Toward 2020

Romana

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
320
Yes, the argument that person x should not run because the Rs will say whatever (or whatever name) about them is pointless. The Rs will say something about anyone who runs against them, no matter how much you prove it to be untrue. Does that mean nobody should run against them? Or that only white men (with the minimum possible 'othering' in their past) can be chosen?
Obama wasn't white.
I don't know why that didn't start sharing him earlier; maybe they assumed his being black was enough to guarantee their victory. And what they did come up with was just weak. Northridge was the strongest thing they had, and it was too ridiculous to work, even though the cultists still believe it.
The Dems need someone who can energize the most people like he did and also be a hard target, no matter what their gender or ethnicity.
 

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
332
Location
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
DNC sets the rules. There's nothing more biased in that than there is in someone's decision who they marry. They have every moral right and obligation to set these rules.
You could have just stopped here and said "so what?" You have heard that the undemocratic nature of party bosses picking the candidate will not sit well with people but you don't care. Got it. There is nothing else to be said.

Some irony here is that Bernie Sanders actually had and has sway without committing to being a registered Democrat. Imagine how much would change if he committed (fairly convincingly), and spent more time listening to instead of denigrating most other politicians in the party. So far he hasn't changed that MO and most Democrats aren't going to tolerate it again. The only hope of a real defense against the GOP is pure partisan politics right now.
Garbage. The so-called moderates are continually working against his agenda. Becoming an actual Democrat wouldn't change anything, because he is not beholden to money.

What is normal? They are normal delegates. The term superdelegates is only a name applied to politicians being also selectively involved as delegates in addition to those assigned from primary voting. Just call them the elected official delegates, or politician delegates if it makes it more clear. Yes, there's a difference in that other delegates represent thousands of voters, but if there were only one delegate for all of the politicians together, is would be a joke to say they were involved. They don't have to agree who to vote for.
Nice spin, but that logic is more delusion. They are not normal for the reason you cited - that they don't represent any proportional share of the population of a state/territory. Elected officials in the state can easily take the place of those who are apportioned by the electoral vote.


I'm arguing that you shouldn't be trying to keep the party leadership out of the party's affairs. The lack of integrity is on the part of anyone trying to eliminate them.
A little over 60% of the pledged delegates would eliminate superdelegate votes. That's not a supermajority. It gets even smaller when you recognize that the superdelegates will be a mixed bag, where you may only need 55% of the pledged votes since you'll surely get at least a fraction of the unpledged.
Do you work for a Democratic consulting company? Because the spin is just amazing. Elected officials can participate as normal delegates, in proportion. No one is arguing to keep them out of it. And basic math tells you that any threshold higher than 50% is a supermajority. What the hell is that, trying to spin basic math?

Your example using WV is even more flawed by giving the impression this is average breakdown of pledged vs. unpledged delegates. There are a higher number of DNC member who are not holding elected office living there. They can move and still be superdelegates. They aren't assigned as any percentage per state and WV's was abnormally high. ~22% of delegates from there were unpledged. Other states, like Fl and Ca have half that percentage.
WV showed how undemocratic the process is. He won ALL 55 counties and still had fewer delegates in the end. His share should have reflected his win, not with her having more in the end.


This is the way any party changes over time. The changes become part of the party, not a replacement for it.
The Democratic Party moved more right since the 1980s because they were shoved, not out of pure choice. They were pushed when Reaganomics and GOP "righteousness" was the prominent mindset of too many voters. Even Sanders' view skewed from this popular stand to be anti-Democrat. Being able to proudly accept the label of liberal Democrat is just as important as holding views farther to the left.

You want to assign blame for Democratic Party moving more right? Throw it in the face of the voters where it belongs. Of course it's more popular and easily acceptable to blame the politicians or the unseen machinations of the party itself. It's still all on the voters.
I will blame the voters. But now when the voters are moving left, the leadership is trying to hold them back because of money.

