Support NeoGAF

[wesleyshark]

And? I don't understand how that argues against the assertion any one party cannot solve the problem on its own through policy or leadership.



Idiots? Lol. They forced the republicans to spend money on what should have been a safe race and damn near won it. It was a big gain and was worth the effort.

$3mil spent for Handel vs $21mil spent for Ossoff. That's a lot of money dumped into what was a race he didn't really have a chance at winning.

 

[kess]

White organized labor eagerly and openly accepted black people in the wake of emancipation, right?

(spoiler: no, no it didn't.)

Organized labor has been on the right side of this issue since the Democratic party has been.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

People need to see a real alternative in the Democratic Party, not just Republican-lite.

People need to want to vote for Democratic candidates for them to actually win elections.

I honestly wonder how someone can say something like this while actually know the platforms of each party, because it's pure ignorance

 

[Daria]

$3mil spent for Handel vs $21mil spent for Ossoff. That's a lot of money dumped into what was a race he didn't really have a chance at winning.

and then called for campaign finance reform afterwards lol

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

If you give a shit about the country and where it's headed, it's reasonable to be panicking a little; you just gotta keep that shit under control and keep working.

Lastly: fuck "centrists."

 

[aeolist]

There's a large support for UHC

Single Payer is not the only path to UHC

there's no appetite for the kind of policies that would actually rein insurance companies in. as long as the democrats really believe in market-based solutions for healthcare they will fail.

 

[kirblar]

$3mil spent for Handel vs $21mil spent for Ossoff. That's a lot of money dumped into what was a race he didn't really have a chance at winning.

That came almost entirely from donors, not from the party.

Organized labor has been on the right side of this issue since the Democratic party has been.

Has their membership? That's where the problem lies. The Reagan Democrats, Obama->Trump voters, etc.

 

[KHarvey16]

There is no desire to change because the leadership does not answer to those wanting change. If the donors wanted a shift in policy it would happen overnight.

Has nothing to do with desire. Parties can't unilaterally give up on funding and hope to stay competitive. It has to be all or nothing.

$3mil spent for Handel vs $21mil spent for Ossoff. That's a lot of money dumped into what was a race he didn't really have a chance at winning.

Of course he had a chance. It was as worth it to spend the money and see what happened. Pulling such a red district so close is fantastic.

 

[Daria]

That came almost entirely from donors, not from the party.

only 14% of donations $200+ came from within Georgia.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

$3mil spent for Handel vs $21mil spent for Ossoff. That's a lot of money dumped into what was a race he didn't really have a chance at winning.

Why you lyin

https://www.issueone.org/money-behind-expensive-u-s-house-race-history/

 

[excelsiorlef]

there's no appetite for the kind of policies that would actually rein insurance companies in. as long as the democrats really believe in market-based solutions for healthcare they will fail.

Honest question do you honestly think there's little difference between the two parties because that's the vibe you give off

 

[shinra-bansho]

and what exactly are the democrats going to do when they get back into power? they're largely against single-payer healthcare

John Conyers biennial Medicare for all bill has 113 cosponsors this time.

 

[KHarvey16]

and then called for campaign finance reform afterwards lol

Yeah he should have eschewed donations. That would have worked better.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

there's no appetite for the kind of policies that would actually rein insurance companies in. as long as the democrats really believe in market-based solutions for healthcare they will fail.

Switzerland and Singapore seem to do alright with more market based healthcare solutions

 

[The Technomancer]

there's no appetite for the kind of policies that would actually rein insurance companies in. as long as the democrats really believe in market-based solutions for healthcare they will fail.

No. Stop this. You think market based solutions for healthcare are bad. So do I! They're terrible! We should run on something much better and not market based, I agree. We are in complete alignment on this. The same is true for education! And housing, quite frankly! We should make this our platform because it is the right thing to do. But there is very little evidence that this is a magic political bullet that is going to cause a surge in popularity and political power. The data is wildly inconsistent.

 

[kirblar]

only 14% of donations $200+ came from within Georgia.

The other 86% are still donations! They aren't funds from the DCCC!

 

[flkraven]

Why?

