Ocasio-Cortez endorsez Schumer primary challenger

[Skroe]

And that's the problem.

That's why Trump got elected. It's the abandonment of principle and reason, in favor of blind partisanship and "us vs them" jockeying, that is the problem. Trump is a symptom, not the disease.

Some of us would rather pay attention to dealing with the underlying causes, because if we don't fix those, the USA's time is up, and it's a question of when, not if, the Republic collapses in on itself.

And your attempt to frame everyone not on "your side" as an inveterate villain, that's the central issue. That's what leads to a Trump Presidency. All you're really arguing, here, is that the democrats need an anti-Trump to fight Trump. Someone who's exactly the same, but wears a different-colored jersey, so it's an even match.

That kind of "win" doesn't fix a damned thing. It buys the USA another 4 years, at best. And then you'll have to do it all again. And it will never get better, since you just give the "enemy" the opportunity to come up with a less-embarrassing, more-competent figurehead, while you fight a delaying action. You're fighting to hold the enemy at bay for one more battle; you're not even thinking about winning the war.

It may be that the war can't be won, here. It may be that Americans are too apathetic, too easily-led, too willfully ignorant for democracy to function. It may be that this is the beginning of the end, the inevitable decline and collapse of the American Republic. And frankly, if that's the case, it would be better to let it happen, by design and with eyes open to the outcomes, rather than to delay it without a plan and let the whole thing collapse into anarchy.

But asking people to abandon their principles and reason, to serve what's politically convenient without any eye on the future?

That's how Trump got elected. That is the rot at the heart of America. You're just trying to convince Democrats to become as ideologically barren as the Republicans. That doesn't help. It makes it all worse.

Yeah horseshit. You want to treat the underlying rot in the middle of an emergency?

Are you kidding? Seriously. Is that a joke?

There is a consensus on that Trump is a danger to America. He is unpopular. Broadly. In the places he needs to win, he is unpopular. That's how you beat him. You make it about him.

As far as treatment for that underlying rot, there is not anything approaching a consensus. Not by a long shot. Not on the causes and not on the solutions.

Now you were superscribe running in 2020 on treating that underlying rot - something that does not have a consensus, rather than running on the one thing that does have a consensus.

So I as again, are you kidding? Because that's some holy-fucking-shit level terrible politics. It's seriously like you people just haven't wrapped your head around the negative partisanship that dominates this country at the moment and are hell bent on force feeding the public positive partisanship in order to advance ideological goals you wanted to advance anyway.

Trump is an emergency, not a vehicle. And if you try to make him a vehicle, you'll lose, every time. Because there is no winning consensus that has enough popular votes in the right places on the things you THINK are self evident and good policy and all that.

[JohnBrown1917]

"Leftist" ideology is only radical to people that have been conditioned to be selfish but still yell 'Jesus!' and 'my guns are freedom!' since birth.

Pretty much, liberalism/conservatism is defined by the belief that its all about you and you alone.

[Elegiac]

There is a consensus on that Trump is a danger to America. He is unpopular. Broadly. In the places he needs to win, he is unpopular. That's how you beat him. You make it about him.

Just like how Clinton won by campaigning on Trump's personal character rather than pushing her policy positions.

People already know what Trump is like, Skroe. They either care enough for it to be a factor, or they don't. That base has been tapped, and if you deem that insufficient that's a problem with the voting public, not us.

[Shadowferal]

The primary for that state is fairly crowded:

[JohnBrown1917]

This is bs and you know it.

Radical "leftist" ideology? What the fuck is "radical leftist" ideology? You and other non-democrats who have lost their party because it has gone fucking cultist really shouldn't be preaching to democrats about how they need to act more like the party you're temporarily against due to their cult like behaviour.

That is why he wants to turn the democrats completely over to the conservatives, get rid of anybody not in the blue dog caucus.


Says enough when even the most most moderate social democrat is 'radical'. Corbyn type leftism taking over left-wing or supposed left-wing parties all over the world would be a huge improvement. Even if you could go way, way further.

[Themius]

Schumer is horrible. I have no idea who this person running against him and thus don't support this move but I wish NY would elect someone with more of a backbone. It's the blue of blue states.

