Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Terror Sweat
Mar 15, 2009

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.

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.

democrat politicians think that americans are more right wing than they actually are
its not controversial at all, your rep is just a coward

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Azathoth
Apr 3, 2001

Terror Sweat posted:

democrat politicians think that americans are more right wing than they actually are
its not controversial at all, your rep is just a coward

Haha. Trump won his district by 14 points and he won reelection. This district really is that red.

sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011

by Azathoth

zegermans posted:

Sanders making a meaningless endorsement weeks late on something after he's already poisoned the well?! :monocle:

i have a spoiler for you, him endorsing and hopefully helping the campaign matters more than him answering a lovely question with 'eh not every democrat is a progressive I'd say'.

The Jews DO need to stop poisoning our precious wells, though!!!

get that OUT of my face
Feb 10, 2007

i say vote for ossoff and then if he wins, sic someone better than him in the 2018 primaries if he refuses to budge on healthcare and other important issues

can't say i'm surprised at his reaction to medicare for all, though, seeing as his platform talked about that and education in terms of "affordability." in contrast, one of the Democrats running for US Senate in Texas (O'Rourke, i believe?) says he does support it but doesn't think it's going to ever pass. we're more likely to make headway with an O'Rourke than an Ossoff

theflyingexecutive
Apr 22, 2007

how about get dems in office and have them whipped into submission by leadership and the realities of politics? dude's never been elected, he can talk big game about specific legislation while he has the national spotlight, but send him to a few town halls to get screamed at and then to party meeting where he can be screamed at more and he'll whistle a different tune

Shinjobi
Jul 10, 2008


Gravy Boat 2k
I'm actually going to meet O'Rourke tomorrow, hopefully!

get that OUT of my face
Feb 10, 2007

o'rourke believes in term limits for congress, which... well, if you think medicare for all is out of reach...

no matter, again, he seems like less of a hack than ossoff

theflyingexecutive posted:

how about get dems in office and have them whipped into submission by leadership and the realities of politics? dude's never been elected, he can talk big game about specific legislation while he has the national spotlight, but send him to a few town halls to get screamed at and then to party meeting where he can be screamed at more and he'll whistle a different tune
or he'll keep listening to the donor class who have more power and influence than a bunch of schmucks who are only there to give him the votes necessary to win. in that case, the primary option is best

Vox Nihili
May 28, 2008

zegermans posted:

Sanders making a meaningless endorsement weeks late on something after he's already poisoned the well?! :monocle:

pity reply

Vincent Van Goatse
Nov 8, 2006

Enjoy every sandwich.

Smellrose

comedyblissoption
Mar 15, 2006

Azathoth posted:

Haha. Trump won his district by 14 points and he won reelection. This district really is that red.
this is a meaningless statement. "really blue" districts and counties that went obama in 2012 swung heavily to trump in 2016. labeling areas as red or blue in this way misses the entire point and underlies why Clinton lost those areas she took for granted.

you have to campaign on something people want to vote for. otherwise you'll have the orange clown man lie through his teeth that he'll economically help them and beat you. campaigning on "the other guy is bad!" is a loser's strategy. look at how little control of government the democrats have throughout the entire country and how terribly this strategy backfired in the last general election.

comedyblissoption
Mar 15, 2006

theflyingexecutive posted:

how about get dems in office and have them whipped into submission by leadership and the realities of politics? dude's never been elected, he can talk big game about specific legislation while he has the national spotlight, but send him to a few town halls to get screamed at and then to party meeting where he can be screamed at more and he'll whistle a different tune
you hold them accountable at the voting booth and during their election campaign. your leverage goes to basically zero afterwards as they spend more than half their working hours fundraising from wealthy donors and the other significant part of their working hours meeting with beltway lobbyists and insiders.

comedyblissoption
Mar 15, 2006

also getting "whipped into submission by leadership and the realities of politics" means being told to follow what the donor class wants and to sell meaningless platitudes to the constituents. it doesn't mean being sold a bold progressive vision from the national party leadership or listening to what your constituents want.

