Democratic (Party) Direction

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
A thread for discussing the Democrats' "message"/framing/etc.

This is the most important-seeming article I've read yet.

g@bbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:33 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Golden Globes follies 2006 (239 new answers)
Show Me the Love for SNL's "Live Duluth" sketch (105 new answers)
Democratic (Party) Direction (Unanswered)
Celebrity Big Brother 2006 - Thread Two - We all stand together? (165 new answers)
the mongrels don't want to play like that, they just want to talk to the sheepfuxors (254 new answers)
UK Watercooler Conversation 5: TOmorrow Sometimes Knows (322 new answers)

,,, Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:58 (eleven years ago) Permalink

That party is fucking dead and it's never coming back in a way that will change anything much.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:59 (eleven years ago) Permalink

maybe your beloved whig party will change something

,,, Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:02 (eleven years ago) Permalink

maybe your beloved dick will change something

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:07 (eleven years ago) Permalink

it's a long article. i got three phone calls while i was reading it!

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:23 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Pretty interesting stuff in that article -- I feel like I need to read it again to really digest all of it. The value shift it describes sort of reminds me of South Park -- the whole nihilistic individualistic thing -- is that what "South Park Conservatives" is about?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:27 (eleven years ago) Permalink

and yeah, a lot of it is pretty otm, but i fear for what america will be like if BOTH parties are simultaneously doing the "moral yardstick" shtick. yes it's apparent that americans want to hear about christianity and family values, but if the dems start playing that card in earnest, hoo boy.

i'm also not convinced about some of those salary numbers -- how is he defining "household"? and is he giving salaries in cities like new york and san francisco equal weight to ones in poor rural regions? how does income tax figure in? it's kinda vague.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:32 (eleven years ago) Permalink

For a while I've had the idea that the Democratic Party could improve its future by putting more money and resources into local party organizations, campus recruiting, things that give people real human connections to the party. People are much more likely to listen to their neighbor than some internet ad.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:36 (eleven years ago) Permalink

xpost

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year. The article gets it right that those people don't receive any government assistance, but that's just where the problem lies -- they end up too well off to get assistance but still unable to afford their debt and medical bills.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:37 (eleven years ago) Permalink

2ndxpost

or hollywood actor

josh w (jbweb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:37 (eleven years ago) Permalink

thanks for the link, reading now. glad to see there's a direction not chosen by Lakoff, I think he has no clue.

dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:38 (eleven years ago) Permalink

The real problems with the Dems over-focus on economic policy are that 1) Policy is not very exciting to talk about and hard to understand, and 2) No one actually believes the Dems when they say they'll "create jobs."

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:38 (eleven years ago) Permalink

2x post back to Josh: OTM

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:39 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year.

the article suggested that the dividing line between affluent and poor was $50K per household, but for a married couple where both spouses work that only comes out to $25K per person, which isn't much once you figure in the high cost of living in america. plus, the article doesn't say who in these salary ranges pay for their own insurance and retirement funds.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:43 (eleven years ago) Permalink

2) No one actually believes the Dems when they say they'll "create jobs."

read: "we won't send your existing jobs to india."

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:45 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Right, but won't they?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:47 (eleven years ago) Permalink

it remains to be seen. let's get some dems in office and we'll find out.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:48 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Well, by not "send your existing jobs to India," I assume you mean "pass some kind of law to prevent companies from doing that." I'd be very surprised if that actually happened under Democrats.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:50 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I assume you mean "pass some kind of law to prevent companies from doing that."

it could happen, provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests. and monkeys might fly etc.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:52 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I wonder how much of this affluence tipping point is skewed due to debtwarp. Take away the credit cards and there are a lot less Republicans, maybe?

Polysix Bad Battery (cprek), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:53 (eleven years ago) Permalink

provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests

hahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hohohohoHOHOHOHOHOHOOH
heheheheheHEHEHEHEEEHEHEEEHEEHAHAHAHAHAHASNORTSNORTSNORT!

sorry

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:54 (eleven years ago) Permalink

OK, this is really depressing! not re: Democrats, but the direction of the country as a whole.

dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:54 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Yeah, it is. I already had this vague fear that Americans were becoming these kind of paranoid, fat, lonely, nihilistic internet addicts who didn't talk to their neighbors.

