Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, SCRawl, Thanas, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6493
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by Soontir C'boath » 2018-04-28 02:16am

This is most likely not surprising to any of us and IIRC from previous interactions I've had with some members on this board that this is considered a good thing or unavoidable. However, I don't subscribe to the modern version of Plato's The Republic. This is wrong. This is why Democrats have lost by not listening to their constituents whom are not even allowed to decide who wins in the primary, and putting forth candidates that are not enticing to vote for towards the general. Also when the DCCC requires potential candidates to already have a network that could fund their campaign to at least a quarter of a million dollars, this practically throws out any candidate who are middle class (which has shrunk considerably) and therefore actual possible representation in their favor and disposes any sense that we are a democracy. When the form of American democracy is mostly composed of an elite class of wealthy individuals who do not take the common person's interest at heart, then it is flawed and no small wonder why people who subscribed to this system welcome the crumbs we get.



In italics, I was confused by what the paragraph was trying to say, but it seems to suggest Hoyer thinks that while Tillemann could win the primary, he would lose the general, but in the recording, Hoyer can be heard to say that the chosen candidate, Crow, may not necessarily win either, but they'll pour money into him regardless. Coffman, the incumbent Republican that is the focus of this election, has already fended off Democratic challenges twice. It sounds like we're heading for a third time.

The Intercept wrote:STENY HOYER, the No. 2 Democrat in the House of Representatives, has for years been a prolific campaigner on behalf of current and potential members of Congress. It was no surprise, then, that December found him in Colorado, where the party has hopes of knocking off Republican incumbent Mike Coffman.

Before Donald Trump had even been inaugurated, local resistance groups began deluging Coffman’s public appearances, pressing him not to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and putting him back on his political heels. Levi Tillemann, an author, inventor, and former official with the Obama administration’s Energy Department, moved back home to make a run against Coffman.

He focused his campaign on clean elections, combatting climate change, “Medicare for All,” free community college, and confronting economic inequality and monopoly power. Another candidate for the nomination, Jason Crow, a corporate lawyer at the powerhouse Colorado firm Holland & Hart and an Army veteran, meanwhile, appeared to have the backing of the Democratic establishment, though it wasn’t explicit. In November, it became clearer, as Crow was named by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to the party’s “Red to Blue” list, which the committee specifies is not an endorsement but does carry symbolic weight.

With Hoyer in Denver, Tillemann met the minority whip at the Hilton Denver Downtown to make the case that the party should stay neutral in the primary and that he had a more plausible path to victory than the same centrism that Coffman had already beaten repeatedly.

Hoyer, however, had his own message he wanted to convey: Tillemann should drop out.

In a frank and wide-ranging conversation, Hoyer laid down the law for Tillemann. The decision, Tillemann was told, had been made long ago. It wasn’t personal, Hoyer insisted, and there was nothing uniquely unfair being done to Tillemann, he explained: This is how the party does it everywhere.

Tillemann had heard the argument before from D.C. insiders and local Democratic bigwigs, all of whom had discouraged him from challenging the establishment favorite. The only difference was that for this conversation, the candidate had his phone set to record.

The secretly taped audio recording, released here for the first time, reveals how senior Democratic officials have worked to crush competitive primaries and steer political resources, money, and other support to hand-picked candidates in key races across the country, long before the party publicly announces a preference. The invisible assistance boosts the preferred candidate in fundraising and endorsements, and then that fundraising success and those endorsements are used to justify national party support. Meanwhile, opponents of the party’s unspoken pick are driven into paranoia, wondering if they are merely imagining that unseen hands are working against them.

Hoyer bluntly told Tillemann that it wasn’t his imagination, and that mobilizing support for one Democratic candidate over another in a primary isn’t unusual. Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., chair of the DCCC, has a “policy that early on, we’d try to agree on a candidate who we thought could win the general and give the candidate all the help we could give them,” Hoyer told Tillemann matter-of-factly.

“Yeah, I’m for Crow,” Hoyer explained. “I am for Crow because a judgment was made very early on. I didn’t know Crow. I didn’t participate in the decision. But a decision was made early on by the Colorado delegation,” he said, referencing the three House Democrats elected from Colorado.

“So your position is, a decision was made very early on before voters had a say, and that’s fine because the DCCC knows better than the voters of the 6th Congressional District, and we should line up behind that candidate,” asked Tillemann during the conversation.

“That’s certainly a consequence of our decision,” responded Hoyer.

“Staying out of primaries sounds small-D democratic, very intellectual, and very interesting,” said Hoyer. “But if you stay out of primaries, and somebody wins in the primary who can’t possibly win in the general,” the Maryland representative said, citing the surprise victory of Democrat Doug Jones over Republican Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate election, “I’m not saying you’re that person.” But staying out of primaries, he argued, is “not very smart strategy.”

Before agreeing to provide the audio, Tillemann requested that personal details be withheld. The Intercept selected the newsworthy aspects of the recording for publication.

DURING THE CONVERSATION, Hoyer asked Tillemann to leave the race multiple times and make way for Crow. “You keep saying I would like you to get out of the race, and of course that’s correct,” Hoyer said, adding that he hoped Tillemann would refrain from criticizing the party’s chosen candidate if he decided to stay in.

The party, notably, has a poor track record in selecting candidates that can win the general election.

In 2006, the last cycle viewed as a wave midterm election for Democrats, the DCCC famously became heavily involved in Democratic primaries. In that election, just as in 2018, the party attempted to pick moderate, business-friendly veterans, while nudging left-leaning candidates out of the election. But some of the party’s chosen primary candidates ended up losing, and several candidates viewed as too progressive to win the general in Republican-held districts — such as John Hall, Carol Shea-Porter, and Jerry McNerney — went on to win that election with little to no DCCC support.

The suggestion that Tillemann might end up being a spoiler like Roy Moore, an extremist with a history of soliciting minors, may seem far-fetched.

Tillemann, while studying for his Ph.D., founded an energy efficient engine design company, and in 2012, was appointed by President Barack Obama to advise the Energy Department. Though he has positioned himself as a grassroots populist aligned with local resistance activist groups, if anything he is simultaneously a legacy of the Democratic establishment, as the grandson of the late Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., on his mother’s side and the grandson of former Colorado Lt. Gov. Nancy Dick on his father’s side. He grew up in a working-class neighborhood of Denver. He also speaks Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, and Japanese — an asset, he says, for the rapidly diversifying 6th District.