electing these assholes and getting them a majority again will just result in a repeat of the disastrous 09-10 democratic supermajority congress. I'm scared to think of the next neoliberal democratic president being finally successful in implementing the Grand Bargain to cut social security and medicare. Third Time's the Charm!

theflyingexecutive
Apr 22, 2007

Realities of politics as shorthand for "listening to your constituents" and whipped by leadership ala ACA

comedyblissoption
Mar 15, 2006

ah yes being whipped by leadership to support a rightwing healthcare bill that was written by the heritage foundation and pharma and healthcare companies

obama used the bully pulpit to go to kucinich's district to shame him for holding out for a public option instead of using the bully pulpit to shame the politicians against the public option

I am glad you provided a great example for why we should not continue to elect neoliberal shitheads to government

comedyblissoption
Mar 15, 2006

also "listening to your constituents" should not be included in the phrase "Realities of politics"

these politicians (especially the neoliberal shitheads) listen to the donor class

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...4D4893B382B992B

Azathoth
Apr 3, 2001

comedyblissoption posted:

this is a meaningless statement. "really blue" districts and counties that went obama in 2012 swung heavily to trump in 2016. labeling areas as red or blue in this way misses the entire point and underlies why Clinton lost those areas she took for granted.

you have to campaign on something people want to vote for. otherwise you'll have the orange clown man lie through his teeth that he'll economically help them and beat you. campaigning on "the other guy is bad!" is a loser's strategy. look at how little control of government the democrats have throughout the entire country and how terribly this strategy backfired in the last general election.
The district went for GWB twice, by greater than his national margin of victory (4 points in both elections) and we had a Republican congressman from 1996-2006. Up until getting beat in 2006, the Republican had never won reelection with less than a 10 point margin.

Obama did win the district by 4 points in 2008 and 2 points in 2012, but Walz won reelection by 30 points and 15 points respectively.

It isn't that the district is secretly blue and votes Republican. This is a centrist Democrat who is really good at getting Republicans to vote for him. Same thing happens up on the Iron Range in MN-7 with Collin Peterson.

These are the kind of candidates that should have a place in the Democratic coalition, and will need to if you want to actually build a governing coalition.

However, if you've got even a shred of evidence that all we need to do to win in rural Minnesota is nominate full-on socialists, I'd encourage you to bring it up now.

comedyblissoption
Mar 15, 2006

Azathoth posted:

Obama did win the district by 4 points in 2008 and 2 points in 2012, but Walz won reelection by 30 points and 15 points respectively.

...

However, if you've got even a shred of evidence that all we need to do to win in rural Minnesota is nominate full-on socialists, I'd encourage you to bring it up now.
hey cool there's my shred of evidence in your own words. you have to sell people something to get them to vote for you. obama won because he sold something, but it turned out he was a neoliberal rear end in a top hat and didn't push for what he was selling. writing off the gerrymandered district as red is a loser's mentality.

comedyblissoption
Mar 15, 2006

also keep in mind the thing we are arguing about is whether or not ossuf and like-minded dems should throw a non-commital bone to progressives. they don't even have to push for it. when asked about single payer, they can simply say they support it but don't think it's realistic and say they will focus their efforts on improving obamacare or putting in a public option or something like that. they won't even throw progressives a bone. this will gain them votes overall. republican ads will portray them as supporting gay luxury space communism healthcare no matter what they do or say. the main disadvantage for ossuf saying he supports a medicare-for-all-like is scaring away wealthy donors.

comedyblissoption has issued a correction as of 16:11 on Apr 22, 2017

Azathoth
Apr 3, 2001

comedyblissoption posted:

hey cool there's my shred of evidence in your own words. you have to sell people something to get them to vote for you. obama won because he sold something, but it turned out he was a neoliberal rear end in a top hat and didn't push for what he was selling. writing off the gerrymandered district as red is a loser's mentality.
Obama in 2008 and 2012 was seen around here as being pretty moderate, and it's the message that I saw being pushed locally. I volunteered for Hillary's campaign (yeah...I know...) and I can tell you that the perception of her here is that she was far left (yeah, I know it doesn't make sense but it's true) and that she was gonna come in here, take away everyone's guns, abort every baby, and gay marry people against their will.