Typically I believe in a more balance approach with regards to fiscal and economic policy. I believe in many of the tent-pole policies from the left like healthcare reform and minimum wage, but I'm a bit more conservative with how to handle corporations and the free market. I also greatly disagree with protectionism from either the left or the right. My concern is that an extreme swing to the left would leave someone like me out in the cold.

An extreme reaction to anything is typically bad, and I don't believe that every problem's solution is necessarily the 'extreme left' one.

 

[aeolist]

Honest question do you honestly think there's little difference between the two parties because that's the vibe you give off

of course not, democrats are far better on social justice issues. they're center-right economically, but obviously the republicans are so much further right it's ridiculous.

i criticize democrats more because 1) the republicans are so comically evil on every metric that there's almost no point, like no shit they're bad and 2) the democrats have a base that is receptive to good economic policies and the ruling class just needs to get with the fucking program.

 

[Steel]

and what exactly are the democrats going to do when they get back into power? they're largely against single-payer healthcare and going back to obamacare is just going to make them massively unpopular in the next election.

it's all well and good to capitalize on the opposition's screw-ups but without a policy platform that will make people happy it's not a long-term strategy. eventually there will be no more trump to run against.

No they aren't. Harry Reid was always for single-payer and saw the ACA as the first step toward it. Pelosi wants single-payer but doesn't see a way for it to get through congress. The rest of the presidential candidates over the last few decades, including Bill Clinton, wanted a public option(which is the much better choice) with the exception of Gore who wanted single payer.

 

[The Technomancer]

of course not, democrats are far better on social justice issues. they're center-right economically, but obviously the republicans are so much further right it's ridiculous.

i criticize democrats more because 1) the republicans are so comically evil on every metric that there's almost no point, like no shit they're bad and 2) the democrats have a base that is receptive to good economic policies and the ruling class just needs to get with the fucking program.

Quist ran on more progressive economics and did alright. A Goldman Sachs exec running for a Dem seat in South Carolina outperformed Ossoff. The data on what people do or do not support is all over the map.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Quist ran on more progressive economics and did alright. A Goldman Sachs exec running for a Dem seat in South Carolina outperformed Ossoff. The data on what people do or do not support is all over the map.

It's almost like different states have different opinions and within those states are specific population centers that cater and demand different policy

 

[aeolist]

No. Stop this. You think market based solutions for healthcare are bad. So do I! They're terrible! We should run on something much better and not market based, I agree. We are in complete alignment on this. The same is true for education! And housing, quite frankly! We should make this our platform because it is the right thing to do. But there is very little evidence that this is a magic political bullet that is going to cause a surge in popularity and political power. The data is wildly inconsistent.

i think you're misreading my point. i'm saying that if democrats win and get us back to obamacare + whatever improvements they can force past the right wing of the party it will backfire in the long run because that kind of healthcare model will lead to bad outcomes and punishment from the electorate.

single-payer isn't a magic bullet but nothing is. ultimately we need good policies sold to us by politicians who can articulate them clearly and honestly believe in them. that was the missing piece with clinton, yes the platform was pushed to the left (as her representatives at the convention fought it every step of the way) but nobody believed she really wanted it. fair or not, that was the impression.

 

[aeolist]

No they aren't. Harry Reid was always for single-payer and saw the ACA as the first step toward it. Pelosi wants single-payer but doesn't see a way for it to get through congress. The rest of the presidential candidates over the last few decades, including Bill Clinton, wanted a public option(which is the much better choice) with the exception of Gore who wanted single payer.

people who supposedly believe in good things that people want but tell the base that we can't have them have lost us everything. they need to run on these policies openly and unapologetically.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

I don't know why people are always try to group Democrats into one big monolith. It's trying to make this erroneous equating to Republicans who, for the most part, actually do seem to vote in line. Democrats, by virtue or being a drastically more diverse party, have drastically more diverse politics. The fact that we're still here debating class vs identity politics should be evidence of that, yet so many people in here keep trying to say "Party leadership needs to do x!" when there are segments of the base saying "Actually they need to do y!" and nothing happening

 

[KHarvey16]

people who supposedly believe in good things that people want but tell the base that we can't have them have lost us everything. they need to run on these policies openly and unapologetically.