Blexit has no traction at all because most people see if for the fucking bullshit propaganda that it is. Most blacks are still Democrats for the same reasons they ever were. They are capable of using their own brains to make decisions and get pretty damn offended when people tell them they are too stupid to know what's in their best interests or that they are blindly in a plantation. Run with that line at your own risk.

You know damn well that's straight from Republican Candace Owens. You listen to her all you want. I won't give her the time of day other than highlight some of her bullshit ramblings for ridicule if I pay her any attention at all.
Blexit has very little traction but it is still a thing. You may not know black Trump voters, but I do. And they resent being told what to do just because they are black, they resent the seemingly monolithic attitude where if they vote differently that they are called Uncle Toms. They're selfish people in many ways, yes. But they also realize that the economic gains for blacks haven't gone so well, and the Democratic Party is complicit. To me, that does not justify voting Republican but if you're a wealthy black person, you have reasons to vote Republican. Trump's popularity among minorities is rising. If we head into a crash before 2020 that will change things, but until then, ignore that at your peril.

You keep calling it identity politics, and I'll keep setting you straight calling it civil rights. All politics are based on identity. Just because it seems easier to identify with the 99.9% vs. the .1%, doesn't rule out the identity part of your electorate.
Nor does anybody run on civil rights alone. But it won't be excluded. Learn how to deal with it or lose voter support from the marginalized.
I say "identity politics" to mean that the emphasis on civil rights is not enough - I am talking about economic justice, the thing that is lacking most from our politics. It's not enough to increase minority representation if those minorities sell out the majority of their people and back greedy Wall Street businesses. Economic justice also largely overlaps with racial justice. All the Hakeem Jeffries type representatives in the world don't mean shit if I still have a 7k deductible for health care, which means that my ass is not going to the doctor even though I may have a low premium.
 

Brian

Active member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
124
You could have just stopped here and said "so what?" You have heard that the undemocratic nature of party bosses picking the candidate will not sit well with people but you don't care. Got it. There is nothing else to be said.
I didn't stop right there because the plain explanation of how party bosses don't pick the candidate seemed like it needed to be pointed out.
But you go right on ignoring it and pretend it's all secret chamber meetings while everyone else watches what happens in plain sight.

Garbage. The so-called moderates are continually working against his agenda. Becoming an actual Democrat wouldn't change anything, because he is not beholden to money.
As long as you call anyone who isn't behind Bernie Sanders, or specifically aiming for your 4 priorities exactly as worded a moderate, your so-called modifier is definitely correct.
Let's just say Bernie Sanders is beholden to money and Democrats are not. I don't even need to prove anything because that's obviously never been a requirement for that claim. Just yell it over and over and evidently that's all there is to it.

Nice spin, but that logic is more delusion. They are not normal for the reason you cited - that they don't represent any proportional share of the population of a state/territory. Elected officials in the state can easily take the place of those who are apportioned by the electoral vote.
I guess you missed where the 10% of delegates in California and Florida for example, couldn't possibly be enough to offset anything but a slightly even allotment of the pledged.
Because WV just happened to have an unusually high proportion living in the state. They aren't supposed to be a proportional share of a state. Try to talk half of the unpledged delegates in WV to move somewhere else if it makes you feel better.
The spin is 100% on YOU.

Do you work for a Democratic consulting company? Because the spin is just amazing. Elected officials can participate as normal delegates, in proportion. No one is arguing to keep them out of it. And basic math tells you that any threshold higher than 50% is a supermajority. What the hell is that, trying to spin basic math?
Spin is entirely what YOU are doing. You refuse to look at any documented details and go back to crying rigged, sounding too obtuse to warrant recognition.
We're not talking basic math. We're talking politics. Bare minimum for a supermajority is sometimes 3/5; often it is 2/3.
If we were talking basic math, you're still wrong. Any threshold higher than 50% is a simple majority. 50% is a tie.