Crow spoke at the 2012 Democratic National Convention to support the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. He previously served on the Colorado Board of Veterans Affairs and advised both the Obama administration and former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper on veterans issues. Crow’s first television advertisement focuses on Coffman’s support from the gun lobby, but conservatives have fired back to note that Crow’s law firm lobbies against gun control on behalf of gun manufacturers in Colorado.

Crow’s work representing corporations accused of misconduct may become a liability in the campaign. Legal filings list Crow’s name on lawsuits defending payday lender Western Sky Financial and fracking firm Slawson Exploration.

IN RACES IN Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Texas, Nebraska, California, and beyond, progressive candidates are finding that the DCCC has mobilized support for moderate candidates with access to early campaign cash at the expense of progressives. As we’ve reported, many first-time candidates are told by the DCCC that before they can even be considered, they have to perform the “rolodex” test to show they can raise $250,000 or more from the contact list on their phone.

In February, the DCCC made the unusual move to release opposition research, the term of art for political dirt, against activist Laura Moser, who the party viewed as too liberal to win in the 7th Congressional District of Texas, a Houston-area seat. The strategy, however, appeared to backfire. Moser placed second in the Texas Democratic primary, meaning she’ll have a shot at the nomination in the May 22 runoff.

Tillemann says the decision to record the conversation came after months of hints that party officials did not want him as the candidate. Though he notified the party of his intention to run, he had trouble gaining an audience with senior DCCC officials, obtaining polling data promised by the DCCC, or even gaining access to resumes of Democratic campaign staff. The party continued to promise neutrality while inviting only Crow to a candidate training seminar, Tillemann alleges.

In February of last year, Tillemann reached out over email to DCCC officials as he explored a bid and maintained contact with party staff through the launch of his campaign; he says he was continually stonewalled as he sought candidate resources. Nearly six months after the initial contact, with Tillemann’s internal complaints growing more forceful, the party committee offered some perfunctory assistance in exchange for access to details about campaign financials and organizing. The offer came after a heated exchange between Tillemann and a DCCC official at a campaign event, in which Tillemann argued that the party was more interested in boosting Crow than beating Coffman.

While the DCCC still promised neutrality, publicly disclosed campaign donations confirmed Tillemann’s suspicions. In June 2017, a political action committee controlled by Luján, the DCCC chair, donated $1,000 to Crow. That month, PACs controlled by Hoyer also donated two checks for a combined total of $2,000 to Crow.

“We were put in a situation time and time again where what was communicated to us behind closed doors and what was communicated to the public was at odds,” says Tillemann of his decision to tape the conversation with Hoyer. “The breach of personal decorum,” Tillemann adds, “was much less important than the fundamental principle at stake in our democracy in 2018.”

Mariel Saez, a spokesperson for Hoyer, said that “we do not comment on private meetings. Mr. Hoyer supports Crow and donated to him last year, but he hasn’t engaged in the race since then.” Crow did not respond to a request for comment, and the DCCC declined to comment.

BUT THE DYNAMICS described in the audio tape and by Tillemann resonated with other former candidates in the district.

“The party did not give me the resources that they gave Jason Crow,” says David Aarestad, an attorney who had been running for the nomination for the 6th District. Aarestad dropped out of the race in March and endorsed Crow.

“It was the D-trip. I was given extensive promises in March of last year that they would not do anything to favor one candidate over another, that they had learned from the mistakes made during the Bernie-Hillary fallout, and that they would do everything the same for all of the candidates,” says Aarestad. “But, they made polling data available to Crow that they did not make available to me. They made other resources available to Crow that they did not make available to me, such as email lists for fundraising purposes.”

Gabriel McArthur, another former candidate for the 6th District, says the DCCC never contacted him, even though he was the first candidate to enter the race. He says the party exercises influence not just over candidate selection, but how political money and media coverage operates in the state. McArthur says he had the most detailed policies on his campaign website, but could never gain serious media coverage for his race. While Crow for much of last year had no issues page on his campaign website, McArthur noted that the establishment favorite appeared to easily win endorsement after endorsement from local liberal groups and politicians along with fawning coverage from local media.

“Jason Crow has been hoisted up as the chosen candidate the entire time. The party officers say we need centrists to win against Mike Coffman, that’s just the way it is,” says McArthur, a former Bernie Sanders delegate to the 2016 Democratic National Convention.

Democratic consultants, McArthur says, have told him to focus more on fundraising than publicizing his policy agenda. “The money isn’t the real problem — the problem is that the Democrats lack any real agenda,” says McArthur.

When the DCCC publicly added Crow to its “Red to Blue” list of front-line candidates in November, the move further embittered local Colorado Democrats who had been assured the party was remaining neutral in the primary. State Party Chair Morgan Carroll, the Democratic nominee in the 6th District in 2016, wrote on Facebook, “The DCCC verbally said they would be neutral and in practice just endorsed one of the candidates in CD6.”

The suburban district is being widely watched as one of the most important seats Democrats need to flip to regain the majority. Obama won the district in 2012 by 5 percentage points, and Hillary Clinton won it by 9 percent in 2016. But the incumbent, Coffman, has proved resilient, winning crossover votes by projecting a moderate image. He defeated Democratic challengers in the last two election cycles by a wide margin.

Hoyer has for years been a mainstay of House Democratic leadership, tantalizingly close to the speakership. Soon after being elected to Congress in 1981, he became a protégé of then-Rep. Tony Coelho, D-Calif., a business-friendly lawmaker who had just become chair of the DCCC. Coelho famously transformed the DCCC into the big-money operation it is today, rebuking the Democratic Party’s longstanding alliance with labor unions and activists in favor of raising millions of dollars from corporate lobbyists.

Under Coelho, one DCCC brochure assured donors “courteous and direct access to” Democratic lawmakers. The DCCC encouraged candidates to focus on raising cash from corporate PACs and building relationships with business executives as the easiest path to office. Coelho resigned in 1989 following an ethics scandal, but not before giving a boost to Hoyer, his lieutenant who was quickly rising through the ranks of leadership.