And what if that makes them lose?

 

[The Technomancer]

i think you're misreading my point. i'm saying that if democrats win and get us back to obamacare + whatever improvements they can force past the right wing of the party it will backfire in the long run because that kind of healthcare model will lead to bad outcomes and punishment from the electorate.

single-payer isn't a magic bullet but nothing is. ultimately we need good policies sold to us by politicians who can articulate them clearly and honestly believe in them. that was the missing piece with clinton, yes the platform was pushed to the left (as her representatives at the convention fought it every step of the way) but nobody believed she really wanted it. fair or not, that was the impression.

Literally whatever they do will result in backlash from the electorate. I've been making this argument recently; we should go kamakazi if we retake government in 2020 and pass all the most progressive stuff we can because we're almost certainly going to lose power due to a shrieking rage backlash no matter what we do and we might as well do the good stuff. We should not count on anything being "the thing that makes Dems stop failing"

 

[kess]

That came almost entirely from donors, not from the party.

Has their membership? That's where the problem lies. The Reagan Democrats, Obama->Trump voters, etc.

Probably 60 or 65 percent vote for Democrats, nationally. Depends on the union. The SEIU is constantly doing outreach in cities. Of course, there were construction unions that supported Christie while the state workers were against him.

 

[aeolist]

And what if that makes them lose?

you mean what if republicans take control of every lever of power in the country? what world are you living in right now?

 

[plagiarize]

and what exactly are the democrats going to do when they get back into power? they're largely against single-payer healthcare and going back to obamacare is just going to make them massively unpopular in the next election.

it's all well and good to capitalize on the opposition's screw-ups but without a policy platform that will make people happy it's not a long-term strategy. eventually there will be no more trump to run against.

Let's get there first. Then we can debate the merits of public option vs single payer.

If we trash each other now and let the GOP win districts because the alternative isn't far left enough, then we won't be in a position to have that debate, I don't think.

I understand people wanting to see the Democrats move further left.

Pointing to Ossoff losing GA-6 as 'proof' or even as 'evidence' as evidence that we need to is completely unfounded and I haven't seen anyone put forward a shred of evidence that someone further to the left would have won over more voters or got more people to turn out and vote for them.

This 'panic' is in my eyes being feigned by opportunists who want to transform the party.

Personally, the idea of two parties each getting more and more extreme and each with a coin toss chance of winning, is a recipe for long term disaster.

Do we want this every four to eight years? Do we want the new government to spend this much time and energy trashing everything the previous one did and then putting in their diametrically opposed policies every four to eight years? Does that sound remotely like a good thing?

Ask yourself how France ended up where they are.

What the GOP became opposing Obama is not sustainable. The solution isn't to become as belligerent and extreme.

 

[Lime]

This is less about "defending current policies" and more being frustrated with the people who think that socialism is secretly popular and energizing in the US. There is zero evidence for that. This country is packed to the gills with hateful, racist, conservative people and although we outnumber them barely they will grab us at the neck at every turn and we cannot find solidarity with these people, which sucks, because we would need to to have a class revolution.

No. Stop this. You think market based solutions for healthcare are bad. So do I! They're terrible! We should run on something much better and not market based, I agree. We are in complete alignment on this. The same is true for education! And housing, quite frankly! We should make this our platform because it is the right thing to do. But there is very little evidence that this is a magic political bullet that is going to cause a surge in popularity and political power. The data is wildly inconsistent.

We agree so what would you suggest or recommend? Running another milquetoast Democratic centrist / diet Republican? Because I really want to see a proposal for a solution to gaining power and I'm not sure what else would energize a base as much as someone who actually addresses the disparity in the population? I think that's what the left-leaning part of the US wants to address instead of being told that their views on race and class and gender should be ignored because a bunch of white leftist dudes are racist/sexist fucks.

 

[KHarvey16]

you mean what if republicans take control of every lever of power in the country? what world are you living in right now?

Oh ok so making anything better isn't your goal, then?

 

[johnny956]

If you give a shit about the country and where it's headed, it's reasonable to be panicking a little; you just gotta keep that shit under control and keep working.

