Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

But... it's bothersome that it just so happens this always leads to a certain style of "moderate" candidate.

Like... have you actually looked at crow's policy stances and whatnot? Dude doesn't exactly seem moderate in what he's saying he's after. He's arguably more center left than tillemann by stint of not endorsing specific propositions, not so much because of notable political lean. Still seems to support the same general goals (healthcare being an example, having not come out for specifically single payer or med-whatever for all, but still being explicitly pro-universal care and calling for a public option) and is, as near as a look can tell, solidly left on basically everything.

Closest thing to an argument on that front has been some of the guy's work history, near as I can tell, much of which seems to have some fairly mitigating circumstances (law work in general, being a junior whatsit when most of the questionable stuff was done, etc.).

That's all beside the point that it's the party elites(and their rich donors) who are deciding which candidates are fit to run and pushing out candidates which they don't agree with but might stand a chance against their chosen ones. Once again, this is EXACTLY how we got Trump after the DNC forced HRC down our throats and it's infuriating that we're seeing it yet again.

[Frumple]

... uh, if you ignore basically everything about both this case and 2016, I guess. Dunno if that's the least exact exactly I've seen in the last decade, but it has to be in the top ten or so.

[Not good with names]

But... it's bothersome that it just so happens this always leads to a certain style of "moderate" candidate.

Like... have you actually looked at crow's policy stances and whatnot? Dude doesn't exactly seem moderate in what he's saying he's after. He's arguably more center left than tillemann by stint of not endorsing specific propositions, not so much because of notable political lean. Still seems to support the same general goals (healthcare being an example, having not come out for specifically single payer or med-whatever for all, but still being explicitly pro-universal care and calling for a public option) and is, as near as a look can tell, solidly left on basically everything.

Closest thing to an argument on that front has been some of the guy's work history, near as I can tell, much of which seems to have some fairly mitigating circumstances (law work in general, being a junior whatsit when most of the questionable stuff was done, etc.).

That's all beside the point that it's the party elites(and their rich donors) who are deciding which candidates are fit to run and pushing out candidates which they don't agree with but might stand a chance against their chosen ones. Once again, this is EXACTLY how we got Trump after the DNC forced HRC down our throats and it's infuriating that we're seeing it yet again.

To be fair, the reason Trump was the republican nominee at all was because the RNC had a circus primary.  And because the party didn't really decide to back anyone, the two least liked people in the party were the last two dancers (Oh, and I suppose John Kaisich was there too.)

[PTTG??]

That's all beside the point that it's the party elites(and their rich donors) who are deciding which candidates are fit to run and pushing out candidates which they don't agree with but might stand a chance against their chosen ones. Once again, this is EXACTLY how we got Trump after the DNC forced HRC down our throats and it's infuriating that we're seeing it yet again.

What you're actually saying is that you're psyching yourself up to say that since the Democrats are not 100% perfect, they should lose to the most unspeakably corrupt party in modern western politics. I'm sure that by 2020 the Democrats will finally be perfect enough to vote for.

[redwallzyl]

Both sidesing is definitely annoying. Yes the Dems are not perfect and have issues. The republicans are however at this point pure cancer. Just standing around talking about how neutral and intelligent they are for not picking a side and condemning everyone is unhelpful. Also people keep believing trump despite proving that basically nothing he says is true. every goddamn time he makes some claim and people cheer him and say how nice it is he is doing something a bit later I turns out he didn't do shit and what happened likely had nothing to do with him. For fucks sake people stop listening to him he is a pathological liar and a moron who has no idea what he is doing. Future people will shake their heads in disbelief.

[sluissa]

I would ask that you please don't put words in my mouth.

I, on the other hand, apologize for dragging the dead horse out once again.

I will leave this here though. Slightly related, but interesting on its own as well.

[Rolan7]

That is interesting, but might be misleading.  OP apparently used "all US citizens over 18" according to the Census, but a lot of those people aren't allowed to vote.

Edit:  I mean, that reply does claim that it's only about 1%, but the top of the comment chain is about this map diverging from a similar one.