Hoyer, exploiting his own role as the caucus point person for K Street, won the election as House Democratic whip in 2002. According to reports in Roll Call and the Washington Post, Hoyer regularly invites corporate lobbyists for weekly lunches with the caucus and helps to headline private donor retreats for the party. During the 2006 midterms, he worked closely with the DCCC to raise prodigious sums of corporate PAC cash for party election efforts, further cementing his role as a power player in the party.

FOR THE 2018 midterm cycle, the party has not only courted moderate Democrats and formed a renewed partnership with the conservative Blue Dog caucus for candidate recruitment, but has discouraged candidates from embracing populist ideas, such as single-payer health care.

For Tillemann, however, the party’s closeness with the corporate elite is the very reason why the DCCC continues to lose general elections.

“They squash progressive candidates. They destroy the diversity of ideas in their caucus. They keep ideas like ‘Medicare for All,’ free community college, or impeaching Donald Trump from having a significant role in the national conversation,” says Tillemann. “The issues that resonate most with voters are not the issues that the DCCC is telling candidates to focus on.”

Is he worried that even if he is successful in his campaign, that he’s already betrayed one of the most powerful Democrats, making him an outsider as soon as he arrives in Washington?

“To a certain extent, people like Elizabeth Warren and people like Bernie Sanders have been ostracized by the party, and they have been marginalized by the establishment to the extent that is possible,” says Tillemann. “But the fact of the matter is that the people are crying out for genuine leaders, and the people are crying out for a solution to inequality and systemic injustice, and to the extent that I am fighting for those solutions, then I think there will be a powerful constituency for that.”

“I’m proud to be on the side of truth,” he added. “I’m proud to be on the right side of democracy, and I’m proud to be on the right side of free and fair elections.”

The video was produced by The Intercept’s Travis Mannon and Lauren Feeney, and narrated by The Intercept’s Elise Swain. Illustrations by Matt Lubchansky, associate editor of The Nib.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14991
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-04-29 04:40pm

I can't think of anyone on this board (or anyone who believes at all in the concept of a functioning democracy) who would consider this a good thing, or something that we should simply accept. And personally, I'm particularly incensed by this (biasedly, I admit), because it involves my own state of Colorado. I do, however, think that its unfortunate that it will inevitably be used by certain parties (and no, I'm not saying that you're one of them) to brand the whole Democratic Party as irredeemably corrupt or "just as bad as the Republicans" in an effort to drive a wedge in the party and keep Trump and company in power. But that's all the more reason for Democrats not to shield or defend Hoyer, who's behavior and subsequent exposure here has embarrassed the party and helped fuel a hostile narrative. Ironically, in trying to block candidates he believes to be a liability, he has become one himself.

To be fair, I will acknowledge that I am somewhat wary of the Intercept as a source on this issue, because one of the editors, Glenn Greenwald
Wikipedia wrote:...publicly ridiculed or dismissed allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, calling them "radical conspiracy theories." Greenwald alleged that the Democratic Party hyperbolized the evidence supporting collusion complaints about Trump, in order to shift the blame for Trump's election as president away from the Democratic Party.
Now, I do acknowledge Greenwald's views do not reflect everyone at the Intercept, and I expect at least the broad outlines of this story are true, but given Greenwald's biases on the subject of the last election and the Democratic Party, I can't help but wonder if there's an editorial slant here.

However, this story does nonetheless underline the need for reform in the Democratic Party, and shows that some of the upper ranks have not learned their lesson from the 2016 primary. I suppose that's not surprising- arrogance and inflexibility from people who have long held positions of power is pretty much human nature. But its to the detriment of the party. Idiocy like this is helping fuel the above-mentioned hostile narrative. Some of it is no doubt down to greed and corruption, but a lot of it is down to habit and shear lack of nerve- the old guard has had it deeply ingrained in them that anything "liberal" (or, God forbid, "socialist") is unelectable in America. They have had the fight whipped out of them by losses that happened decades ago and subsequent Right wing propaganda, and have no backbone for a real fight on principle. I expect that won't really change until most of the old guard is dead or retired, though every time a progressive does win, or outperform expectations, against the odds, it chips away at that narrative.

I mean, I don't fault party members for supporting the candidate they think has the best shot in the general election, and legally the Democratic (or Republican Party) can pretty much set their own rules for picking candidates, right down to drawing the nominee's name out of a hat if they want to. But when you promise neutrality in a primary you should actually deliver, and the shear arrogance and contempt on display here for the voters is unacceptable, especially in light of the backlash the party received last year.

It would be deliciously ironic if Hoyer ended up getting primaried from the Left at some point. 8) I'd donate money to make that happen (with the caveat that I'm not sure what the rules on out of state donations are).
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
madd0ct0r
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5502
Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by madd0ct0r » 2018-04-30 07:42am

on the other hand, the DCC is looking to prevent the takeover of primaries by populists driven by the dedicated fringe, aka the tea party tactic.

the corrupt status quo vs unpredictable change basically. Given the reduction in Democrat's grassroots, I'd say this is more on the stagnation and death end of the scale of grand strategy :). But why would they allow change when they'll be forced out by said change?
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14991
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-04-30 02:11pm

madd0ct0r wrote:
2018-04-30 07:42am
on the other hand, the DCC is looking to prevent the takeover of primaries by populists driven by the dedicated fringe, aka the tea party tactic.
If that's the goal, I can sympathize (though as I said, I think there's a lot of self-interest and shear cowardice mixed in here, too). Political organizations do need to guard against internal takeover by extremists, and we'd be much better off if the Republicans had done so.

At the same time, the really dangerously fringe Left is not at all as threatening as the Tea Party right now. Bernie Sanders basically represents the far Left wing of what is potentially politically viable in the US, and as radical as his economics may be in the US, I doubt they'd be much more than Centrist in most other western countries. The radicals can certainly cause trouble on a smaller scale, and get disproportionate attention because that's what trolls do, but I don't see this as a situation where we have to tamp down aggressively on any Left-of-Centre candidates to prevent a takeover of the Dems by a Left-wing tea party.