Lastly: fuck "centrists."

Well I consider myself a centrist. I don't want higher taxes but do want universal health insurance. There are plenty of things to cut in the government (defense spending being the biggest of them). Instead of saying fuck centrists how about working with them on goals you both agree on?

 

[aeolist]

Literally whatever they do will result in backlash from the electorate. I've been making this argument recently; we should go kamakazi if we retake government in 2020 and pass all the most progressive stuff we can because we're almost certainly going to lose power due to a shrieking rage backlash no matter what we do and we might as well do the good stuff. We should not count on anything being "the thing that makes Dems stop failing"

FDR was economically further left than any US president before or since and his policies were so incredibly popular that he won reelection 3 times and gave democrats power in congress that lasted for decades.

i sincerely believe that if we win and pass good things we will be rewarded for them by the electorate.

 

[The Technomancer]

We agree so what would you suggest or recommend? Running another milquetoast Democratic centrist / diet Republican? Because I really want to see a proposal for a solution to gaining power and I'm not sure what else would energize a base as much as someone who actually addresses the disparity in the population? I think that's what the left-leaning part of the US wants to address instead of being told that their views on race and class and gender should be ignored because a bunch of white leftist dudes are racist/sexist fucks.

I think there are a lot of good people in the Democratic party right now who are going to be able to make strong progressive cases in 2020 on matters like healthcare and education but they're probably not going to run on a platform of literally nationalizing those industries and that's not going to be enough for some people.

 

[Raven117]

Yes, clearly running a straight up socialist would have brought an easy victory to a white wealthy district like GA-6.

Come the fuck on.

This. Geesh.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

FDR was economically further left than any US president before or since and his policies were so incredibly popular that he won reelection 3 times and gave democrats power in congress that lasted for decades.

i sincerely believe that if we win and pass good things we will be rewarded for them by the electorate.

Yeah if we ignore the fact that him leading the US out of the Great Depression and that fact there were no legal term limits at the time weren't factors

 

[kess]

Well I consider myself a centrist. I don't want higher taxes but do want universal health insurance. There are plenty of things to cut in the government (defense spending being the biggest of them). Instead of saying fuck centrists how about working with them on goals you both agree on?

If the left has demonstrably better policies that demand higher taxes, then where do you stand?

 

[The Technomancer]

FDR was economically further left than any US president before or since and his policies were so incredibly popular that he won reelection 3 times and gave democrats power in congress that lasted for decades.

i sincerely believe that if we win and pass good things we will be rewarded for them by the electorate.

I do not sincerely believe that. You can give white America a lovely set of democratic socialist programs and they will turn around and vote for the guy who says he's going to take them from black people. Every single time. We will win by outnumbering them and wrangling the electoral math away from them, but not by winning them over with how great our policies are for them

 

[aeolist]

Yeah if we ignore the fact that him leading the US out of the Great Depression and that fact there were no legal term limits at the time weren't factors

rampant uncontrolled capitalism got us into the great depression, and FDR lead us out of it with radical leftist policies

republicans passed the 22nd amendment as soon as they got power specifically to keep another president from doing the same thing again

 

[UnemployedVillain]

I do not sincerely believe that. You can give white America a lovely set of democratic socialist programs and they will turn around and vote for the guy who says he's going to take them from black people. Every single time. We will win by outnumbering them and wrangling the electoral math away from them, but not by winning them over with how great our policies are for them

Someone's got some sense

 

[kirblar]

FDR was economically further left than any US president before or since and his policies were so incredibly popular that he won reelection 3 times and gave democrats power in congress that lasted for decades.

i sincerely believe that if we win and pass good things we will be rewarded for them by the electorate.

FDR's policies also deliberately excluded minorities (w/ the FHA contributing heavily to the massive wealth gap we saw today) and he interned the Japanese. To argue for FDR is to argue for a coalition based off reaching out to the modern equivalent to the Dixiecrats!

(for reference)

We did pass a good thing and were immediately thrown out of Congress. The GOP's lesson this cycle- it doesn't matter what they pass, people will kick them out anyway!

