|
Somehow I think the general tendency of democrats to not show up for anything but a presidential election might not be particularly relevant for whether democrats who have already shown up for something that isn't a presidential election will show up again.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Xenoveritas posted:I don't think anyone's saying that the Democrats shouldn't try and win these seats, I just find the whole "we beat the spread, we beat the spread!!!" cheerleading to be hilarious. OK, sure, you beat the spread. You still lost, but you didn't lose as badly as you could have. Maybe some day you'll manage to win a seat somewhere. like they say, as go kansas and georgia, so go the nation
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
get that OUT of my face posted:ossoff doesn't strike me as a smoothbrain neolib, or at least not as extreme of one as some of the complete fuckers that they've thrown to the fire. he's no james thompson though there's a factory that pumps out freshly scrubbed go-getter 30 year olds with no discernible personality or ideology to run in local elections Xenoveritas posted:Your only hope for him to lose is that Republicans, some of the most reliable voters, stay at home, while Democrats, who rarely if at all ever vote in anything that isn't a Presidential election, show up again. just wanna have a little chuckle at this again Concerned Citizen posted:this is true, also i think voting twice requires a level of enthusiasm that the gop may not be able to muster.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
get that OUT of my face posted:ossoff doesn't strike me as a smoothbrain neolib, or at least not as extreme of one as some of the complete fuckers that they've thrown to the fire. he's no james thompson though as far as I can tell his campaign is copy pasted w/ a bit more "I'm going to bring down wasteful government spending" thrown in for good measure
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
OK, you're just stringing poli sci 101 terms and low-level lefty buzzwords together now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
people want to shame me to vote for him while providing me zero reason to vote for him except that his opponent is a republican
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
x-posting
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:OK, you're just stringing poli sci 101 terms and low-level lefty buzzwords together now. hillaries should probably stop telling people they have no real reason to not liked candidate X, it comes off as blowing off their concerns
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
i am speculating that the democratic party machine has told candidates receiving tons of funding support on how to respond in the negative to constituents asking where they stand on a medicare-for-all-like bill at this point i'd probably vote for any candidate that at least says they support a medicare-for-all-like bill even if theyre secretly crossing their fingers behind their back. they could even have an R next to their name!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
Sanders endorsed Ossoff today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:people want to shame me to vote for him while providing me zero reason to vote for him except that his opponent is a republican for most people who aren't straight whites, that is actually a pretty convincing reason to vote d
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Sanders endorsed Ossoff today. But didn't call him "progressive" which ... I guess matters? To some people? Also now Bernie is evil for not calling Heath Mello the spawn of Satan or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
It's weird to me living in an insanely safe seat to not vote for a generally good option because they're not ideologically pure enough when the alternative is genuinely poo poo and will always ignore you
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Jose posted:It's weird to me living in an insanely safe seat to not vote for a generally good option because they're not ideologically pure enough when the alternative is genuinely poo poo and will always ignore you all signs point to ossoff doing exactly the same i said this elsewhere but if ossoff is dependent on the votes of progressives to win this seat, then he drat loving well better throw them some actual red meat because he is in no way entitled to their votes just by virtue of running against a republican. if they're important enough that he can't win without them, then they're important enough to earn some concessions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:all signs point to ossoff doing exactly the same which string of entrails told you this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:which string of entrails told you this? the fact that he resoundingly rejected the idea of medicare for all, probably one of the absolute safest concessions he could have possibly made to progressives to get them on board, does not paint a positive picture on that front.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
and yet, that's still better than another drat republican
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:and yet, that's still better than another drat republican agreed, which is why i would largely encourage people in that district to vote for ossoff. at the same time, i would encourage ossoff that if he can't win without the progressives turning out for him then he should heavily consider throwing them a loving bone to make receiving those votes more likely because, again: if they're important enough to be the deciding factor in your race, then they're important enough to earn representation on your platform Oh Snapple! has issued a correction as of 21:35 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
He isn't going to win anyway with or without you so rip
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
"We want the Democratic Party to change! And we'll do it by sending a message. The message: just don't be a Republican! That's the true secret to obtaining a progressive government! Just concede everything!!!!!" I don't even mind Ossoff, but some of y'all bitching about some voters' attitudes is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:the fact that he resoundingly rejected the idea of medicare for all, probably one of the absolute safest concessions he could have possibly made to progressives to get them on board, does not paint a positive picture on that front. I recently attended a town hall with my rep, and there was a group of about a dozen of us who wrote up questions in advance and went out to put him on the record on a bunch of progressive issues, and the only one that we didn't get full-throated support on was single-payer, with his wording being something like "I'll support it if we get there as a country, but I'm not convinced that it's a better solution than fixing what is broken about the ACA". It was disheartening, but I'm not going to let it detract from the fact that he agrees with me on immigration reform, tax reform, preventing voter suppression, not cutting social spending to pay for military spending, not invading Syria, fully supporting Planned Parenthood, and not paying for Trump's border wall. I should point out that the Republican who ran to replace him the last two elections, would likely have voted for Ryan's healthcare plan and would likely be with the Republicans on all those issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:I'm not sure why you think that this concession is the safest one he could make. As someone who lives in a Republican district, but who has a Democratic House rep (MN-1), I'd argue that it's actually one of the more politically controversial concessions to progressivism he could make. Largely the fact that it has majority support across the nation - with 41% support amongst republicans. But it was also a proposition offered on exactly that criteria: something with a large foundation of support behind it. In any case, while disappointing, your rep's reply to this question was still leagues ahead of what Ossoff offered when questioned on the matter: https://twitter.com/SimonMaloy/status/855064889345417216 He doesn't even humor the idea. It's pretty much the most "nope" answer he could have given. It was a really bad answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Shinjobi posted:"We want the Democratic Party to change! And we'll do it by sending a message. The message: just don't be a Republican! That's the true secret to obtaining a progressive government! Just concede everything!!!!!" Yes, because letting a theocrat into office isnt conceding. Yes sex ed is outlawed and muslims are required to wear badges, but at least i didnt vote for a lib!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Yeah, basically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