Er wait, am I talking about Americans, or ILXors?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:57 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I wonder how much of this affluence tipping point is skewed due to debtwarp. Take away the credit cards and there are a lot less Republicans, maybe?

it is funny how many "affluent" "property owners" are up to their necks in mortgages and high-interest loans. it's like that commercial where the rich white suburban lawnmower dude says "i'm in debt up to my eyeballs!"

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:58 (eleven years ago) Permalink

The most important part of the article is where they reveal that by telling people that you're espousing Christian values because you're actually a Christian, they decide they agree with you, even if they they claim Christian faith as well but are only down with the first half of the Bible.

In the vast swaths of country between the megapolises there are people raising families of 5 on $57,000 a year and doing it relatively painlessly. And yeah, economic issues don't mean a goddamned thing to them.

TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:00 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Plenty of families of five with $57,000 a year would still like a better health insurance system, you just can't win an election on that alone.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:03 (eleven years ago) Permalink

hey, gabbneb, thanks for posting that article. it takes some time to think about....

patrick bateman (mickeygraft), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:04 (eleven years ago) Permalink

"the American Environics team argued that the way to move voters on progressive issues is to sometimes set aside policies in favor of values"

Wow, what an incredible insight. Very novel!

"Environics found social values moving away from the authority end of the scale, with its emphasis on responsibility, duty, and tradition, to a more atomized, rage-filled outlook that values consumption, sexual permissiveness, and xenophobia. The trend was toward values in the individuality quadrant."

I've long thought that if the Democratic party would focus their message on individualism (and the resulting freedom it implies) that they might get somewhere.

Today’s average American “worker” is, in short, very much on his or her own -- too prosperous to be eligible for most government assistance programs and, because of job laws that date back three quarters of a century, unable to unionize. Such isolation and atomization have not led to a new wave of social solidarity and economic populism, however. Instead, these changes have bred resentment toward those who do have outside aid, whether from government or from unions, and an escalating ethos of every man for himself. Against that ethos, voters have increasingly flocked to politicians who recognize that the combination of relative affluence and relative isolation has created an opening for cultural appeals.

"Every man for himself" has been an American credo for hundreds of years. It's the essence of competition, of capitalism, of industry. There's a bridge somewhere between individualism and community--is the Democratic party forcing people over a bridge or seeking one?

American voters have taken shelter under the various wings of conservative traditionalism because there has been no one on the Democratic side in recent years to defend traditional, sensible middle-class values against the onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows.

Maybe they're taking shelter because they don't think it's an economy that's pitting man against man, it's shelter from the resulting culture war. What are "traditional, sensible middle-class values" anyway? The only hint we get from this article is that candidates should talk about religion and that will mitigate their stance on the death penalty (in Virginia.)

I am happy to see the wasteland that is the Democratic Party looking inward. The Republicans wouldn't dare stare into their own dark abyss.

don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:35 (eleven years ago) Permalink

It's amazing to me that people still think that Republicans are better at creating jobs. We've had a Republican president and congress for the past 5 years, and what have we got? A "jobless recovery". The brilliant Republican plan for creating jobs is to give more money back to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts. They are still trying to sell the country on a supply-side economics platform. Look at Gov. Pataki's new budget in NY that came out this week. 24% of the tax cuts going to those who make over $200K per year. His rationale: it will create jobs and boost the economy. I think people need to start to question if that strategy really helps to create the kind of jobs this country needs. The one thing that we can be sure it does is make the rich even richer. I mean maybe if you're a BMW dealer or you sell Piaget watches, then these tax cuts are good for your business, but the average middle class type of jobs are probably not getting much of a boost.

As for the "average American household" that makes $60K a year, it would have been more informative to see the median income, because the average is skewed upwards by those at the top of the scale - ie., less than 50% of Americans make the "average" income.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:37 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Campus recruiting is definitely needed. I went to Rutgers, nicknamed "Kremlin on the Raritan" by some for its supposedly left-leanings, yet the Dems had almost no visibility on campus. Granted I went to school during the Nader years, when being a Democrat seemed like the lamest possible option. But the Dems need to pull talent at that level -- that's where Republicans end up with people like Rove.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:44 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Hmm, maybe "almost no visibility" is an exaggeration.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:45 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Re: Lakoff, despite the writer's early dismissal of him, I don't think the article suggests anything significantly different that what he's been talking about for years.