 

[aeolist]

I do not sincerely believe that. You can give white America a lovely set of democratic socialist programs and they will turn around and vote for the guy who says he's going to take them from black people. Every single time. We will win by outnumbering them and wrangling the electoral math away from them, but not by winning them over with how great our policies are for them

you're saying that we can't really win until whites are a minority

enjoy the interim i guess

 

[Sianos]

Reading reactions, I'm not even sure people here have shared definitions of centrism, liberalism or leftism tbh, which does illustrate a certain level of panic that's quick to turn into anthropophagy.

At least, if centrists are anti-"identity politics", that means Clinton wasn't one.

The usage of relative terms without a solid and shared frame of reference is not very conducive to discourse. Especially when the relative terms are being applied to different facets, but only through implicit assumption on each individual's part.

It's almost as if people don't fall along a uniform left/right axis, or even one with a y axis reading "freedom/not freedom".

 

[The Technomancer]

you're saying that we can't really win until whites are a minority

enjoy the interim i guess

I'm saying that we can't hold onto power until whites are a minority, yes. We can win, and we can do what we can with that time, and then we should expect the backlash

 

[aeolist]

FDR's policies also deliberately excluded minorities (w/ the FHA contributing heavily to the massive wealth gap we saw today) and he interned the Japanese. To argue for FDR is to argue for a coalition based off reaching out to the modern equivalent to the Dixiecrats!

(for reference)

We did pass a good thing and were immediately thrown out of Congress. The GOP's lesson this cycle- it doesn't matter what they pass, people will kick them out anyway!

i know you want to believe that all leftists are racists but i think there has to be a reason every radical advocate for minority rights in this country has been a democratic socialist at the minimum

 

[The Technomancer]

i know you want to believe that all leftists are racists but i think there has to be a reason every radical advocate for minority rights in this country has been a democratic socialist at the minimum

His point is that "popular" economic progressivism came at the expense of minorities and went hand in hand with racism. Which is a pattern that repeats across the country's history repeatedly.

 

[kess]

FDR's policies also deliberately excluded minorities (w/ the FHA contributing heavily to the massive wealth gap we saw today) and he interned the Japanese. To argue for FDR is to argue for a coalition based off reaching out to the modern equivalent to the Dixiecrats!

We did pass a good thing and were immediately thrown out of Congress. The GOP's lesson this cycle- it doesn't matter what they pass, people will kick them out anyway!

You forget the the Fair Employment Practices Commission, and the partial desegregation of the Interior department. Ironically, FDR might as well have been the racial centrist of his day.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

The usage of relative terms without a solid and shared frame of reference is not very conducive to discourse. Especially when the relative terms are being applied to different facets, but only through implicit assumption on each individual's part.

It's almost as if people don't fall along a uniform left/right axis, or even one with a y axis reading "freedom/not freedom".

The problem is that people place candidates on the spectrum at positions based on how much they like them or not, because center point is completely arbitrary.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

FDR was economically further left than any US president before or since and his policies were so incredibly popular that he won reelection 3 times and gave democrats power in congress that lasted for decades.

i sincerely believe that if we win and pass good things we will be rewarded for them by the electorate.

I wonder why the Democrats slowly started losing their rock solid majority in Congress after the 1960s. What historical bill did they support that Republicans didn't that lead to the slow erosion of the white working class base.

Oh

Also FDR ran on a far left message as long as it only applied to white people. Whites were allowed jobs before blacks in FDR's programs. Blacks had different pay scales in the New Deal. The AAA forced hundreds of thousands out of work as the fields they worked on previously lay barren.

This same far left man put an entire race into camps and was pushing to design a bomb that would level two entire cities just a short while later (that he would have ordered to be dropped, himself, had he not died)

FDR did a lot of good for the country, but modern Democrats do not want to make the same racial concessions he was all too willing to make. Modern Democrats also do not have the solid base of midwest whites they used to have.

So it's not as easy as "become FDR" because there's a lot of baggage there that Democrats do not want to touch at all.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

cf. minimum wage, single player health care, taxing the rich, etc.

Lol yeah they're not too bright. And the left fails the purity test.