There is no way possible to pretend any delegate that isn't pledged is even a delegate at all if there were no offset of the totals when theirs is included. AGAIN, there were only 714 unpledged delegates out of 4,765 total. Their votes are mixed, for whomever they choose, and getting well over half without them practically guarantees a win.
You don't have to be part of a partisan consulting team to reject baseless complaints.

WV showed how undemocratic the process is. He won ALL 55 counties and still had fewer delegates in the end. His share should have reflected his win, not with her having more in the end.
From WV, he had 18 delegates to her 11. His share reflected his win.
Your addition of delegates who were perfectly able to vote for whomever they wished, including changing their minds at the convention is dishonest. They hadn't even voted yet.
I would have just said disingenuous, but you've had it explained and are still free to verify it on your own. Now you're just being dishonest.
Had he won over half of the pledged delegates, there's hardly any chance in the world all the unpledged from WV would have supported HRC.
(Added irony here - HRC had 2205 of all pledged delegates. BS had 1486. Throwing away all unpledged would have had the same ending.)

I will blame the voters. But now when the voters are moving left, the leadership is trying to hold them back because of money.
Psychotic conspiracy rambling by itself is what it is.
Otherwise, citation needed. Third way doesn't count. It's a political think tank, not party leadership. Most Democrats ignore them. I don't think any differently of them than you do.

I'm not going to bother responding to all the rest. We'll disagree on some and agree on others. The healthcare problem I mostly agree with you on.
I'm also convinced that high out of pocket expense would have taken center stage had Republicans not taken the House in 2010. I'm not confident it will get attention yet, with GOP still holding the Senate.
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,983
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
Sorry, I do not even pick up my land line from known numbers. Everyone I know personally knows a better way to contact me (cell, email, social media, etc).
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Han Held

Cindy Claveau

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
176
Joined SLU
June 2007
SLU Posts
44402
Maybe in blue areas. But in red areas such as where I live, even mentioning "socialist" sends people into tirades.
I can testify to this, as well. The R's that I have talked to immediately fall back on the usual anti-D tropes of "High taxes, welfare state, low wages" without knowing what they're talking about. When I cite other nations that have had huge success with socialist-like policies, or when I point out that we already have some socialism with Social Security and Medicare, their faces go blank. I weep for America's education system.
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,983
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
I can testify to this, as well. The R's that I have talked to immediately fall back on the usual anti-D tropes of "High taxes, welfare state, low wages" without knowing what they're talking about. When I cite other nations that have had huge success with socialist-like policies, or when I point out that we already have some socialism with Social Security and Medicare, their faces go blank. I weep for America's education system.
They have basically been trained to see anything that ends with 'ism' as a synonym. Fascism, socialism, communism, anarchism, etc .... they are all the same.

Do not think about that one too long or your brain will hurt.
 

Han Held

Active member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
326
Location
Anchorage
Joined SLU
September, 2010
SLU Posts
7705
Sorry, I do not even pick up my land line from known numbers. Everyone I know personally knows a better way to contact me (cell, email, social media, etc).
I'm glad I'm not the only one who had that reaction!

Personally speaking, If you want to get ahold of me, you better pick a better ID than "Unknown"/"Private" caller.
 

Katheryne Helendale

🐱 Kitty Queen🐱
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,041
Location
Right... Behind... You...
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
October 2009
I can testify to this, as well. The R's that I have talked to immediately fall back on the usual anti-D tropes of "High taxes, welfare state, low wages" without knowing what they're talking about. When I cite other nations that have had huge success with socialist-like policies, or when I point out that we already have some socialism with Social Security and Medicare, their faces go blank. I weep for America's education system.
People around here love to site Venezuela as an example of socialist program failure. They latch onto that like dogs on fresh meat, and there's no talking them away from it.
 

Jolene Benoir

Hello World
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
558
Location
Minnesnowta
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Dec 2010
Hmmm..I have been thinking about this a fair amount and have come to a conclusion that I do not like, but I believe that might well be necessary if we want to win the Presidency.