As for buying and selling, what Tim Walz was selling was far better than what Obama was selling for this district, which the CPVI now puts at 5 points Republican, maybe there's a lesson there that diving to the left isn't necessarily the right decision for every district. Obama, a generationally good campaigner, could barely win the district and couldn't win it better than his national margins.

On a national level, I think you're right that Democrats need to move left overall, but each district needs to nominate someone who is selling what the district wants to buy, and you should accept that if Democrats want to compete in places like MN-1 or KS-4, then you're gonna need to allow things like Democrats who support free trade (because farmers love free trade) or who publicly say they support the 2nd amendment or who are skeptical on single payer. Tim Walz is pretty close on the issues to James Thompson, who just lost in KS-4, and tend to focus on similar issues. That's the template for a rural Democrat in the current political climate, but it doesn't stop TIm Walz from getting a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood or supporting GLBTQ rights.

Also, this district isn't gerrymandered, this is basically the same district it was in 1996. If it was gerrymandered, it'd include some of the collar county Twin Cities suburbs that currently have a Republican bent, but they don't need to do that, since this district is gonna be Republican leaning with or without that.

However, if you want to keep believing that a carbon copy of Keith Ellison or Betty McCollum could realistically win here, you go right ahead. As someone who was born and raised here, and who has lived in both the rural Republican parts and in the Democratic cities, I can tell you that there is literally zero appetite for a far left candidate and all that nominating one would get you is a slapdown at the polls.

Azathoth
Apr 3, 2001

comedyblissoption posted:

also keep in mind the thing we are arguing about is whether or not ossuf and like-minded dems should throw a non-commital bone to progressives. they don't even have to push for it. when asked about single payer, they can simply say they support it but don't think it's realistic and say they will focus their efforts on improving obamacare or putting in a public option or something like that. they won't even throw progressives a bone. this will gain them votes overall. republican ads will portray them as supporting gay luxury space communism healthcare no matter what they do or say. the main disadvantage for ossuf saying he supports a medicare-for-all-like is scaring away wealthy donors.
Yeah, I'll grant that. Ossof's response on single payer was bullshit, and he should have done better.

Shinjobi
Jul 10, 2008


Gravy Boat 2k

comedyblissoption posted:

also keep in mind the thing we are arguing about is whether or not ossuf and like-minded dems should throw a non-commital bone to progressives. they don't even have to push for it. when asked about single payer, they can simply say they support it but don't think it's realistic and say they will focus their efforts on improving obamacare or putting in a public option or something like that. they won't even throw progressives a bone. this will gain them votes overall. republican ads will portray them as supporting gay luxury space communism healthcare no matter what they do or say. the main disadvantage for ossuf saying he supports a medicare-for-all-like is scaring away wealthy donors.

:agreed:

I would rather see actual commitment to a progressive agenda, but most of these fuckers won't even attempt to placate the left. Not even an "I'd like to, but..." So yeah, I should vote for establishment candidates anyway. :lol:

G-Hawk
Dec 15, 2003

Ossoff's single payer answer is because he (almost certainly correctly) believes the voters in the district he is trying to represent do not want single payer. It is a very high income(one of the highest in the country) district that leans republican. It isn't because of "the donor class", particularly given his donor support has overwhelmingly been the small donor base. It isn't because he personally doesn't support single payer, and I think he would likely support it in the event of an actual vote. It is because it isn't a good issue to run on in the georgia 6th because the vast majority of voters are not left wing. He probably could have phrased his answer better.

comedyblissoption
Mar 15, 2006

G-Hawk posted:

Ossoff's single payer answer is because he (almost certainly correctly) believes the voters in the district he is trying to represent do not want single payer.
The only sure way you can really say this is with polling in the district. Nationally the policy is overwhelmingly popular. Yes, I do realize national is different than this district in Georgia.