The only real power that the radical fringe has on the Left right now is to generate just enough defections to the Greens (or to just stay home on election day) to torpedo the Dems in a close race. And since they feed on the "both parties are equally corrupt parts of the establishment" narrative, and Hoyer's bullshit can be spun to fit that narrative very easily, I don't think this is helping.
the corrupt status quo vs unpredictable change basically. Given the reduction in Democrat's grassroots, I'd say this is more on the stagnation and death end of the scale of grand strategy :).
I'm not one to embrace "Change for the sake of change/any change no matter how radical or what the cost", but basically admitting "Yeah, we think we're better than the peons and they shouldn't get a say" (or acting in a manner that makes it clear that that's your view) is political idiocy. That's not going to quiet the push towards fringe populism- its going to throw fuel on the fire. Even if its the sincere belief of a lot of politicians, anyone dumb enough to flaunt it should be marginalized, for the good of the party and the good of the democratic system.

I don't expect it to happen, but if what's being reported here is even half-accurate, Hoyer should be persona non grata in the DNC.
But why would they allow change when they'll be forced out by said change?
Well yeah, from a Centrist establishment candidate's view, its probably against their self-interest to let progressives take over the party.

From the point of view of what's best for the party and country, however, I question the wisdom of their methods.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
Ritterin Sophia
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5467
Joined: 2006-07-25 09:32am

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by Ritterin Sophia » 2018-05-01 01:55am

Bear in mind the "fringe" they're worried about are DSA, Democratic Socialists who support Market Socialism in a market economy. So like the most milquetoastiest of "fringe Leftists" since literally their plan is worker owned cooperatives competing in a market economy and getting the money out of politics as much as possible. They're more pro-democracy than the average Democratic candidate since the democracy doesn't stop in the government. And they're full on entryists, which means they refuse to run third party, ever. And who were super pissed when Bernie left because despite not actually being a Socialist he was the face of the Left wing of the Democratic Party so it makes them look bad even though they stay loyal. And catch shit from all the other Leftists for thinking they can trust the Liberals in the Democratic Party.
A Certain Clique, HAB, The Chroniclers

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14991
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-05-01 04:21pm

Ritterin Sophia wrote:
2018-05-01 01:55am
Bear in mind the "fringe" they're worried about are DSA, Democratic Socialists who support Market Socialism in a market economy. So like the most milquetoastiest of "fringe Leftists" since literally their plan is worker owned cooperatives competing in a market economy and getting the money out of politics as much as possible. They're more pro-democracy than the average Democratic candidate since the democracy doesn't stop in the government. And they're full on entryists, which means they refuse to run third party, ever. And who were super pissed when Bernie left because despite not actually being a Socialist he was the face of the Left wing of the Democratic Party so it makes them look bad even though they stay loyal. And catch shit from all the other Leftists for thinking they can trust the Liberals in the Democratic Party.
Pretty much. Really fringe lunatics hold basically no power with the Dems. They're off wasting their time/casting spite votes with the Greens, or not voting at all. That could change, someday, but right now, that's where we're at.

Though Bernie Sanders only soft-"left" the Democrats. He was an independent before running for the Presidency, and while I wish he would become a full Democrat rather than stay an independent for the sake of appearances, he caucuses with the Dems IIRC, and regularly promotes (progressive) Dem candidates (as well as campaigning for Hillary in 2016).

Bernie occupies this weird pseudo-Democrat middle ground where he's got a foot in both the Dem and anti-establishment independent camps, so to speak.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
Zaune
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6138
Joined: 2010-06-21 11:05am
Location: In Transit
Contact:

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by Zaune » 2018-05-01 06:38pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-05-01 04:21pm
Pretty much. Really fringe lunatics hold basically no power with the Dems. They're off wasting their time/casting spite votes with the Greens, or not voting at all. That could change, someday, but right now, that's where we're at.

Though Bernie Sanders only soft-"left" the Democrats. He was an independent before running for the Presidency, and while I wish he would become a full Democrat rather than stay an independent for the sake of appearances, he caucuses with the Dems IIRC, and regularly promotes (progressive) Dem candidates (as well as campaigning for Hillary in 2016).

Bernie occupies this weird pseudo-Democrat middle ground where he's got a foot in both the Dem and anti-establishment independent camps, so to speak.
If he's better off doing that than taking some like-minded Democrat candidates and most of their youth vote with him and starting a party of his own, I must confess I'm not familiar enough with US politics to understand how. Hell, the Democrats might be better off if he did that as well; I get that they want to be a broad church, but trying to appeal to absolutely everyone is a surefire way to end up appealing to no-one.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)


Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin


Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon

I Have A Blog

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14991
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-05-01 07:06pm

Zaune wrote:
2018-05-01 06:38pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-05-01 04:21pm
Pretty much. Really fringe lunatics hold basically no power with the Dems. They're off wasting their time/casting spite votes with the Greens, or not voting at all. That could change, someday, but right now, that's where we're at.

Though Bernie Sanders only soft-"left" the Democrats. He was an independent before running for the Presidency, and while I wish he would become a full Democrat rather than stay an independent for the sake of appearances, he caucuses with the Dems IIRC, and regularly promotes (progressive) Dem candidates (as well as campaigning for Hillary in 2016).

Bernie occupies this weird pseudo-Democrat middle ground where he's got a foot in both the Dem and anti-establishment independent camps, so to speak.
If he's better off doing that than taking some like-minded Democrat candidates and most of their youth vote with him and starting a party of his own, I must confess I'm not familiar enough with US politics to understand how.
Because the way the US system is set up, there's basically only room for two viable political parties. Bernie mostly draws on liberal/progressive voters, so Bernie going third party just means he splits the Democrats' vote big time, and the Republicans win in a landslide.

I mean, there's a reason he made a bid for the Democratic nomination despite how heavily the odds were stacked against him, and despite being an independent his whole career, rather than running third party from the get-go. Its because if he'd done otherwise, the best he could have hoped for would have been something like:

30% Dem.
30% Bernie.
40% Republican.

And that's being very generous.