It's simple. Very simple. Do not put a woman at the top of the ticket.

I know. I can hear you gritting your teeth. Me too. I consider myself a feminist and it goes against all I believe, but I also HAVE to see Trump out of office.

I honestly believe that Trump will make hay out of any woman that runs. I believe that men who hate women and more than a few women who don't believe women can serve as President would be exactly the tipping point that he would need to win again. I believe they were last time. The existence of the Bernie bros pretty much says it all. Trump was ideologically the opposite of Bernie, yet some voted for him. You see, people don't really need much of an excuse to hate on a powerful female. I don't know if it's fear or hate, but it doesn't matter; the result is the same. We lose again and I really don't want to think about what this country would be like with Trump and his gang of thieves and hooligans for another 6 years.

I would like to see a female President in my lifetime. Damn, I really really do believe we have earned that and I believe we deserve it, but this country is too backassward and it's particularly heated up by the presence of the little Toad-man himself.
 

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
332
Location
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
Hmmm..I have been thinking about this a fair amount and have come to a conclusion that I do not like, but I believe that might well be necessary if we want to win the Presidency.

It's simple. Very simple. Do not put a woman at the top of the ticket.

I know. I can hear you gritting your teeth. Me too. I consider myself a feminist and it goes against all I believe, but I also HAVE to see Trump out of office.

I honestly believe that Trump will make hay out of any woman that runs. I believe that men who hate women and more than a few women who don't believe women can serve as President would be exactly the tipping point that he would need to win again. I believe they were last time. The existence of the Bernie bros pretty much says it all. Trump was ideologically the opposite of Bernie, yet some voted for him. You see, people don't really need much of an excuse to hate on a powerful female. I don't know if it's fear or hate, but it doesn't matter; the result is the same. We lose again and I really don't want to think about what this country would be like with Trump and his gang of thieves and hooligans for another 6 years.

I would like to see a female President in my lifetime. Damn, I really really do believe we have earned that and I believe we deserve it, but this country is too backassward and it's particularly heated up by the presence of the little Toad-man himself.
This is why we have to have someone who will punch back and not apologize for it. As long as they can do it and convincingly so, I would hope we can get a woman who will do it.
 

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
332
Location
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
I didn't stop right there because the plain explanation of how party bosses don't pick the candidate seemed like it needed to be pointed out.
But you go right on ignoring it and pretend it's all secret chamber meetings while everyone else watches what happens in plain sight.


As long as you call anyone who isn't behind Bernie Sanders, or specifically aiming for your 4 priorities exactly as worded a moderate, your so-called modifier is definitely correct.
Let's just say Bernie Sanders is beholden to money and Democrats are not. I don't even need to prove anything because that's obviously never been a requirement for that claim. Just yell it over and over and evidently that's all there is to it.


I guess you missed where the 10% of delegates in California and Florida for example, couldn't possibly be enough to offset anything but a slightly even allotment of the pledged.
Because WV just happened to have an unusually high proportion living in the state. They aren't supposed to be a proportional share of a state. Try to talk half of the unpledged delegates in WV to move somewhere else if it makes you feel better.
The spin is 100% on YOU.

Spin is entirely what YOU are doing. You refuse to look at any documented details and go back to crying rigged, sounding too obtuse to warrant recognition.
We're not talking basic math. We're talking politics. Bare minimum for a supermajority is sometimes 3/5; often it is 2/3.
If we were talking basic math, you're still wrong. Any threshold higher than 50% is a simple majority. 50% is a tie.
I'm not obsessed with the system as it is now with superdelegates as a failsafe. I'm more interested in what it could be, that is fair. My first post on this subject was that if they are not going to be neutral arbiters, it should be clear that they aren't, and drop the facade. You've spent a lot of words justifying it. You can have your opinion, I see it differently.