The_Politics_Man
Aug 25, 2015
lmao loving owned

The Muppets On PCP
Nov 13, 2016

by Fluffdaddy
.

got any sevens
Feb 9, 2013

by Cyrano4747

resar posted:

lmao loving owned

Harveygod
Jan 4, 2014

YEEAAH HEH HEH HEEEHH

YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYIN

THIS TRASH WAR AIN'T GONNA SOLVE ITSELF YA KNOW

resar posted:

lmao loving owned

:downsowned:

Sylink
Apr 17, 2004

Ossoff sucked, glad he lost. My hot take.

Mad Doctor Cthulhu
Mar 3, 2008

Allow me to be sad that the Republicans aren't crying in their beer because they're losing major parts of Georgia. Oh no, I'd better give up everything I hold dear because I didn't get the big moment of the Republicans crying and beating their chests.

Seriously, the left in this country doesn't know how to counter propaganda at all. It's like Republican smug is an honest thing instead of something they throw out to get what they really want: people angry as them. We made a loving deep red district in Georgia in an off-year drat near winnable and now we're upset? Jesus Christ, what more do you want?

tadashi
Feb 20, 2006

Mad Doctor Cthulhu posted:

Allow me to be sad that the Republicans aren't crying in their beer because they're losing major parts of Georgia. Oh no, I'd better give up everything I hold dear because I didn't get the big moment of the Republicans crying and beating their chests.

Seriously, the left in this country doesn't know how to counter propaganda at all. It's like Republican smug is an honest thing instead of something they throw out to get what they really want: people angry as them. We made a loving deep red district in Georgia in an off-year drat near winnable and now we're upset? Jesus Christ, what more do you want?

Republicans took the only corner of Fulton County that will vote for a Republican and made sure every single Republican in that little corner was part of the 6th.

The 6th is predominantly conservative upper middle class white people with a sprinkle of non-white people thrown in. The odds were horrible for Ossoff to win the minute he failed to win the open primary.

Ferdinand the Bull
Jul 30, 2006

The only reason to vote for Ossoff was out of spite against the Republicans. Dude had nothing to get excited about, he was bland on purpose.

So I guess he was the DNC's ideal candidate.

Tiberius Christ
Mar 4, 2009

resar posted:

lmao loving owned

lol good job dems

Jose
Jul 24, 2007

Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer
more money was spent on this than the entire UK general election that just happened lol

Lastgirl
Sep 7, 1997


Good Morning!
Sunday Morning!
ossoff lost, hope this clears it up for this thread who is still confused somehow

the bitcoin of weed
Nov 1, 2014

resar posted:

lmao loving owned

A Gnarlacious Bro
Apr 25, 2007

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Jose posted:

more money was spent on this than the entire UK general election that just happened lol

Lol

LolitaSama
Dec 27, 2011

G-Hawk posted:

Ossoff's single payer answer is because he (almost certainly correctly) believes the voters in the district he is trying to represent do not want single payer. It is a very high income(one of the highest in the country) district that leans republican. It isn't because of "the donor class", particularly given his donor support has overwhelmingly been the small donor base. It isn't because he personally doesn't support single payer, and I think he would likely support it in the event of an actual vote. It is because it isn't a good issue to run on in the georgia 6th because the vast majority of voters are not left wing. He probably could have phrased his answer better.

What do they have to lose from single payer?

got any sevens
Feb 9, 2013

by Cyrano4747

LolitaSama posted:

What do they have to lose from single payer?

control

Condiv
May 7, 2008

Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod


LolitaSama posted:

What do they have to lose from single payer?

donor megabux

gotta help the insurance companies make a profit off the suffering of humanity!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Modus Pwnens
Dec 29, 2004

LolitaSama posted:

What do they have to lose from single payer?

The knowledge that poor people will be punished for their failures.

  • Locked thread