Maybe you could have a third party hold the balance of power in Congress, theoretically, but at the top of the ticket... well, its not a parliamentary system, where you can have coalition governments of multiple parties. You need to get close to fifty percent at least to win the Presidency, realistically. And that means you want to avoid vote-splitting.

He and every US politician who actually wants to accomplish something substantive besides being a spoiler knows this, and acts accordingly. There's a bit more room for independent/third party candidates in some state/local elections (see Bernie being elected Independent Senator from Vermont). But if you want to change things in the US at the national level, you try to take over a major party from within, not defeat both major parties from without. That is possible- the major parties have changed course drastically over time. The Dems have gone from being the party of white supremacy, slavery, Jim Crow, and the Klan, to being the party which relies on the black vote and at least makes token efforts at promoting civil rights. The Republicans, meanwhile, shifted to being the Southern White Racist Party with Nixon's Southern Strategy, and also suffered a sort of extremist takeover by the Tea Party and then the Trumpers, which has marginalized the Neo-con old guard.

There is precedent for a major party collapsing and a new party emerging to fill the void- but the last time it happened was the Civil War era, when the whole political system was basically going to hell in a hand basket.

The only way otherwise that a third party/independent would have a shot is if they could draw more or less equally from both major parties. They'd probably have to be independently famous/wealthy as well. Bernie has neither advantage (he drew in some Right-wingers, but surely not as many as he drew in Left-wingers).
Hell, the Democrats might be better off if he did that as well; I get that they want to be a broad church, but trying to appeal to absolutely everyone is a surefire way to end up appealing to no-one.
The Democrats absolutely would not be better off.

Let me put it this way: the only people who support third party bids on the Left are people who's primary goal is fucking the Democrats as hard as possible. Either angry progressives/anti-establishment types, or Right-wingers trying to torpedo the opposition.

Keep in mind that one of the things to come out in the last round of Mueller indictments was that Russian propaganda was specifically aimed at propping up "Bernie or Bust" and the Greens to try to split the Democratic vote.

Edit: Bottom line is, you need to mobilize the base, but you also need fairly broad appeal to win consistently in the US at the national level. That's a tough balancing act. I'm not defending the Dems like Hoyer, by the way- they've forgotten that lesson, and are shrinking the big tent by actively trying to push progressives out. The ideal approach would be to find common ground where both progressives and centrists could work together. But 2016 was so polarizing a primary that that's very hard to do now.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
Ritterin Sophia
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5467
Joined: 2006-07-25 09:32am

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by Ritterin Sophia » 2018-05-01 11:29pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-05-01 04:21pm

Pretty much. Really fringe lunatics hold basically no power with the Dems. They're off wasting their time/casting spite votes with the Greens, or not voting at all. That could change, someday, but right now, that's where we're at.

Though Bernie Sanders only soft-"left" the Democrats. He was an independent before running for the Presidency, and while I wish he would become a full Democrat rather than stay an independent for the sake of appearances, he caucuses with the Dems IIRC, and regularly promotes (progressive) Dem candidates (as well as campaigning for Hillary in 2016).

Bernie occupies this weird pseudo-Democrat middle ground where he's got a foot in both the Dem and anti-establishment independent camps, so to speak.
Nah Bernie explicitly said he’d stay with the Democrats, then walked it back to “after I finish the term I was elected as an Independent”, and then dropped it altogether. Fuck him.
A Certain Clique, HAB, The Chroniclers

User avatar
Ritterin Sophia
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5467
Joined: 2006-07-25 09:32am

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by Ritterin Sophia » 2018-05-01 11:45pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-05-01 07:06pm
Edit: Bottom line is, you need to mobilize the base, but you also need fairly broad appeal to win consistently in the US at the national level. That's a tough balancing act. I'm not defending the Dems like Hoyer, by the way- they've forgotten that lesson, and are shrinking the big tent by actively trying to push progressives out. The ideal approach would be to find common ground where both progressives and centrists could work together. But 2016 was so polarizing a primary that that's very hard to do now.
I mean the liberal (in the classical sense of the word) Democrats have been doing way more egregious shit since then, like asking candidates to drop out is way less bad than what the DCCC was caught doing in Texas demanding all candidates sign a pledge not to use attack ads on each other and then running attack ads on the legitimately Leftist candidates.

And despite being on the same side it has not stopped the liberal Democrats from doing stupid shit like holding up hammer and sickles behind their DSA colleague’s heads knowing full well the Rethuglicans already try to paint anything that isn’t privatizing everything as the next coming of Stalin and thus undermining themselves.
A Certain Clique, HAB, The Chroniclers

User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6493
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by Soontir C'boath » 2018-05-02 09:17pm

LOL @ identity politics.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

User avatar
Ritterin Sophia
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5467
Joined: 2006-07-25 09:32am

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by Ritterin Sophia » 2018-05-03 03:20am

You probably wouldn't be saying that if you were one of the identities being attacked.
A Certain Clique, HAB, The Chroniclers

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30102
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by Simon_Jester » 2018-05-03 08:06am

Soontir C'boath wrote:
2018-05-02 09:17pm
LOL @ identity politics.
In fairness, objecting to "make everyone promise not to run attack ads, then run attack ads" is the kind of thing people have been saying was wrong WAY before the days of identity politics.

Pressuring a candidate not to run in the primary because you're worried they'd win it but lose the general may be obnoxious but it's not necessarily corrupt. There are valid reasons to worry about that outcome as a serious person who wants the best for one's party and one's country. People winning the primary by being "more X-party than you" and then losing the general election by being too X-party for the electorate is a problem that's happening to Republicans in some places right now, after all. It may be a bad practice but it's not, in itself, automatically a corrupt act.

Making everyone multilaterally promise to not do a thing, then doing that exact thing to the unpopular people on the fringe of your group? Now that is inherently a corrupt act.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6493
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by Soontir C'boath » 2018-05-03 10:34am

You're being too nice. Let's remember this is the same party that has lost countless seats from dog catcher to the Presidency to the Republicans. Their track record of putting forth viable candidates is abysmal.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14991
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-05-03 02:31pm

Ritterin Sophia wrote:
2018-05-01 11:29pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-05-01 04:21pm

Pretty much. Really fringe lunatics hold basically no power with the Dems. They're off wasting their time/casting spite votes with the Greens, or not voting at all. That could change, someday, but right now, that's where we're at.

