The Tea Party was an astroturf movement with tons of funding from the Koch brothers. A left-wing version of the Tea Party won't have a massive spending machine behind it (or very much money at all if it refuses corporate/lobbyist donations entirely).
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Cenk Uygur and Sanders Campaign Advisor Launch the "Justice Democrats"
- Thread starter Kid Kamikaze10
- Start date
- Status
The Tea Party was an astroturf movement with tons of funding from the Koch brothers. A left-wing version of the Tea Party won't have a massive spending machine behind it (or very much money at all if it refuses corporate/lobbyist donations entirely).
eBay Huckster
Member
The way forward for shaking shit up, as I see it: hold the line at the federal level for the time being until we're closer to 50% than 33% of all seats not being Republican; shake shit up on a state-by-state basis so that you don't accidentally give the Republicans uncontested Amendment power either next year or in 2020; and definitely shake shit up in cities.
You want to start a Progressive Party? Then start one and start winning local elections, because vote splitting (and staying home in the event of your candidate losing the primary) at any higher level before you can effectively consign the Democrats to where the Greens currently are will fuck over your own policy goals.
You want to start a Progressive Party? Then start one and start winning local elections, because vote splitting (and staying home in the event of your candidate losing the primary) at any higher level before you can effectively consign the Democrats to where the Greens currently are will fuck over your own policy goals.
I'm just worried that holding the line is not something they're able to do as they are currently.
sparky2112
Member
Waaay late to this thread, but Uygur is an idealist/purity asshole. The far left can blow the rest of us, who actually want to get shit done.
eBay Huckster
Member
That's a totally fair worry to have - but especially next year, it might be the only thing we can even try to do, so we're gonna need all organizing hands on deck.
(We don't exactly have a bunch of Kanders and Sanders waiting in the wings, after all.)
IrishNinja
Member
brought to you by TYT, of course
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
The current incarnation of the Democratic Party has already sustained lots of losses to Republicans. Is sticking to their strategy playing it safe?
I would be more down with this if only it didn't seem to be bathed in purity tests.
I very much agree that the Dems have some soul searching to do, and especially need to get proactive on issues, but an infinitive like this, while likely to aim in that way, will also likely condemn those not on board. Cenk Uygur already has this problem...
I very much agree that the Dems have some soul searching to do, and especially need to get proactive on issues, but an infinitive like this, while likely to aim in that way, will also likely condemn those not on board. Cenk Uygur already has this problem...
WhateverItTakes
Banned
That's how I feel really. They've gotta play this not as an agressive thing creating more divisions, but getting voters fired up for multiple possible Dem candidates, and being prepared to all vote for whoever ends up on the final ballot, no matter what.
The problem is if there's shit slinging beforehand, that can hurt candidates before they even take on their republican adversary. Or people take their ball (vote) and go home if their guy doesn't. Man this would all be much simpler if you could make multiple votes on ballots.
That works for me.
Before the election I was thinking "we just have to get through this one okay and we'll sort the rest after." Talk about the can getting kicked down the damn road.
jack_package_200
Banned
My issue is that this effort, like in 2016, will mainly involve getting people to attempt to primary well liked (by their constituents) dems. In 2016, an unqualified idiot in my state tried to primary Ron fucking Wyden. The idiot's entire policy/campaign was basically "do you like Bernie? I like Bernie". He was completely blown out. My worry is that in 2018 this "Justice Democrats" campaign will just end up being the above scenario repeated in several blue states where nothing they set out to do was accomplished and then they talk their ball home.
I feel like this would get a better positive result by focusing on helping either progressives or blue dog dems where necessary beat conservatives during the main 2018 federal, statewide, and local races.
I feel like this would get a better positive result by focusing on helping either progressives or blue dog dems where necessary beat conservatives during the main 2018 federal, statewide, and local races.
