so well. My biggest issue with this is that you're basically taking as a given the accusations are made in bad faith. Do you think P6 et al. secretly knew DeSantis had no racist intent and hates the idea of racists voting for him, but they're just engaging in an influence campaign to swing the votes of TLers? Or do you think that, maybe, the reason they say "that's racist" is because they actually think it's racist? Show nested quote +The worst thing you can do is show their poor attempts to flag phrases in common use is readily accepted and their point gained. It just emboldens their next conquest: white allyship, “where are you from?,” mansplaining, MS-13 animals. This is a great example of the communication thing. You've chosen these shorthands for all the "low partisans'" next "conquests" that leave me very confused what you actually think on those subjects. Are you opposed to "white allyship"? Do you think men aren't prone to condescending tones in discussing certain subjects with women? If I say the question "where are you from" can be impolite in certain contexts because it can focus attention on someone's ethnicity, do you think I'm a "low partisan" guilty of needing a subject on a slow news day? Those questions are rhetorical, only because each of those subjects is a whole topic of its own and we'll never have time to discuss them all simultaneously. But do you see how someone might read that and think you are opposed to the idea of whites allying with minorities? Show nested quote +Now, you’ve tried the whole “politics aside for a moment,” so I’ll try to make the only nuanced point that is devoid from politics. “People” don’t think it “implies an ugly sentiment,” but some “people” think it’s code words for a very nasty intent to punish minorities. That’s not a sentiment, that’s an accusation of malintent. That goes far beyond the part of politeness that is primarily given to individuals and sometimes to groups. Certain coarse and demeaning language falls under that label. Not the secretive racist implication towards furthering white supremacy with a wink and a nod. If the matter was only causing offense and being impolite, that would be quite another thing indeed. That's true, they think you're implying it purposefully, not just incidentally. But if you really wanted to combat the idea that you're secretly allying with horrible people, the easiest way would be to express your opposition to those people in no uncertain terms. Make clear not just that you don't ally with racists, but why you don't ally with racists. Part of the problem here is that people (white people, especially) have started to think of racism as a set of traffic laws you're just supposed to follow, or at least not get caught breaking. If you follow the rules, you're not racist; if you slip up and say or do something you shouldn't, you pay the penalty. But even if you successfully avoid saying or doing anything racist, all you've managed to be is "not racist." But isn't racism supposed to be something we all despise? Why would we only aspire to neutrality on the subject? Show nested quote +I really think the language here is abused by a minority, certainly showing by DeSantis’s numbers and the reaction, so, as a matter of fact, the language is used plainly to convey the information to the listener and does so quite well. It’s only the part of society that wishes they had the secret decoder rings and people like DeSantis didn’t know they posted them that try (with you, perhaps succeed) to convince others it’s dog whistle racism. DeSantis' numbers rising certainly doesn't prove that a large majority of people think his language was innocuous. There's any number of hypotheses that could account for his number rising - maybe all the people who disagreed with that language were already opposed to him. Or maybe the "dog whistle" worked. Personally I think it's perfectly obvious why saying Florida electing a black man would be "monkeying it up" might be questionable language for someone not trying to imply something they don't mean, but I don't think that proves intent. I don't doubt he uses the phrase regularly, and it wouldn't surprise me if the racial subtext didn't occur to him when he said it. A simple "I didn't mean anything racist by it, I think racism is bad" would be plenty for me. But these days, Republicans need that "bad boy" edgelord image to fire up the base, and an unfortunate consequence is a refusal to clarify questionable phrasings or, often, a refusal express any meaningful opposition to racism at all.
You're forgetting that many Republicans believe racism against whites is a bigger deal than racism against blacks. I've seen the sentiment expressed many times by right leaning American posters across various threads on this site, and I suspect it's an awful lot more prevalent in places like The_Donald. Prominent right wing media figures have said it outright, too, to wild applause in cases where there's an audience.
Trying to have a reasonable discussion about racism against blacks and racist language coming from the GOP is very hard without keeping that aspect in mind. In a lot of cases, unless it is 100% explicitly racist language repeated over a long time, they'll dig in their heels and say it was 'a slip of the tongue' or other ridiculous explanation.
If the Democrats are maybe too quick to make an accusation at times, the Republicans are equally too stubborn to concede at times. Up to you if DeSantis is the latter or the former.
In DeSantis's case, why did Gillum's gibe in the debate get wild cheers? Some people clearly think De doesn't pass muster.
|
As much as I like Ojeda and Yang (Yang a little less tbh), I'm concerned about splitting the progressive vote if that's the start we get. Hopefully the corporate side is also crowded, a lot of people will want their shot
|
On November 14 2018 22:50 Nebuchad wrote: As much as I like Ojeda and Yang (Yang a little less tbh), I'm concerned about splitting the progressive vote if that's the start we get. Hopefully the corporate side is also crowded, a lot of people will want their shot Schedule is basically set for Kamala Harris and a Dem more palatable for the South (Joe Biden/Tim Kaine/Beto) to make it out of super tuesday. Winning Iowa or Nevada is pretty much an outsiders only shot.
The only people who can upset that are Hillary and Bernie.
No one else has a path to make it past tuesday and Beto is a stretch but if he's the "progressive" (especially if he can get Bernie's endorsement) he's the only one that could hang in a race between Kamala Harris and the old white guy candidate. Barring an upset at this point it's Kamala the cop Harris vs Trump.