Now I see @Skroe and others just shaking their head. Hey, we are here. Look at the reddest of red states and the the die-hard conservatives they have as Senators. Yes, Skroe you point is we are going extreme left and extreme right with no middle. I hate it. But what is there to do, since I'm sorry, but this has come from the right the past 10 years. Can't have the extreme right-wingers and pussy cats like Schumer who say "yeah I don't agree with them, but I'm not going to do anything".

We aren't going extreme left though.. centre left to Americans is extreme the rest of the world just looks at us and in general goes "What the fuck is wrong with you guys?"

[Rukh]

This is bs and you know it.

Radical "leftist" ideology? What the fuck is "radical leftist" ideology? You and other non-democrats who have lost their party because it has gone fucking cultist really shouldn't be preaching to democrats about how they need to act more like the party you're temporarily against due to their cult like behaviour.

You might take a second and read what he actually said, because his point the entire time has been reaching out and making concessions to those who don't necessarily agree with your point. Not to try to destroy them for the sake of ideological purity. Stabbing another democrat in the back who has been successful in defending his district does nothing to help the Democratic party achieve its goals, especially if it's for the sake of a loss in the primary. In fact, it's working against the goals of the party. That's the point.

Democrats have to be able to build a bridge between progressives and moderates. I see moderates willing to do that. I see progressives spitting in that hand. I see progressives acting in very short-sighted manners trying to purge the Democrats of people they disagree with and heading straight in to defeat. I have to wonder again, how progressive are people who are absolutely willing to see all their goals go down in flames just to trash people who don't agree with them 100%?

[Themius]

In order to save America from the ideologically barren Republicans who will trample over all laws human and divine for the sake of victory, we must become ideologically barren and trample over all laws human and divine.

Also known as the Bloomberg stump speech.

Basically that what it seems like.

We mustn't argue and disagree with eachtoher like we always have because... apparently we should fall in line and behave like a cult like the GOP. I don't want that...

[Rasulis]

Schumer won 2004 with 71% of the vote, 2010 with 65%, and 2016 with 71%. I think he is pretty safe.

[Elegiac]

Basically that what it seems like.

We mustn't argue and disagree with eachtoher like we always have because... apparently we should fall in line and behave like a cult like the GOP. I don't want that...

God forbid any of these beltway elites actually attend a Labour convention. The monocles would fly.

I was once walking past my local headquarters back in Sydney and witnessed a fire extinguisher getting thrown through a window during a debate.

Even champagne socialists like to play rough sometimes.

[Themius]

You might take a second and read what he actually said, because his point the entire time has been reaching out and making concessions to those who don't necessarily agree with your point. Not to try to destroy them for the sake of ideological purity. Stabbing another democrat in the back who has been successful in defending his district does nothing to help the Democratic party achieve its goals, especially if it's for the sake of a loss in the primary. In fact, it's working against the goals of the party. That's the point.

Democrats have to be able to build a bridge between progressives and moderates. I see moderates willing to do that. I see progressives spitting in that hand. I see progressives acting in very short-sighted manners trying to purge the Democrats of people they disagree with and heading straight in to defeat. I have to wonder again, how progressive are people who are absolutely willing to see all their goals go down in flames just to trash people who don't agree with them 100%?

Huh so no moderates are "spitting on the hands" of progressives? Wow we mustn't be watching the same public speeches and debates then.

You're just spewing a bunch of random words that lend little to your argument.

[Ivanstone]

No. Trump took over the GOP because the Bush Administration, and then the financial crisis so cleared the bench of talent, that left politics after his term was up, that the Tea Party rose unopposed to take over the party, and it shifted far, far to the right.

The radical right phenomenon is not new. Recall the John Birch Society. It's more of that. THe difference is, this time unlike prior times, there was an emaciated and compromised establishment to keep a lid on it. Bad candidates, poor organization in 2012 and 2016 created this mess.