Also I want Ron Wyden to run for President in 2020
I approve of this, our political system tends to run on a pendulum, and it doesn't help that neither party really tries to clean house within their own party. More people now identify as Independent than Republican or Democrat. If you can create a party whose platform isn't just about defeating the opposition, but reforming the establishment as a whole, that can all change.
Sounds like a good idea. I think the Republic is fundamentally flawed. If voting out corporate sell-outs will fix this issue, then I think that is democracy working above-and-beyond to compensate for corruption. I don't care what color tie you wear, if you want to talk about being a "public servant," you shouldn't compromise yourself with corporate money and unethical Super-PAC money.
I think every citizen should feel empowered to call out these "servants" taking bribes. Party unity is shit if the united party is an unethical political group who are selling out democracy. This should give some of the compromised politicians enough time to clean up their act and own up to the dirtiness of the old ways.
I think every citizen should feel empowered to call out these "servants" taking bribes. Party unity is shit if the united party is an unethical political group who are selling out democracy. This should give some of the compromised politicians enough time to clean up their act and own up to the dirtiness of the old ways.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
Because in the intervening years, he became a health insurance lobbyist who shilled for a terrorist organization.
Here's the man in his own words:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324110404578628542498014414
I guess this is my Liberal Purity talking.
I mean this is how the Tea Party took over the Right. They overthrew the old guard basically.
jack_package_200
Banned
While also being bankrolled by the Koch brothers
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
As stated earlier, the tea party was backed by billionaires.
"Justice Democrats" are going to be working with whatever loose change is in-between their couch cushions.
SerAardvark
Member
I mean, two things to keep in mind.
The Republican Part has suffered a lot of damage as a result of the ideological turn it has taken. There's a reason the popular vote favors the Democrats - it's the electoral college that mitigates that.
Republicans/conservatives in the US seem to be a lot more willing to stomach problems with their candidates/party in order to win elections, as long as a couple of key positions are held (abortions are bad and guns are good). Compare that to the infighting on the left...
As for shaking things up in lower levels - eh...the Tea Party may have radicalized the Republican base, but I think the bigger success was in messaging (i.e. convincing people that attacking the social programs that help them, education, etc. was somehow a good thing because freedom or whatever).
Jeevesmeister
Banned
Name every major victory the Democrats have won after the election of Obama.
They're all losses.
I recall thinking, "What's Howard Dean been up to? I recall him being well regarded as DNC chair...", searches google to read up on him "Well, fuck."
soul creator
Member
Again, I think the main issue with this is that voters don't see "left/right" in the same way as political pundits do. I'd argue most voters (especially the people who don't identify as part of an existing party) don't necessarily even think in those terms in their day to day lives.
So for example, is a candidate coming out and saying they're actively opposed to corporate influence on politics (and works from a grassroots level to build support that doesn't depend on corporate donors so that they can credibly sell that message) automatically a "leftist"? Opposition to most modern free trade deals was largely seen as a "leftist" view, yet that was one of the (very few) planks of the current Republican President's platform that mostly stayed consistent since he first started campaigning, and Republicans are now largely against them as well. Is Trump a leftist now? And of course, as you already pointed out, partisanship and individual candidates can have a strong hold on people and affect what kind of issues they end up supporting. Clinton was considered further left on guns in comparison to Sanders, but did the people who supposedly hate "purity tests" make a big deal over that how that would make her lose a general election? Sometimes a majority of Americans support something like single-payer healthcare, and sometimes a majority of Americans don't support it, depending on how the issue is framed, and the person making the case. School vouchers, previously considered another Republican privatization idea, are now supported by plenty of Democrats.
So the liberal/centrist/conservative/left/right divides are useful in some respects, but I'd caution against thinking these are 100% set in stone categories with no variance. So Democrats should stop thinking anything outside their mainstream views is automatically some communist purity test position that will automatically scare away voters.
Elaugaufein
Member
Can someone tell me when the time for dissent actually is ? Because as far as I can tell it's neither when you're winning (don't rock the boat) nor when you're losing (we need unity). Winning by a lot isn't it either (doing fine). Nor Winning by a little (don't rock the boat the other guy might win).
