|
If they quit insisting on running Republican-lites, they wouldn't have to. They could win if they actually ran as something resembling progressive hard enough to pick any of a slate of fixes to the system that actually made elections more fair and democratic which would secure control for the rest of all our lifetimes, but they're too stupid to do that.
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Sep 21, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
Mustang posted:I can't see how people that turn out for a fascist in droves would one day decide to start voting for a progressive.  Hmm, yes, that's exactly what I was suggesting.Platystemon posted:It’s not that they’re stupid. I would consider this a sign of stupidity. SquirrelyPSU posted:Don't tell them that, they won't believe it. There were at least a few up for reelection in the House and they won.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2020 17:23
|
|
|
lightpole posted:I've usually been more centrist but the last year or so has pushed me hard left. The Dems need to rebrand their policies to avoid socialist labels. Their policies are popular. Their branding is poo poo. They don't even necessarily need to rebrand away from Socialism if they'd just stop demonizing it themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Eat for one more month so Trump can starve you the next month, sure sounds great. You guys talk as if that was the only thing the dems could have done differently. They could have claimed credit for the stimulus checks if they had passed. Or they could have run on something actually popular, like, I dunno, Medicare for All that even fox is polling at 72% support. https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1323755297119363072
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2020 20:02
|
|
|
Woofer posted:When he’s actually the president seems fair. First it was 24 hours after the election was called, now it's after he's actually president and once he's president it will be after his first term is over. This is literally the "it's not the time to discuss gun violence too soon after a mass shooting" argument.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
There's nothing stopping you from being happy about the outcome, but you guys sure seem determined to shout us down, after we helped you win, despite our reservations. Be happy if you want, but don't try to tell us we're not allowed to still have concerns.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
McNally posted:I think you'll find that there are exactly zero posters in this subforum who don't have concerns, so I don't know who the gently caress you're talking to. I thought it was implied heavily enough that I meant concerns about Biden in particular, not concerns in general. If that didn't come through, I apologize. MazelTovCocktail posted:Inverse is true too. I mean... https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1325141128450961414 https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1323755297119363072 https://twitter.com/existentialfish/status/1323752624341065734 https://twitter.com/existentialfish/status/1323755668835360773 In the absence of more data, these are some pretty strong looking hints.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2020 22:19
|
|
|
MazelTovCocktail posted:Hmm....man gun control really doesn't have that much strong support. It's not overwhelming like goverment run health care or investment in renewable energy, but it's still a solid majority. And if we can only get health care and green energy, that'd still be a huge improvement. quote:I get it, really I do, but at the same time what are the districts like where people who ran on M4A? If it's a D+30 like AOC, then it just means people like red meat, just like they do for certain polices in R+30 ones, of little utility for national trends. She specifically said swing states, but I guess they could still be in gerrymandered districts. Anyway, here's the lists I remembered seeing. https://twitter.com/JonathanCohn/status/1324732079733616641 https://twitter.com/Thom_Hartmann/status/1325209453252112384 quote:Also I trust a Fox poll about as much as a WCW web poll about Hulk Hogan....but cheap joke aside, it's really something that's going to need a lot more data (as you point out) and analytical work. I'm willing to remain open minded, but I need something harder then what is being offered right now. If anybody knows where you can find polling data about issues instead of candidates, I'd genuinely like to know where it is. The only things I could find were Trump vs Biden or favorability or whatever. Nothing issues based.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2020 23:01
|
|
|
Apathetic Medic posted:Edit: It's fine actually, I'll be checking out of this thread now. No need to be in a place that is designed to mock outside opinions. Straw manning the left while simultaneously calling the left a circular firing squad is a time honored tradition in these threads at this point. The one thing I don't like about this thread/the current events thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2024 06:54
|
|
|
It's almost as if the people who already have a platform from being in public office need to use that platform to change public opinion on the matter by speaking out against genocide, consistently and repeatedly, in general and especially in specific about Israel/Palestine.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2024 00:00
|
|
|
Nystral posted:So, as documented above, commit political suicide and lose in the primary or general when well funded groups like AIPAC start running ads against them. Note how I said "being in public office" and not "running for public office". Campaigning on an unpopular stance indeed sounds like a stupid idea, which is why I never suggested that. Changing public perception is going to take longer than campaign season. And ideally it would be done by the leadership who has a more national reach.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2024 03:52
|
|
|
RFC2324 posted:People who will do that don't make it to leadership positions. Or do you think Nancy Pelosi is playing the long game and any day now is going to reveal herself? What I am suggesting is literally the definition of leadership. I realize we haven't had it for a long time. I also realize It's not easy, and not without risk.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2024 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Sep 21, 2024 04:57 |
|
|
lightpole posted:Having someone in thats willing and attempting to make that change is the most important part to me, even if its slow and gradual. Yes, there's a lot of suffering in the meantime but going the route of forcing that change when noone is ready for it risks bringing Trump back, and he is objectively worse. Biden has made steps in the right direction, hopefully Kamala continues that. In terms of Israel/Palestine, I don't think this is true of Biden specifically. I think it's too early to tell what Kamala will do, and as I already said, in the middle of an election is a bad time to try to make the case for change. quote:The unfortunate reality is that there is no Palestinian money, so their voice is irrelevant in US politics. Building a lobby and pushing grassroots efforts making a space where its acceptable to criticize Isreali actions is critical to pushing that change. The loud protests are part of that so hopefully they continue. The people will never be ready to follow if you never explain to them why what we're currently doing is wrong. That's the first step which hasn't happened so far. For most Americans it boils down to "Israel good, Hamas bad" and they know nothing of the oppression Israel has subjected Palestinians to. Our politicians could do the explaining and I would argue it is ultimately their responsibility since they have thus far continued to give Israel more weapons to use on Palestinians.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2024 06:33
|
|