Though Bernie Sanders only soft-"left" the Democrats. He was an independent before running for the Presidency, and while I wish he would become a full Democrat rather than stay an independent for the sake of appearances, he caucuses with the Dems IIRC, and regularly promotes (progressive) Dem candidates (as well as campaigning for Hillary in 2016).

Bernie occupies this weird pseudo-Democrat middle ground where he's got a foot in both the Dem and anti-establishment independent camps, so to speak.
Nah Bernie explicitly said he’d stay with the Democrats, then walked it back to “after I finish the term I was elected as an Independent”, and then dropped it altogether. Fuck him.
As I said, I wish he'd stuck it out with the Dems. And while I'd probably vote for him again if he were the only viable progressive candidate, I'd prefer Warren as a standard-bearer for the Left next go around, for this and various other reasons.

But its only fair to acknowledge that Bernie works with the Democrats at least as often as he's at odds with them. So I regard him as an ally, if a somewhat difficult one at times.
Ritterin Sophia wrote:
2018-05-01 11:45pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-05-01 07:06pm
Edit: Bottom line is, you need to mobilize the base, but you also need fairly broad appeal to win consistently in the US at the national level. That's a tough balancing act. I'm not defending the Dems like Hoyer, by the way- they've forgotten that lesson, and are shrinking the big tent by actively trying to push progressives out. The ideal approach would be to find common ground where both progressives and centrists could work together. But 2016 was so polarizing a primary that that's very hard to do now.
I mean the liberal (in the classical sense of the word) Democrats have been doing way more egregious shit since then, like asking candidates to drop out is way less bad than what the DCCC was caught doing in Texas demanding all candidates sign a pledge not to use attack ads on each other and then running attack ads on the legitimately Leftist candidates.

And despite being on the same side it has not stopped the liberal Democrats from doing stupid shit like holding up hammer and sickles behind their DSA colleague’s heads knowing full well the Rethuglicans already try to paint anything that isn’t privatizing everything as the next coming of Stalin and thus undermining themselves.
Hadn't heard of that, but it doesn't shock me. As I said, they're idiots, just as much as the Bernie or Buster crowd (even if they're more subtle about it). At this point, I regard anyone who is trying to shrink the big tent as an accessory (witting or unwitting) to Trumpism.

We should stand up for our own idea of what the Democratic Party should be, by all means. But don't try to force out anyone who doesn't check all your ideological boxes. Because that way lies a perpetual Republican state. There's a reason why "divide and conquer" is a very old strategy.

[/quote]
Simon_Jester wrote:
2018-05-03 08:06am
Soontir C'boath wrote:
2018-05-02 09:17pm
LOL @ identity politics.
In fairness, objecting to "make everyone promise not to run attack ads, then run attack ads" is the kind of thing people have been saying was wrong WAY before the days of identity politics.

Pressuring a candidate not to run in the primary because you're worried they'd win it but lose the general may be obnoxious but it's not necessarily corrupt. There are valid reasons to worry about that outcome as a serious person who wants the best for one's party and one's country. People winning the primary by being "more X-party than you" and then losing the general election by being too X-party for the electorate is a problem that's happening to Republicans in some places right now, after all. It may be a bad practice but it's not, in itself, automatically a corrupt act.

Making everyone multilaterally promise to not do a thing, then doing that exact thing to the unpopular people on the fringe of your group? Now that is inherently a corrupt act.
This.
Soontir C'boath wrote:
2018-05-03 10:34am
You're being too nice. Let's remember this is the same party that has lost countless seats from dog catcher to the Presidency to the Republicans. Their track record of putting forth viable candidates is abysmal.
One of the fundamental problems of American politics is that we have, at the national level, two viable parties: one of them is good at governing (relatively speaking), and the other is good at getting into office.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6493
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by Soontir C'boath » 2018-05-03 08:56pm

One of the fundamental problems of American politics is that we have, at the national level, two viable parties: one of them is good at governing (relatively speaking), and the other is good at getting into office.
Again, you're all being too nice. This is assuming Democrats actually gave a fuck about you and me. Well, personally I'd say me actually, since you're in Canada so you're even more worthless to them. (sorry couldn't help myself). It's not just Republicans pulling the other way. Democrats refuse to pull just as hard if not harder, the other way and people can see that and people can see how much money wealthy donors give to them. We call Republicans cowards and bought for doing so and yet we seem to refuse to do the same for Democrats even if they admittedly do so at a marginally less evil level. The Overton Window has shifted so much, it seems we don't even realize how much our Democratic politicians' positions don't actually align with ours anymore. Polling has shown tremendous agreements in policies that Democrats have refused to outright speak in support EVEN when they are the minority in Congress and people notice that.

But as long as we give them excuses and we have the boogie man to the right of them to always be afraid of, we shall continue to move to the right and sooner or later maybe, we'll actually admit we have become Republicans. Maybe 80's or even early 90's (?) Republicans, but whichever era, Republicans none the less. But if 90's Republicans were atrocious, then what does that make you in the Democratic Party now?
_______________________
Enough of this shit. Bernie didn't get 30/40+% support in the 2016 primaries for being too far left. He garnered that much because there isn't a real Democrat anymore these days. There are too many of us that are too poor and desperate as fuck back in 2008 and we "thankfully" had Obama that came out of that instead of Hillary. And there are too many that still are now, but the Democratic Party learned not to let another Obama pull another one and flung all their support for Hillary and we learned what happened since, so don't give me that bullshit. Bernie would have won and the shit that the DCCC pulls is wrong, doesn't work, AND UNDEMOCRATIC. It is people like yourselves that Republicans point to and say that you really are no better, even if that isn't so.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14991
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-05-03 09:23pm

Soontir C'boath wrote:
2018-05-03 08:56pm
One of the fundamental problems of American politics is that we have, at the national level, two viable parties: one of them is good at governing (relatively speaking), and the other is good at getting into office.
Again, you're all being too nice. This is assuming Democrats actually gave a fuck about you and me.
As always, I would caution against sweeping attacks on all Democrats. Hoyer and his like aren't the whole party, any more than Elizabeth Warren or the Bernie supporters are.