Lakoff's extensively written about the need for Democratic candidates and progressives in general to start explicitly talking about values. Also, for campaigns to work at creating more of an overall narrative for a candidate than just a laundry list of policies. It's only his work on the framing aspect that's received attention lately, not so much his work on defining the values systems that right/left folks tend to hold(e.g. "maintaining authority" vs "care & responsibility").

He's offered up Schwarzneggar's campaign as an example of a guy who ran entirely on narrative & perceived identity, and expressively refused to offer up any policy suggestions. Most folks don't have the time/energy/inclination to get into policy specifics, but if they trust your guy, they're trust him to take care of the details.

As he says,

"The pollsters didn’t understand it because they thought that people voted on the issues and on self-interest. Well, sometimes they do. But mostly they vote on their identity -- on persons that they trust to be like them, or to be like people they admire"

which connects to that aspirational bit that the article mentions.

Jim Wallis has talked about several of these same issues over the last year as well, especially with on the whole "onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows" bit.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:52 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Also, re: the poorer folks freaking out more about culture, I don't see the article acknowledging that it was a deliberate multi-year campaign on the part of conservertive politicos to get folks so het up about cultural issues that they didn't worry so much about the economics. It's a causal thing similar to Ethan's thread yesterday about outrage used for political gain.

Wallis has written about conversations his group has had with Frank Luntz and some other Repub pollsters who were quite open about their m.o. being to get voters so caught in such intense issues that they vote against their economic interest.

As other folks have pointed out, the Republicans have been better that bring the polls to them(gay marriage is the biggest thing you care about) vs the Democrats moving to where the polls now seem to be(well i guess we need to move rightward on gay marriage).

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:53 (eleven years ago) Permalink

interesting stuff. i don't really believe a lot of it, but i believe it's what people say, which still makes it significant. (i.e. a lot of people allegedly alarmed by the culture are also watching "desperate housewives" and "E!") it's not so much that the moral center is disgusted by the out-of-control culture, it's that a lot of people feel guilty about the very things in the culture that they participate in. massive moral cognitive dissonance, which the republicans exploit by convincing people that it's all someone else's fault (hollywood liberals, big-city elitists, gays gays gays). i'm not sure how the democrats can effectively tap into the same thing, and i sort of hate the idea that they need to, but maybe they don't have a choice.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:01 (eleven years ago) Permalink

It's amazing to me that people still think that Republicans are better at creating jobs.

That's the thing, innit? If you build up an entire apparatus to both promote & reinforce certain narratives, people will believe them even if they have no basis in fact. George W. Bush is steadfast & strong, Kerry's a weak-willed flip-flopper, Republicans are all about a smaller government, supply-side economics works, etc

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:06 (eleven years ago) Permalink

massive moral cognitive dissonance

oh fuck yeah this is a major bit of it, too. But since when did we start promoting self-reflection and critical thought?

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:07 (eleven years ago) Permalink

hard to promote self-reflection and critical thought when you're fighting hand to hand and desperate for power.

don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:39 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Well, is John Edwards' "Robert Kennedyization" for real? Making corporate / lobbyist theft vs. poverty / economic struggle a moral issur for Church People hasn't worked so far.

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:47 (eleven years ago) Permalink

very true. and I think that the number of folks who have to struggle is increasing.

xpost

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:49 (eleven years ago) Permalink

The Democrats are fucked - a weak, demoralized, decentralized party with no unifying political will, no narrative, and no reliable bases of power. The only thing keeping them around is the fact that the two-party system is so heavily institutionalized and entrenched. They're coasting on past glories and slowly squandering away all of their political resources so that they can become the eternally emasculated "opposition" party.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:54 (eleven years ago) Permalink

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

Please God, take Hilary quietly so she won't fuck up the party with a presidential campaign. WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE EVER.

elmo, patron saint of nausea (allocryptic), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:54 (eleven years ago) Permalink

i think something that's still missing from a lot of this is an understanding that the current republican base was built from the ground up. it wasn't just a matter of coming up with the right code words or whatever, it was a long and systematic takeover of the party by various interest groups with overlapping or at least complementary agendas. the democrats at the moment seem disconnected from whatever constitutes their base, and even suspicious of it. it seems very top-down.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:55 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Well, is John Edwards' "Robert Kennedyization" for real? Making corporate / lobbyist theft vs. poverty / economic struggle a moral issur for Church People hasn't worked so far.