I love that the Left is now involved in the same absurd mental gymnastics that far-right defenders of Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers have been involved in for decades. This is like a freaking photocopy of the David Irving controversy. We can at least finally acknowledge that the Left vs. the Right is no longer Good vs. Evil, but Football Team A vs. Football Team B. We're moving toward some post-apocalyptic scenario where the Left and Right are both headed by fascist piece-of-shit scum. Beautiful.
I wonder why the Armenian government hasn't "acknowledged" the Armenian genocide, despite having a memorial to the ruthless event? Could it be because they are a landlocked nation of 3 million next to a nation of 75 million with NATO's second largest army who has repeatedly threatened to invade them if they acknowledge this historical event and who actively arm, train, and fight alongside their enemy?
The Young Turks are named after an organization that instigated the Armenian genocide, the Assyrian genocide, and the Greek genocide, and they are headed by an individual who states his view has "shifted" but still refuses to acknowledge these horrific historical events.
Cenk is a coward. Anyone who supports him, based on his current positions, is a pussy, a supporter of fascism in its dictionary definition (not in the popular usage which, as Orwell reminds us, is simply "something not desirable"), and certainly not a Liberal in any sense of the term.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
This is a good criticism of Cenk. I can't help the people who either don't want pro-worker policies, or for some reason think they will cause Democrats to lose even worse.
But you're right. The left isn't going to win on the basis of outspending the right. Contrary to some in here, money does influence policy, and money prefers right-wing policies.
The left is going to win on the basis of strong independent organizations and social movements. It's a mirage to think you can go from 0 to contending with corporatist Democrats at the national level. A platform like Cenk's can be useful in mobilizing people, but it is not an organization. And based on their WolfPAC initiative, I have no confidence in TYT's ability at organization-building.
You gotsta read the OP.
This seems way too similar to The Cleveland Browns saying something like "we don't need help, get the fuck out and let the adults handle building a winning football team."
If the Democratic party looks in the mirror and sees anything beyond an embarrassingly failed institution that just lost a layup election, likely resulting in decades of progress being rolled back, perhaps irreversibly, then the party is on some drugs that they need to share. We're talking about the current administration as overtly fascistic. An administration belonging to a party who Democrats just lost the entire government to. A party led by an openly racist, sexual assaulting, moronic reality TV star. It's fucking bizarre that people will bend over backwards to make excuses for this institution.
You can be politically moderate all you want. Go ahead. However, if you're going to frame your argument in the context of "fuck off, the party knows what it's doing. Let the adults handle this." Then, you should know, that the entire world outside of your bubble laughs hysterically at that sentiment.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
It wasn't more progressive than Obama's. You really think Hillary's weird debt free college thing was more progressive than Obama's universal healthcare? Especially since a public option was a part of the plan he ran on.
I don't know what else you're talking about that hasn't been on the democrat's platform forever. Maybe some LGBT stuff, but 2016 is such a different time than 2008 for that issue it's hard to compare.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
For the people who hold power, and their apologists, the time is never. They are your political enemies.
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
You are my new fave poster. During the primaries I was told many times to check my privilege for supporting Bernie. I'm a minority by the way.
So Republicans control everything right now... but the most important thing for us progressives to be spending our time and efforts on is organizing to knock Democrats out of office for voting against 1 of the 180 different amendments proposed on one night in the Senate. I mean, there's talk of challenging *Republican* seats but who wants to fight *that* battle?
Also that amendment is a bad progressive policy solution but whatever! Next we we vote out anyone who disagreed that we should fix health care in the United States by shipping sick Americans to Canada to go to their emergency rooms.
Also that amendment is a bad progressive policy solution but whatever! Next we we vote out anyone who disagreed that we should fix health care in the United States by shipping sick Americans to Canada to go to their emergency rooms.
Future PhaZe
Member
Bravo.
Good question.