[sluissa]

That is interesting, but might be misleading.  OP apparently used "all US citizens over 18" according to the Census, but a lot of those people aren't allowed to vote.

Edit:  I mean, that reply does claim that it's only about 1%, but the top of the comment chain is about this map diverging from a similar one.

I agree it doesn't show the whole picture, including people who would have voted but couldn't for various reasons. And a lack of a vote doesn't necessarily mean they didn't support one candidate or another. It's also more a trend that voter turnout is rarely above levels that would put "somebody" as the winner if judged on the outcome displayed here. I just thought it was interesting.

[Kagus]

Would probably be a more interesting dynamic if they ever added a vote of abstention.

[Reelya]

That's all beside the point that it's the party elites(and their rich donors) who are deciding which candidates are fit to run and pushing out candidates which they don't agree with but might stand a chance against their chosen ones. Once again, this is EXACTLY how we got Trump after the DNC forced HRC down our throats and it's infuriating that we're seeing it yet again.

What you're actually saying is that you're psyching yourself up to say that since the Democrats are not 100% perfect, they should lose to the most unspeakably corrupt party in modern western politics. I'm sure that by 2020 the Democrats will finally be perfect enough to vote for.

Rather than "psyching" anyone up to believe something, it's self-evident that it is correct, purely because Hillary lost, so she - by definition - was the wrong choice to stand against Trump.

The point being that the current logic isn't any different to the previous logic. We should screen out any "unsafe" candidates before the elections. Sure, sounds good, except it's what was already tried, and isn't that proverbial definition of insanity?

EDIT: Sure, you can rail against the idea that HRC wasn't the right choice because apparently that's holding the Democrats to some insane standard, but it really isn't. They picked wrong when the picked Hillary, so therefore the process by which Hillary became the candidate is fair game to be ripped apart and analysed. And any process with resembles that process is therefore suspect too. The way you're talking is as if anyone who questions the process -the losing process, btw, is a party traitor playing into Trump's hands. But that's not the case. The Democrat's strategy lost. Being resistant to criticism of the strategy would guarantee another loss - it would be just playing a waiting game for the other side to drop the ball, rather than taking the game to them.

[Dunamisdeos]

That's all beside the point that it's the party elites(and their rich donors) who are deciding which candidates are fit to run and pushing out candidates which they don't agree with but might stand a chance against their chosen ones. Once again, this is EXACTLY how we got Trump after the DNC forced HRC down our throats and it's infuriating that we're seeing it yet again.

What you're actually saying is that you're psyching yourself up to say that since the Democrats are not 100% perfect, they should lose to the most unspeakably corrupt party in modern western politics. I'm sure that by 2020 the Democrats will finally be perfect enough to vote for.

Rather than "psyching" anyone up to believe something, it's self-evident that it is correct, purely because Hillary lost, so she - by definition - was the wrong choice to stand against Trump.

The point being that the current logic isn't any different to the previous logic. We should screen out any "unsafe" candidates before the elections. Sure, sounds good, except it's what was already tried, and isn't that proverbial definition of insanity?

We crafted the candidate we thought you wanted, and if you didn't vote for her that's your fault.

[Max™]

Would probably be a more interesting dynamic if they ever added a vote of abstention.

Man, could have the current office holder remain as The Peoples Presently Publically Popular Picked Previous Procedural Putz President Per Prior Precedent or P^P (pronounced Super-P) for short and rehold a new selection process each year until an actual winner emerges from... say... gladiatorial brackets weighted by relative qualifications, background, and so forth to thin out these crusty old fuckers refusing to give up power before fucking over everything for anyone who isn't them.

[SalmonGod]

But... it's bothersome that it just so happens this always leads to a certain style of "moderate" candidate.

Like... have you actually looked at crow's policy stances and whatnot? Dude doesn't exactly seem moderate in what he's saying he's after.

I read through his Values page on his website after I made that post, which is the only resource I could find.  It's basically your typical moderate Democrat talking points, using the typical language that imitates conviction but doesn't actually make any specific hard stances, and focuses mostly on the social issues that Democrats have abused as long as I've been politically aware as their near-exclusive token excuse to label themselves progressive.