Huh? He's only been going this stuff in the press for about two years. Second, there are plenty of other folks who have made the connection, but have gotten shit for coverage(not fitting in with "religious = rightwing conservative" media narrative?), even when they got arrested for it on the Capitol steps.


For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

DLC-candidate-in-centrist-message shocker

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:56 (eleven years ago) Permalink

i think something that's still missing from a lot of this is an understanding that the current republican base was built from the ground up. it wasn't just a matter of coming up with the right code words or whatever, it was a long and systematic takeover of the party by various interest groups with overlapping or at least complementary agendas.

very much otm. The change will come from the outside.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:58 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I think values do matter to a lot of voters, and I agree that Democrats are going to keep losing national elections until they figure out how to participate in the values conversation. This doesn't necessarily mean they have to move to the right on cultural issues - I think it does mean they need to convince voters that they are people with integrity and mainstream values. Monica-gate did a lot of damage. People like to savor the voyeuristic souffles cooked up in Hollywood, but they won't buy Hollywood people preaching to them about values. I think the Dems need to take an antagonistic stance towards some of the amoral trends in our society. Evincing a sense of decency and morality is not the same thing as being conservative - but as long as the voters think it is, the Dems are going to have a hard time winning elections.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:00 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Clinton is the worst. I'd stay home before I'd vote for her. Jonathan Tasini, who is pretty great on a lot of issues, and is a pretty good speaker as well, is running against her in the primaries. I really hope he has an impact.

Re the direction of the party, past actions indicate the party will be quicker to line up behind someone with Clinton's politics as opposed to Tasini's. I'm not too hopeful when it comes to the future of the Dems.

TRG (TRG), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:02 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I think values do matter to a lot of voters, and I agree that Democrats are going to keep losing national elections until they figure out how to participate in the values conversation. This doesn't necessarily mean they have to move to the right on cultural issues - I think it does mean they need to convince voters that they are people with integrity and mainstream values. Monica-gate did a lot of damage. People like to savor the voyeuristic souffles cooked up in Hollywood, but they won't buy Hollywood people preaching to them about values. I think the Dems need to take an antagonistic stance towards some of the amoral trends in our society. Evincing a sense of decency and morality is not the same thing as being conservative - but as long as the voters think it is, the Dems are going to have a hard time winning elections

do you think it's necessary for dems to use the religious right's language ("morals" and "values")? would a less-loaded word like "ethics" skew too liberal?

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:03 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I think values do matter to a lot of voters

my question is, when do they not? unless a voter has completely descended into some cynical nihilism, of course.

i mean, yeah, "values" has come to signify a very specific set of values, which just goes to further show that democratic types do need to start talking about theirs.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:05 (eleven years ago) Permalink

haha "what's the difference between morals, and ethics..."

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:06 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I'm pretty sure he is

sleeve, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 02:33 (one week ago) Permalink

It's all coming together

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 02:38 (one week ago) Permalink

You can't gerrymander a presidential election, and West Virginia has voted GOP five times in a row. Donald Trump won the state +40%, a lot more than Manchin did in both 2010 and 2012. Actually, Mitt Romney won West Virginia by a larger margin than Manchin as well. And Manchin isn't one of Trump's most valuable partners, fivethirtyeight did an overview of which senators voted the least with Trump compared to their state, and Manchin made the top five: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/ The ones who are to the right of their state are people like Feinstein, Schatz, Hirono, Cardin & Leahy.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 03:26 (one week ago) Permalink

they need to go hard. they were not progressive enough in 2010. they were not progressive enough in 2016. they need to put forth policies people want to vote for. this isn't rocket science. you cannot base a part on complaining about another party. i'm sorry, . Dems did little progressive enough to excite people to vote for them. they need to do more. Fred thinks Dems upset the Tea Party by doing too much. as if Obama should have compensated more with Republicans, this would have endeared them to him.

this is fucking laughable. and you are talking about distorting history?