Jeevesmeister
Banned
Name every major and sustainable victory accomplished by "the rest of us" in the past 8 years.
Obamacare was a free check to insurance companies.
The vast majority of jobs created are in retail/service industries not paying a living wage.
Over half this country lives a single emergency away from economic turmoil.
A great deal are struggling just to survive with no real future or retirement in sight.
Your "getting shit done" attitude hasn't gotten a damn thing done.
No one is barred from running in any primary if they choose to. If a more left leaning candidate feels they can unseat gillibrand for example they are welcome to try. The problem comes when people like Cenk push something like this, it is sure to come with all kinds of toxic attacks that isn't likely to end with a consensus to vote for the winning Democrat. They haven't earned any confidence that it won't go down this route.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
At this point, I don't care. Take over the dems, make sure every "corporate dem" gets knocked off, and end up with a mostly male, probably most white "economic justice" party.
Whatever.
Just beat Trump.
I've accepted that whoever wins this fight, black people won't get much out of it.
Whatever.
Just beat Trump.
I've accepted that whoever wins this fight, black people won't get much out of it.
Future PhaZe
Member
Preach.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
This is a myth
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13972394/most-common-words-hillary-clinton-speech
But let's all keep on whining about identity politics bogeyman shall we...
HellforLeather
Member
TYT...just stop please.
We need less hardliners on both sides.
We need less hardliners on both sides.
They had Billions to do it.
JesseEwiak
Member
I'm going to give you two options. Because it's actually what happened with the GOP. Would you rather have a Senate majority in 2018 which will include a couple of Cory Bookers who are largely liberal but who will have a few issues they buck the party on or wait until 2022 and only have a paper thin majority with a purer coalition and have the possibility of one or two defections screwing everybing up?
Also the Tea Party had the benefit of a much more ideologicaly consistent party and billions of dollars. I know leftists hate to hear this, but there are lots of moderate Democrats who like gay marriage, abortion, and some increased social spending, but will vote Republican if you raise their middle class taxes.
ShironRedshift
Member
Difference is that they had billionaires on their side. Idiots like Cenk want us to somehow do the same while refusing that money. Ain't gonna work. The Tea Party candidates that were able to win did so because the money behind them. You ain't gonna pull off the same feat if you handicap yourself before it's even begun.
Future PhaZe
Member
Can we stop with the money as if Clinton's campaign didn't spend almost double what Trumps did?
JesseEwiak
Member
You're ignoring the billions on free media Trump got. So if you have a way for your perfect candidates to get dozens of hour of free coverage on all the major networks, I'm all ears.
It's about local/state elections though and we're talking about as of yet unknown candidates. They need to get their names out there somehow.
eBay Huckster
Member
During the primaries, like it's always been.
For the foreseeable future, the general election (at the federal level and in some states) is "whether your guy won or not, get in line so we don't give absolute power to people okay with Nazis."
ShironRedshift
Member
That's Presidential politics. Senate, Congressional, and other State and Local races are an entirely different matter where having that kind of money (or not) actually does make a big difference. Clinton/Trump didn't matter because everyone knew who they were regardless. State/local races? Entirely different matter. Financial backing, or lack there of, can be huge there. This isn't that complicated.
Clinton 2016
65,844,954
Obama 2012
65,915,795
Look at thise vote counts.
We do not need to fracture the Democratic party. We need to encourage everyone to show up and vote because gerrymandering is a real thing.
Further, Democrats are getting their shit wrecked eveywhere because no one then shows up for the damn midterms.
Fight against gerrymandering and the perpetual snake oil of fracturing the Democratic party.
65,844,954
Obama 2012
65,915,795
Look at thise vote counts.
We do not need to fracture the Democratic party. We need to encourage everyone to show up and vote because gerrymandering is a real thing.
Further, Democrats are getting their shit wrecked eveywhere because no one then shows up for the damn midterms.
Fight against gerrymandering and the perpetual snake oil of fracturing the Democratic party.
- Status