Generalized attacks on the Democrats are really only "good" for one thing: pushing progressives into staying home or voting third party or defecting to Trump (and no, I'm not saying that that's your intent). For discussions of actually reforming the party and promoting progressivism, blanket attacks on the Democrats are worse than useless, in my opinion.

The Democratic Party is divided between various factions. Right now, the cowardly/greedy Centrists hold a lot of clout, but the progressive faction is strong enough that it could take control of the party leadership in coming years, especially with shifting demographics, if it doesn't just quit the party en mass in disgust.
Well, personally I'd say me actually, since you're in Canada so you're even more worthless to them. (sorry couldn't help myself).
I'm sure you couldn't.

By the way, the fact that I live in Canada does not negate my ability to vote, nor my ability to donate to the Democratic Party. Facts I'm certain the Democratic Party is doubtless aware of. I don't imagine that one voter out of hundreds of millions has much significance to them, but simply living outside the country does not render one politically irrelevant.
It's not just Republicans pulling the other way. Democrats refuse to pull just as hard if not harder, the other way and people can see that and people can see how much money wealthy donors give to them.
I agree that we need a Democratic Party that takes more strong, principled stands for Left wing policy, though hopefully without adopting the Republican tactics of rampant election sabotage, collusion, incitement of violence, pandering to bigotry, and vilifying the free press and independent judiciary.
We call Republicans cowards and bought for doing so and yet we seem to refuse to do the same for Democrats even if they admittedly do so at a marginally less evil level. The Overton Window has shifted so much, it seems we don't even realize how much our Democratic politicians' positions don't actually align with ours anymore. Polling has shown tremendous agreements in policies that Democrats have refused to outright speak in support EVEN when they are the minority in Congress and people notice that.
Do you mean "when they are a majority"?

Anyway, I've never had a problem with calling Democrats cowards when its warranted. I mean, I've pretty much done so repeatedly in this thread.
But as long as we give them excuses and we have the boogie man to the right of them to always be afraid of, we shall continue to move to the right and sooner or later maybe, we'll actually admit we have become Republicans. Maybe 80's or even early 90's (?) Republicans, but whichever era, Republicans none the less. But if 90's Republicans were atrocious, then what does that make you in the Democratic Party now?
So now you're falling back on the tired old "the Democrats are the same as the Republicans" one-liner. Okay, 80/'90s Republicans, but its still not really accurate unless you carefully cherry-pick which issues you're comparing them on.

Also: the Right ain't a bogey man. Bogeymen aren't real. The threat of neo-fascism posed by the American Right is.
_______________________
Enough of this shit. Bernie didn't get enjoy 30/40+% support in the 2016 primaries for being too far left.
True.
There are too many of us that are too poor and desperate as fuck back in 2008 and we "thankfully" had Obama that came out of that. And there are too many that still are now, but the Democratic Party learned not to let another Obama pull another one and flung all their support for Hillary and we learned what happened since, so don't give me that bullshit. Bernie should have won and the shit that the DCCC pulls is wrong.
Agreed, but repeating sweeping, overgeneralized attacks on the Democrats doesn't actually solve the problem. It just drives the wedges deeper into the Democratic Party and the Left, which ultimately reduces any influence progressives might have in the future. I don't think we're that far apart on what the problem is (Democrats are the same as Republicans rhetoric aside), but we evidently have very different ideas on how to address it.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6493
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by Soontir C'boath » 2018-05-03 09:30pm

And again I would say, the end result is what matters in the current situation. I "generalized" because it's the position that actually causes the outcomes we see. Even if there is a substantive minority that may feel otherwise. Treating the Democratic Party like they want to help you, but their hands are tied against their will doesn't help either because it's wrong. That's the sentiment that keeps vibing off of you. They may be willing to tell you they want to help you, but then they willingly do otherwise. Which is what we accuse Republicans of doing all the time, but I'm just performing false equivalences again by saying that apparently, but that needs to be said.

You say they are cowards, but that's if they didn't want to do it to begin with.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14991
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-05-03 09:41pm

Soontir C'boath wrote:
2018-05-03 09:30pm
And again I would say, the end result is what matters in the current situation. I "generalized" because it's the position that actually causes the outcomes we see.
How can you address the results if you don't look at all the pieces that lead to those results?

If you start from the position "The Democratic Party as a whole is indifferent and corrupt", then that closes off the option of working to promote reform-minded elements within the party, and all you're left with is ineffective ranting, or futile third party votes (which is much the same thing).
Even if there is a substantive minority that may feel otherwise. Treating the Democratic Party like they want to help you, but their hands are tied against their will doesn't help either because it's wrong.
Well, yeah, it would be, if that was the totality of my view. Because it would be another oversimplification, coming from the other direction.

I'm not saying that the Democrats are all well-meaning victims, any more than I'm saying that they're all callous and corrupt. I am saying that its a big tent party with multiple factions, multiple agendas, composed of numerous individual actors with complex motivations and goals, which shift depending on the circumstances. And that complexity needs to be understood to address the problem, not brushed over with a cliché.
That's the sentiment that keeps vibing off of you.
That may be your perception, but it is not my actual position.
that They may be willing to tell you they want to help you, but then they willingly do otherwise. Which is what we accuse Republicans of doing all the time, but I'm just performing false equivalences again by saying that apparently, but that needs to be said.
Its an oversimplification based on cherry-picking, which serves absolutely no constructive purpose other than:

a) venting, or

b) vote-splitting.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6493
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by Soontir C'boath » 2018-05-03 09:50pm

How can you address the results if you don't look at all the pieces that lead to those results?