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 03:31 (one week ago) Permalink

I mean, Manchin is pretty much a Republican who just hasn't switched after the parties have realigned, but he's serving as a Dem senator in the reddest state in the nation, and has been following party lines on the biggest issues so far under Trump, and that's as good as it gets.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 03:32 (one week ago) Permalink

Obama should have pissed tea partiers off even more, but come on.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 03:32 (one week ago) Permalink

Are you seven years old since you can't remember 2010?

Frederik B, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 03:32 (one week ago) Permalink

i do remember 2016 when you were a condescending asshole like this about Hillary obviously winning and you ended up being dead wrong

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 03:37 (one week ago) Permalink

if your plan is Democrats to openly court the Tea Party vote i am fine with that. let's get some third parties going for real here. there is half the country out there waiting for someone to vote for.

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 03:38 (one week ago) Permalink

reporting from south texas, i live in a solidly R us rep district (currently held by actual climate criminal against humanity lamar smith who is retiring). both state house and state senate are easy republican seats, too, and they often run opposed. but there are pretty good candidates running against all of em and they all have a progressive platform on healthcare, education, raising minimum wage, lgbt+ rights, etc. the one running in the state senate race is intriguing, a progressive army vet. i don't think they'll win but then again doug jones so fuck it.

Men's Scarehouse - "You're gonna like the way you're shook." (m bison), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 03:39 (one week ago) Permalink

Yeah, I'm not saying 'compromise', I'm saying pick your battles. Go after unopposed gop seats. Going after Manchin in 2018 will only mean that Dems will have one senate seat less to enact single payer in 2021.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 03:42 (one week ago) Permalink

Adam you said that the ACA was written with the same level of secrecy as the GOP’s health care plans this year.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 03:51 (one week ago) Permalink

Adam is an idiot, he also seems to think the tea partiers were pissed off at the lack of a public option...

Frederik B, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 03:52 (one week ago) Permalink

But the point is: There are 6 Gop seats up for election in 2018 in states that are less red than West Virginia. Only Utah and Wyoming are more red at this point. So why on earth would you focus on switching Joe Manchin?

Frederik B, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 03:56 (one week ago) Permalink

purity

Men's Scarehouse - "You're gonna like the way you're shook." (m bison), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 04:01 (one week ago) Permalink

it basically comes down to your opinion on the 50-state strategy

Karl Malone, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 04:01 (one week ago) Permalink

my opinion: we should not have that many

Men's Scarehouse - "You're gonna like the way you're shook." (m bison), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 04:01 (one week ago) Permalink

xpost which, i suppose reasonable people may disagree. but the idea of fighting for every possible race isn't some mysterious, hitherto undiscussed strategy.

Karl Malone, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 04:03 (one week ago) Permalink

Even as part of a 50 state strategy, in West Virginia the Governor is GOP, every house rep is GOP, almost every other elected executive officer is GOP. If you have that great message that will defeat any GOP candidate in West Virginia, run for something else in the state, not the one big office that is currently held by a Democrat.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 04:05 (one week ago) Permalink

and i have to say, all of the many, many people who are left-leaning but reside in states that are "unwinnable" because it's 60% Rep - 40% Dem in their state would really appreciate the presence of an actual candidate of the left. it's good for morale, even if everyone knows it's an uphill climb.

Karl Malone, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 04:06 (one week ago) Permalink

xp gee lemme think abt all the ways Manchin fucked us over this past year, does the name Jeff Sessions ring a bell?

sleeve, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 04:14 (one week ago) Permalink

Again: You want a morale-boosting leftist candidate in West Virginia, go win a house seat. None of them has Dem incumbents. Those kinds of wins would probably also help the leftist candidates in the presidential primaries in 2020. Primarying Manchin, then perhaps losing the seat, would hurt.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 04:17 (one week ago) Permalink

does anybody here actually live in west virginia?

bob lefse (rushomancy), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 04:18 (one week ago) Permalink

Also Manchin's vote on Sessions didn't fuck anyone over. GOPs voted for him unanimously, Manchin didn't matter. Should still have voted no, but again, pick your battles.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 04:19 (one week ago) Permalink

god I can't wait until you get banned again

sleeve, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 04:21 (one week ago) Permalink

he's...not wrong?