If you are not being represented either way, what motivation do you have to vote?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
To play devil's advocate for a second, this stakes right now are significantly lower than the presidential election and if a message is to be sent to the DNC, this is a reasonably safe way to do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
they already lost in the non-special election with the same strategy theyre trying w/ ossuf when the stakes were as high as they could possibly be
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Yes, because letting a theocrat into office isnt conceding. Yes sex ed is outlawed and muslims are required to wear badges, but at least i didnt vote for a lib!!! If we told him what we wanted, like singlepayer, and he rejected it and us, and isnt willing to make any concessions at all to us, he is telling us that he doesnt value his votes. Lile I am... or was... a big Ossof supporter but if he spending his time now coming out even against core democratic policies with widespread support that would be a sign of solidarity with the left, and if hes not offering anything else, then he is saying he doesnt need to earn the left vote, and he doesnt deserve it. Thats just basic negotation, otherwise you just end hosed ovet slower.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
hell just say "yes i fully support a medicare-for-all-like system and will vote in support of any such bill proposed in congress, but i will focus on my efforts on patching obamacare b/c that's more realistic" would make me vote for him he can't even say that b/c his donors dont want him to him outright rejecting such a proposal makes me even further entrenched against voting for him
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
nachos posted:To play devil's advocate for a second, this stakes right now are significantly lower than the presidential election and if a message is to be sent to the DNC, this is a reasonably safe way to do it. I doubt it's gonna be "if only you'd nominated a more progressive candidate, you would have won", at least not until at least not until a solid progressive actually flips a red district. The message is gonna be "don't bother spending money in redder districts, because progressive Democrats won't turn out there anyways, even when we send Bernie loving Sanders down to vouch for the candidate".
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
i'm p sure the actual number of people who live in that district who won't vote for ossoff because of this one particular issue is very small the numbers that matter, or at least the ones that are turning out bigly are the apathetic voters who weren't jazzed about 2016 but have a fire lit under their asses because LORD JESUS PRESIDENT TRUMP
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
what i'm trying to say is your single vote is very meaningless
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:what i'm trying to say is your single vote is very meaningless Its an incredibly close race, those few votes for this single issue could very possibly tip it
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:But what message does not voting send? That the people who are pushing the message that milktoast centrists are ideal dems and the only ones worth supporting should lose their jobs. Theres still a lot of them left. I would mind them as a minority in the party but they absolutely cannot be allowed to hold the reigns anymore. Primaries would have been the better place to push that though and thats now over so vote for Ossof so we can primary him next time
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
you're selecting for people who care about the issue but also cared enough to not already have voted for him in the first round. too small of a selection and combined with the fact that the dems might've really tapped out the supply on this district tells me two things: 1) your vote will continue to be meaningless 2) he will lose logikv9 has issued a correction as of 23:33 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
one of the other dem candidates in the primary might have been a bernholio, but we'll never know since the progressives in the district did not identify, donate to, or vote for them
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:That the people who are pushing the message that milktoast centrists are ideal dems and the only ones worth supporting should lose their jobs. Theres still a lot of them left. I would mind them as a minority in the party but they absolutely cannot be allowed to hold the reigns anymore. I think what gets me so riled up is that a lot of people seem to think that there's no place in the party for anyone with ideological variance on any significant issue, and that all Democrats need to do to win permanent majorities is to find the right set of issues that not only resonate with 50+% of the population, but in 50+% of the districts, which I think is about as realistic as the tea party thinking that if they just nominate TRUE CONSERVATIVES, it's the path to a Reagan-style landslide. I think it's reasonable to expect candidates to be with the party platform 90% of the time, and to make certain issues like abortion rights a dealbreaker, and if you do that, you can build a durable majority so that on any single vote you can have people who voted against it from your party without compromising the ability to pass a good, progressive legislative agenda overall while still being able to rely on their votes on the other 90% of the stuff you do agree with them on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
I think its more about power blocks than strict percentages. 90% agreement isnt enough if 90% of the elected politicians suppurt the bad 10%. I wouldnt even mind having some anti choice people, much as I would dislike them, so long as there wasnt enough of them to make a meaningful block. I think thats the key. Context matters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Yeah sorry, I meant 90% agreement on any given issue, not a Freedom Caucus cabal of 10% that can hold the party hostage like Republicans have. Leaders need to be able to provide political cover for the 10% who, for whatever practical reason cannot support a particular bill or issue. We've gotten to a point where the only way that legislation gets passed is on straight party lines, and as a matter of practicality, that isn't sustainable, since our system makes control of the presidency and both chambers of Congress really hard to achieve and even harder to maintain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Sanders endorsed Ossoff today. Sanders making a meaningless endorsement weeks late on something after he's already poisoned the well?! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 03:48
|
|