Here's the summary of what I see on his website

Invest in green energy.
Fight discrimination in sentencing.
"Fix ACA" (reduce prescription drug prices)
Fight cuts to public school funding
Student loans? (only significant statement on this is loan forgiveness, but only for public servants?)
Environment - Language expresses some understanding of the gravity and details, but no specific hard stances
Provide clear path to citizenship for immigrants
Protections for LGBT
Help veterans
Equal pay for women
Pro-choice

And I looked for any reputation/history for actions to read in relation to his words, and there's not much.  Controversial involvement in acting as defense for businesses being taken to court over shitty exploitive practices early on in his career, which yes is understandable.  And I saw that he does a lot of pro bono work, mostly for struggling veterans.

There's really not much to go by here.  It looks like your typical realm of wishy washy political safety.  I honestly wouldn't be surprised if that page on his website was written by a party expert with almost no input from Crowe himself, because it's word for word the exact image that Democrats seem to be trying to project right now as a whole, which is just a tiny step further out from what I can remember my entire life in response to the progressive push behind Bernie.

[WealthyRadish]

I've been thinking lately about my dissatisfaction with democrats (a chronic torment) and whether it is really justified, and something that I've been considering is the democrat reaction to the recent republican "tax reform" passing. This is just one person's impression, but on the whole I was consistently surprised both in the lead-up to the vote and after its passing that the liberal media blitz surrounding the issue seemed exceptionally tame and restrained. Under Trump an endless number of bold polemics can be found over the most trivial political events, but it seemed to me that this bill which is so central to the core purpose of the Republican party and such a clear victory for them slipped through with relatively little condemnation or ideological "debate."

In short, it seemed to me that either the liberal media or the party themselves were deliberately skirting taking a hard stance on taxes, particularly taxes on corporations and the property-owning class, at a time when it was precisely most relevant and seemed of little risk in popular opinion for them to do so. The least malicious explanation I can reasonably take is that they knew their image of being "pro-taxes" makes them an easy target and didn't wish to get bogged down opposing something they couldn't prevent anyway, and so they "feigned" relative ideological indifference by sticking to more neutral arguments (e.g. by saying that these tax cuts are bad for the economy, but scarcely mentioning inequality). A more malicious explanation is that the major media outlets themselves (highly concentrated corporations with their own "interests") influenced the narrative in defense of those interests, and the Democratic party did not object, either because they share those interests or are complicit.

I'm very much of two minds about whether either interpretation is valid, but I think it's the sort of question that lies near the heart of mistrust towards democrats from people further to the left. There's an additional argument denying that this happened (I expect a characteristically condescending "...no?" frumple post in <24 hours asserting that all is imagined), but in light of the importance of the tax bill (and the way the media has played very loose with restraint under Trump over vanishingly less important issues) I'm convinced that their response was weak and noticeably so.

There's really not much to go by here.  It looks like your typical realm of wishy washy political safety.  I honestly wouldn't be surprised if that page on his website was written by a party expert with almost no input from Crowe himself, because it's word for word the exact image that Democrats seem to be trying to project right now as a whole, which is just a tiny step further out from what I can remember my entire life in response to the progressive push behind Bernie.

I've often thought of the Republican party as being a blatant organ of the rich that manipulates people into giving them power by appealing to social convictions (religion, guns, and so on), but I've never been able to square the way the Democratic party organizes their platform either. Again, I think the least malicious interpretation is that Democrats pander to social issues to avoid taking unpopular economic stances, and even if there aren't other "interests" they're serving this still doesn't inspire any amount of confidence or enthusiasm.

[Dunamisdeos]

I've often thought of the Republican party as being a blatant organ of the rich that manipulates people into giving them power by appealing to social convictions (religion, guns, and so on), but I've never been able to square the way the Democratic party organizes their platform either. Again, I think the least malicious interpretation is that Democrats pander to social issues to avoid taking unpopular economic stances, and even if there aren't other "interests" they're serving this still doesn't inspire any amount of confidence or enthusiasm.

I really liked your whole post, but this neatly summarizes why I have a strong dislike for both parties.