If you start from the position "The Democratic Party as a whole is indifferent and corrupt", then that closes off the option of working to promote reform-minded elements within the party, and all you're left with is ineffective ranting, or futile third party votes (which is much the same thing).
How about what I'm doing in this thread which is telling people that it is not OK to lop off competing candidates in the primary which is not a futile third party vote.
Its an oversimplification based on cherry-picking, which serves absolutely no constructive purpose other than:

a) venting, or

b) vote-splitting
And yet, it seems every time I bring up candidates with their own personal unDemocratic policy like nature, you always seem to have an excuse. Funny how that works.
_________________________________
Let me put it this way, New York's Joseph Crowley (and many other of the city's Democrats), Chuck Schumer, and Kirsten Gillebrand live in probably the safest fucking district and state in the goddamn country. Democrats will always kick Republican ass, because of New York City, Albany, etc. Yet they still give wealthy donors blowjobs like no tomorrow and give us empty platitudes. And if this is so in the safest damn state in the country and I see how other Democratic politicians vote, how can one AFFORD not to generalize and "simplify"? This is rhetorical, you need not answer.

Whenever you're in New York, if you ask what they think of Schumer, Gillegrand, and their House member, chances are, it's not good.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6493
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by Soontir C'boath » 2018-05-03 09:54pm

Let me go back to this.
Do you mean "when they are a majority"?

Anyway, I've never had a problem with calling Democrats cowards when its warranted. I mean, I've pretty much done so repeatedly in this thread.
No, I mean when they are a minority. It should be the easiest to vote for things that the public wants, because the bills won't pass, but they still don't.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14991
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-05-03 10:12pm

Soontir C'boath wrote:
2018-05-03 09:50pm
How about what I'm doing in this thread which is telling people that it is not OK to lop off competing candidates in the primary which is not a futile third party vote.
Which I agree with completely, as I've said repeatedly in this thread.

Its the overbroad generalizations on top of that that I disagree with.
And yet, it seems every time I bring up candidates with their own personal unDemocratic policy like nature, you always seem to have an excuse. Funny how that works.
"Excuses" like:
I can't think of anyone on this board (or anyone who believes at all in the concept of a functioning democracy) who would consider this a good thing, or something that we should simply accept.
...that's all the more reason for Democrats not to shield or defend Hoyer, who's behavior and subsequent exposure here has embarrassed the party and helped fuel a hostile narrative. Ironically, in trying to block candidates he believes to be a liability, he has become one himself.
...this story does nonetheless underline the need for reform in the Democratic Party, and shows that some of the upper ranks have not learned their lesson from the 2016 primary.
It would be deliciously ironic if Hoyer ended up getting primaried from the Left at some point... I'd donate money to make that happen...
I don't expect it to happen, but if what's being reported here is even half-accurate, Hoyer should be persona non grata in the DNC.
And yet, you ignored all that and more, just like you ignored everything the Democrats do that doesn't fit your narrative. Funny how that works.
_________________________________
Let me put it this way, New York's Joseph Crowley (and many other of the city's Democrats), Chuck Schumer, and Kirsten Gillebrand live in probably the safest fucking district and state in the goddamn country. Democrats will always kick Republican ass, because of New York City, Albany, etc. Yet they still give wealthy donors blowjobs like no tomorrow and give us empty platitudes. And if this is so in the safest damn state in the country and I see how other Democratic politicians vote, how can one AFFORD not to generalize and "simplify"? This is rhetorical, you need not answer.
Well, I'll answer anyway, even if you're not interested in actually having a discussion.

Because there are other Democrats, including some in office, who do support more progressive policies, and who should be promoted, rather than collectively written off because they are Democrats. Because attacking the entire party sends the message "we should write off the Democrats altogether", when a far more productive message (and the one you seem to be trying to send here) is "We need to support progressive primary challengers". And because whatever my criticisms of, say, Schumer, I know damned well that he's not a Republican.

I don't know that much about Crowley or Gillebrand one way or another, but Schumer has not impressed me as minority leader, I will acknowledge. In particular, I am inclined to think that he folded far too easily on the issue of the Dreamers.
Whenever you're in New York, if you ask what they think of Schumer, Gillegrand, and their House member, chances are, it's not good.
If that's the case, then primary them. If there's anywhere where you ought to be able to pull a progressive primary challenge without endangering the general election, its New York.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14991
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-05-03 10:14pm

Soontir C'boath wrote:
2018-05-03 09:54pm
Let me go back to this.
Do you mean "when they are a majority"?

Anyway, I've never had a problem with calling Democrats cowards when its warranted. I mean, I've pretty much done so repeatedly in this thread.
No, I mean when they are a minority. It should be the easiest to vote for things that the public wants, because the bills won't pass, but they still don't.
The flip side, of course, is that when you're a minority, you need to use what little leverage you have very carefully. Do you make a protest vote that won't pass, if it means alienating one of the two or three Republicans who might vote with you to block one of Trump's more odious actions?

I'm not saying that's always the right call. It probably depends on the circumstances. But its more complicated than "Always vote for the hard line progressive stance or you're corrupt."
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6493
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by Soontir C'boath » 2018-05-03 10:34pm

The point is that, they refuse to stand on policy that would surely garner them brownie points with the base, but their wealthy donors don't allow them to do so because they know it's another step to actually passing them. Gay marriage is a great example of this across the state legislatures, but apparently fiscal policy cannot be touched. Only social issues. These are circumstances I understand which is why we need to get money out of politics and that includes the politician as well.

The only flip side is that we confirm a bunch of stuff that Republicans want and we are left with crumbs in return. That's the flip side because we've all been told that Democrats need to pull more Republican to get more votes to win come election time. lol Obama rolled like a dog on Obamacare if you care to remember and the Republicans and Dixiecrats kept voting against practically everything else, but yes ok, "circumstances" matter. *cheers*

Of course circumstances matter, I have Flagg (? I'm assuming that's him) still bitching about Bernie not being an actual Democrat, whatever that means nowadays anyway, rather than caring about what policies are actually being pushed, so there are voters who have to see things differently than the current state. I have people here who are perfectly fine with the Democratic Party rigging elections because apparently the party has to be pure to the status quo and not to actual Democratic policy.

I am fully fucking aware that circumstances matter.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6493
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Re: Democratic Leader Recorded Pressuring Candidate to Drop Out of Primary

Post by Soontir C'boath » 2018-05-03 11:00pm

I mean jesus fucking christ, how the fuck after all these years, I became practically the only one left with these views on this goddamn board? But I suppose this is rhetorical as well.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

Post Reply