Men's Scarehouse - "You're gonna like the way you're shook." (m bison), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 04:23 (one week ago) Permalink

Manchin’s vote against health care repeal was much more crucial. In light of thst I can’t say the “we gotta get this guy out of there” mentality makes much sense or should be a priority but at the same time I don’t necessarily think it’s the end of the world if someone challenged him with a distinctly more progressive/left agenda. Sometimes you have to take that risk to demonstrate whether that kind of vision can win a primary in that part of the country instead of leaving as a debated hypothetical forever.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 04:25 (one week ago) Permalink

I'll endorse the idea that running the strongest leftie Dem candidates you can muster against WV's republican reps in the House makes more sense than letting them run unopposed or nearly so, while trying to primary Manchin out of the race.

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 04:27 (one week ago) Permalink

Don't know how narrowly you mean 'that part of the country' Nerdstrom, but why not take that risk in Tennessee or Mississippi, or heck, against Tim Kaine in a safely blue seat?

Frederik B, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 04:37 (one week ago) Permalink

hey guys who do you think should run against putin in the next election

bob lefse (rushomancy), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 04:41 (one week ago) Permalink

Putin won't run again after this one, no?

Frederik B, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 04:43 (one week ago) Permalink

Xpost Those other seats would be preferable but I don’t live in WV so I don’t want to dismiss the very idea of a more progressive candidate challenging there.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 05:22 (one week ago) Permalink

OK, to elaborate beyond reactive snark, my problem with all this argument is that it totally ignores the still fundamentally _local_ nature of Democratic politics. Personally I do not see any evidence that there is a significant detriment to a democratic candidate based on their ideological bent or their policy positions, and that just like the Republicans, the vast majority of the votes for a Democratic candidate will come because they have a (D) next to their name on the ballot. I'm not persuaded that if whoever the Alabamian equivalent of Bernie Sanders had run in Alabama that he or she would have done any worse than Doug Jones.

The issue is testing this hypothesis. Democratic voters may be largely motivated by a national set of values, but the question of who gets on the ballot is a local issue, and is controlled by the state Democratic organizations.

State and local Democratic organizations in Republican states are miserable little hives of failure. The Jon Ossoff campaign is a textbook example of their approach to politics - they run by asking everybody frustrated with the status quo for money incessantly, and when they lose complaining that the other people had more. And if they don't feel they can win? Then they dole out doomed candidacies as patronage. That's when the Stooksburies come out. These people are not open to new ideas and, considering all the power they've had for decades is the power to obstruct, have gotten very good at developing barriers to change. The only path to reform on a state level is to beat these petty powermongers at their own game, which is useful practice because winning a rigged game is the only way to beat Republicans as well.

Which you can't do without local candidates, making all this talk in exercise in cat-belling. When I moved out here to Oregon, I lived in Clackamas, and I found out that my state Representative was a Blue Dog. Now, I ask you, what in God's name is a fucking Blue Dog doing in Oregon? Why would anyone, in 2017, identify themselves as a fucking Blue Dog? I looked at him and I instantly said to myself, "OK, this guy needs to be primaried". Which is all very well and good, but nobody is running against him. Am I going to run against him myself? Hell no, never in a million years. I don't have the personal charisma to get elected dogcatcher. Is nobody running against him because there's no interest, or because the filing for candidacy was open for five minutes in the basement of a rental car place in the middle of nowhere? Got me. I haven't been to any party meetings in Oregon.

The media keeps trying to find Trump voters to give column space to. I wish they'd spend a little more time looking for socialist displaced coal miners in West Virginia. There's more productive potential in that, because media exposure is the most viable way to break what remains of blue machines in red states.

bob lefse (rushomancy), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 12:17 (one week ago) Permalink

Completely without snark, I say go for it against Oregon Blue Dogs! And I also agree with the point about the fundamentally local nature of this discussion, but then want to point out that the local candidate in question, Richard Ojeda, seemingly agrees with me and is running for a seat in the third congressional district ;)

Frederik B, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 14:53 (one week ago) Permalink

Okay, that final smiley might not have shown my claimed non-snark-ness, but y'know.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 14:53 (one week ago) Permalink

The issue is testing this hypothesis. Democratic voters may be largely motivated by a national set of values, but the question of who gets on the ballot is a local issue, and is controlled by the state Democratic organizations.