If I had to guess Kamala's presidency would look a lot like Bill Clinton's without the tech boom. Soooo. Not great, particularly for minorities.
Pretty sure I'll be voting PSL regardless of the Democrats primary though.
|
I don't think Harris would beat Trump tho
edit: that's a little harsh, she might. Trump is still a uniquely bad candidate after all. But it's a risk, and I'm not very comfortable with it.
|
How do you all feel about Klobuchar? I think she would defeat Trump pretty easily, but her progressive bona fides aren't super strong.
|
She’d be a good trial to see if Democrats are very beholden to their progressive wing. If she can survive the prinary, just think about how many states she would swing from Trump just showing moderate temperament. Personally, I don’t think she’d be a good choice for the country, but she might win if it’s her and Trump ... and top-5 in my head for Dems chances at this juncture.
|
The primaries are distinctly unforgiving to progressives because of Iowa and New Hampshire being first up. Though that might have changed after November. But any progressive is going to have to have strong appeal to primary voters that identify as working class. Though the new focus healthcare will help them. Especially if they can shore up the ACA that directly impacts people’s pocket books over the next two years.
It will be interesting. I think the progressive wing is going to find more support in the house for their plans than they anticipated. Seeing the speed that the NY legislature turned on that Amazon deal, the pro-business democrats are going to feel the pressure.
|
I think Joe Biden would be the democrat's best chance. Or maybe Francis O'Rourke as an undercover candidate, but I get the feeling losing to Ted Cruz and his terrible pretend spanish would get him ridiculed enough to lose his chances. So I'm rooting for Kamala Harris or Spartacus. Also Avenatti running and insulting everyone else on the ticket would be fun to watch
|
If we're talking just strategy I think the case for a progressive is pretty clear cut. The battleground is in the Rust Belt, and the appeal of a progressive there has been pretty clear last time around if we look at both the primaries and the election; unless we get some dramatic new information, it looks like that's what they are expecting. There are no states that vote democrat that would flip because a progressive is too leftwing for them, apart from maaaaybe Virginia and even that's not really a thing anymore at this point. You're likely to lose Florida I guess, but as we've seen the last few times, Florida's never been a guarantee no matter who you pick.
|
Look out for Hickenlooper from Colorado.
|
On November 15 2018 04:52 Nebuchad wrote: If we're talking just strategy I think the case for a progressive is pretty clear cut. The battleground is in the Rust Belt, and the appeal of a progressive there has been pretty clear last time around if we look at both the primaries and the election; unless we get some dramatic new information, it looks like that's what they are expecting. There are no states that vote democrat that would flip because a progressive is too leftwing for them, apart from maaaaybe Virginia and even that's not really a thing anymore at this point. You're likely to lose Florida I guess, but as we've seen the last few times, Florida's never been a guarantee no matter who you pick.
The issue is Democrats don't just need to win progressive states, they also need to regain some ground in the Midwest. They might think, with some justification, that a mainstream Democrat will have more success there. Also it seems like progressives struggled a bit during the midterms. What's your take on this? For the record I don't know what their best strategy is, I'm genuinely curious.
|
On November 15 2018 02:32 Danglars wrote: She’d be a good trial to see if Democrats are very beholden to their progressive wing. If she can survive the prinary, just think about how many states she would swing from Trump just showing moderate temperament. Personally, I don’t think she’d be a good choice for the country, but she might win if it’s her and Trump ... and top-5 in my head for Dems chances at this juncture.
This makes me laugh. They are not at all beholden to their progressive wing. They pretty much don't get along with party leadership at all and it's sorta a hobson's choice for progressives. Either you vote for the conservative Democrat or you just get the conservative without the Democrat.
But the Democrat primary is just a dog and pony show anyway. The point is to gin up enthusiasm, not to have a vote to determine the best representative for the party/country.
I honestly don't know what "progressive" legislation you'd be worried about anyway. The Democrats exist strictly as opposition to Republicans, if they had all three branches most of the country has absolutely no idea what their top 3 pieces of legislation would even address, let alone anything like "the wall" that Trump had everyone imagine and no one hold him accountable for doing nothing on (despite a border wall having bipartisan support).
On November 15 2018 06:52 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 04:52 Nebuchad wrote: If we're talking just strategy I think the case for a progressive is pretty clear cut. The battleground is in the Rust Belt, and the appeal of a progressive there has been pretty clear last time around if we look at both the primaries and the election; unless we get some dramatic new information, it looks like that's what they are expecting. There are no states that vote democrat that would flip because a progressive is too leftwing for them, apart from maaaaybe Virginia and even that's not really a thing anymore at this point. You're likely to lose Florida I guess, but as we've seen the last few times, Florida's never been a guarantee no matter who you pick. The issue is Democrats don't just need to win progressive states, they also need to regain some ground in the Midwest. They might think, with some justification, that a mainstream Democrat will have more success there. Also it seems like progressives struggled a bit during the midterms. What's your take on this? For the record I don't know what their best strategy is, I'm genuinely curious.
I've been saying it since the last primary. They have to stop running against Trump and start running for their agenda. Problem is Democrats agenda for the last 3 years hasn't gone past "have you seen Trump today!?"
Candidate wise, a young trustworthy Bernie is the best bet but old sorta out of touch Bernie is the best we've got. Everyone else will be starting from way behind, except creepy uncle Joe.
|
|
|
|