There is no way possible to pretend any delegate that isn't pledged is even a delegate at all if there were no offset of the totals when theirs is included. AGAIN, there were only 714 unpledged delegates out of 4,765 total. Their votes are mixed, for whomever they choose, and getting well over half without them practically guarantees a win.
You don't have to be part of a partisan consulting team to reject baseless complaints.
If 50.01% is not enough to win, you need a supermajority. No offsets should be necessary.


From WV, he had 18 delegates to her 11. His share reflected his win.
Your addition of delegates who were perfectly able to vote for whomever they wished, including changing their minds at the convention is dishonest. They hadn't even voted yet.
I would have just said disingenuous, but you've had it explained and are still free to verify it on your own. Now you're just being dishonest.
Had he won over half of the pledged delegates, there's hardly any chance in the world all the unpledged from WV would have supported HRC.
(Added irony here - HRC had 2205 of all pledged delegates. BS had 1486. Throwing away all unpledged would have had the same ending.)
My point, which you are not absorbing, is that I don't think that any of the delegates should be unpledged. We are talking past each other on this. I am done with it.


Psychotic conspiracy rambling by itself is what it is.
Otherwise, citation needed. Third way doesn't count. It's a political think tank, not party leadership. Most Democrats ignore them. I don't think any differently of them than you do.
Polling shows strong support for a number of issues: Medicare For All, some levels of free public college, a green new deal, a livable minimum wage. Party leadership is mealy mouthed at best on these issues or strictly against them. Other elected officials in the New Democrats and the like take the same position. They all talk about preserving the ACA, but the ACA fucks over people who don't qualify for a subsidy, and even the subsidized plans are not all that hot with astronomical deductibles. Pelosi just tried ramming in pay-go into the rules, despite progressive opposition. We'll see how that shakes out tomorrow.
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,983
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
I'm glad I'm not the only one who had that reaction!

Personally speaking, If you want to get ahold of me, you better pick a better ID than "Unknown"/"Private" caller.
I resent the fact that cable/internet companies basically force you to have a phone. To me it is basically something that uses a power outlet and annoyingly makes noise at random times. It is an albatross. If I unplugged it I would feel guilty for not taking 'advantage' of it. If I disconnected it I would get guilt tripped by parents and such who feel everyone MUST have a land line.
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Cristalle

Bartholomew Gallacher

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
926
It's simple. Very simple. Do not put a woman at the top of the ticket.

I know. I can hear you gritting your teeth. Me too. I consider myself a feminist and it goes against all I believe, but I also HAVE to see Trump out of office.
Nope, since feminists have always been fighters you are in reality nothing more than a pessimist, underestimating your own country and women on equal terms.
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,983
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
Hmmm..I have been thinking about this a fair amount and have come to a conclusion that I do not like, but I believe that might well be necessary if we want to win the Presidency.

It's simple. Very simple. Do not put a woman at the top of the ticket.

I know. I can hear you gritting your teeth. Me too. I consider myself a feminist and it goes against all I believe, but I also HAVE to see Trump out of office.

I honestly believe that Trump will make hay out of any woman that runs. I believe that men who hate women and more than a few women who don't believe women can serve as President would be exactly the tipping point that he would need to win again. I believe they were last time. The existence of the Bernie bros pretty much says it all. Trump was ideologically the opposite of Bernie, yet some voted for him. You see, people don't really need much of an excuse to hate on a powerful female. I don't know if it's fear or hate, but it doesn't matter; the result is the same. We lose again and I really don't want to think about what this country would be like with Trump and his gang of thieves and hooligans for another 6 years.

I would like to see a female President in my lifetime. Damn, I really really do believe we have earned that and I believe we deserve it, but this country is too backassward and it's particularly heated up by the presence of the little Toad-man himself.
I could see someone like Warren at the top of a ticket. Of course it is WAY too early to decide who is the most progressive candidate to support, but her and a few others are fighters. Can you imagine a ticket with her and Tammy Duckworth? I would almost feel sorry for any R who threw shade at them. Well, except for donnie himself of course, he would try but would not get very far.