Which is whyyyy it's as important as anything that we've got a fresh panoply of orgs & activists offering up candidates & activated constituencies working to get them elected. The hypothesis is being tested.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 10 January 2018 16:54 (one week ago) Permalink

what in God's name is a fucking Blue Dog doing in Oregon?

That district (which is also mine) was a pretty even split with closely contested elections between Ds and Rs right up to the end of Dubya's second term. The Blue Dog representative, Kurt Schrader, first got in his seat about that time and, yes, he does need to be primaried now. He is a very unreliable vote, afraid of moving an inch left.

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 10 January 2018 18:20 (one week ago) Permalink

https://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/

reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 13 January 2018 04:17 (four days ago) Permalink

Oh man, I hope these guys comb every episode of Thom Hartmann’s RT show for hidden clues

Crazy Display Name Haver (kingfish), Saturday, 13 January 2018 04:46 (four days ago) Permalink

That district (which is also mine) was a pretty even split with closely contested elections between Ds and Rs right up to the end of Dubya's second term. The Blue Dog representative, Kurt Schrader, first got in his seat about that time and, yes, he does need to be primaried now. He is a very unreliable vote, afraid of moving an inch left.

― A is for (Aimless)

yeah, i just got here but i've read up on local history and things have changed a lot in the past ten years. the frustrating thing is that i got the primary slate recently and schrader doesn't have a challenger this year. i can't but see this as a major missed opportunity and it's pretty demoralizing in terms of my hopes for things going int he right direction.

i haven't kept up on indiana, but does donnelly have a primary challenger? joe donnelly is another one who needs to be primaried, a sacrificial lamb who got lucky when his opponent imploded and has accomplished nothing in six years. it's great that grass roots organizations are offering challenges, but some places need to be challenged more than others.

Arnold Schoenberg Steals (rushomancy), Saturday, 13 January 2018 15:24 (four days ago) Permalink

According to wiki, Bill Bowser is challenging Joe Donnelly in 2018. Also, I'd say the same thing about that as I said about Joe Manchin :)

Frederik B, Saturday, 13 January 2018 16:00 (four days ago) Permalink

Well, I'm certainly glad to hear your opinions about the people of Indiana. I'm sure they come from a place of deep knowledge and understanding.

Thanks for letting me know about Bill Bowser. If I still lived in Indiana I'd definitely support him. Based on how completely ignored he seems to be, I don't think he has much of a chance of winning, but having a real, serious candidate as running as an alternative to Donnelly is the minimum of what's necessary. The next step is making people _aware_ of alternative candidates, and Fred your research has helped me a lot with that, so thank you.

Arnold Schoenberg Steals (rushomancy), Saturday, 13 January 2018 16:23 (four days ago) Permalink

Admittedly the only thing I know about Indiana is that there is a Nascar race. But some quick research show the state to have a PVI-score of R+9 and going for Trump by +19,2. Donnelly has a Trump-score of -36,5. It's not exactly the same thing as West Virginia, as I could sorta kinda see a Dem having a chance if the wave turns into a flood, but it's not a primary race I would prioritize in 2018, no.

Frederik B, Saturday, 13 January 2018 16:47 (four days ago) Permalink

Admittedly the only thing I know about Indiana is that there is a Nascar race.

― Frederik B, Saturday, January 13, 2018 8:47 AM (fifty-seven minutes ago)

yes, the indy 500 is the best nascar race in america

Arnold Schoenberg Steals (rushomancy), Saturday, 13 January 2018 17:50 (four days ago) Permalink

Lmao

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 13 January 2018 19:14 (four days ago) Permalink

good thread

💙 west texas 💙

I have lived in Lubbock all my life. My father was born here. My mother was born in a little teeny tiny crossroads called Woodrow. I am 27 years old and proud to be the chair of the Lubbock County Democratic Party. pic.twitter.com/CBOnRaAaxg

— Stuart Williams (@CaprockDemocrat) January 11, 2018

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Sunday, 14 January 2018 00:03 (three days ago) Permalink

TEXAS, BABY

Men's Scarehouse - "You're gonna like the way you're shook." (m bison), Sunday, 14 January 2018 03:34 (three days ago) Permalink

that is great

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Sunday, 14 January 2018 11:45 (three days ago) Permalink

Hell yeah

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 15 January 2018 03:11 (two days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.