Really? Could've sworn that Roger Aisles had his hand up Richard Nixon's ass long before 2012. Or that Newt Gingrich fella? He's been practicing brash politics since the 80's. Nevermind that the Tea Party started in about 2002 or Citizen's United at around 2006. Sorry but the GOP's been the party of "Small Government Because It Hurts Blacks More Than Whites" since 1968. You're either paying attention to it or you're not.

Sure Shrub didn't do the GOP any favours but they still had huge support. Sure Obama won in 2008 but his margin of victory wasn't that big. Huge swaths of America saw what Shrub did and said "More".

[Shadowferal]

Ocasio-Cortez endorsez Schumer primary challenger

Chuck Schumer represents NY state...so wtf?

[Skroe]

Yes, I do. Because regardless of what you happen to be doing at this moment or what you have done, it cannot change this simple fact: despite having marginalized and excluded "fringe leftists" from the party proper for nearly half a century, all the Third Way strategy and political moderation in the world did not stop Bush, and it did not stop Trump.

You are being dishonest.

It did not stop Bush because Clinton scandalized the 1990s Democratic Party and tainted Gore. And then in 2004, Bush saw political validation in beating John Kerry, a Weak candidate, via crossover appeal. There was no broad-based coalition that was anti-Bush the way there was Trump. Politics was more normal. About policy, not personality.

With Trump, it didn't stop Trump in 2016 because Russia attacked us and Hillary Clinton fucked up campaigning.

But it did stop Trump in 2018. Third way won in 2018, and won big. It's the only reason Democrats have a house majority. Eat that.

So yes. You are being dishonest.

Left wingers don't matter, we're irrelevant, we aren't where the necessary votes are.

No. You do matter. But you presume - constantly presume - there is a consensus where non exists, and it must be centered on you, and that is the way to win.

It is _really_ fucking bad politics.

I'll put this simply. You'll lose New Hampshire and Wisconsin if you keep walking downt his path. Because the things you consider important and in broad agreement over, they do not. And they will vote for Trump because of it. And because he wins either of them, he wins the Presidency.

But if you terrify them about Trump... make them mad at him... you can peel off just enough to do better than 2016. That worked in 2018, the midterm with the biggest turnout in a century. You saying it won't work in 2020 is baseless and again, egocentric. You want political validation.

And yet the entire fate of the Republic seems to be on our shoulders from the way you carry on. Like I said: there's a lot to respect about you, but this clear animus against progressive positions and political figures is leaking out everywhere and staining otherwise intelligent commentary.

I have nothing but diisrespect for the approach progressives are taking. It's the biggest fucking trap I've seen in my political life time, and you're going to walk into it because of your goddamn pride.

You people do realize Trump wants to make this a policy election right? Nothing would make him happier. In a policy election he wins, because it makes it not a referendum on him. If it is a referendum on him, he loses, because Americans generally hate his guts in all the right places. If it is a policy election, he wins, because there is NOT a consensus on the progressive slate in the places that Democrats need to win to get 270 electoral votes.

But because Trump has offended progressive sensibilities and because of 10-15-20-25-30-40 years of progressive humuliation and anger at the third way and all that crap, you're going to walk into that trap.

Not because you think it has a better chance at beating Trump. But because of pride. Because of selfishness. Because of egocentric politics.

Let me ask... what is the bigger coalition in this country in the swing states and exclusively the swing states:
(A) people who hate Trump or could be made, with some prodding the right way, to vote against him
(B) people who think progressive ideology deserves to win the Presidency, House Seats and Senate Seats.

It's A. It's A by a lot. So why the hell would you ever adopt a strategy centered around B if you weren't seeking validation? It's insane. It does Trump's work for him. He will call _ANY_ democrat a Socialist, but the way to win against that is NOT to argue "well Democratic Socialism and Socialism is different because _________" or "Well Medicare For all is _________". The way to win is to remind people that 4 more years of Trump will see him corrupt government, endanger their jobs, cut taxes on the wealthy and most of all, ravage their healthcare. It's to remind him of the racist things he says and the ways he has acted that is beneath the office of the Presidency. It's to scare them about what 4 more years would mean with regards to their retirements and their kids. Terrify them about Social security. Make Trump eat his words on the things they rely on. Don't offer alternatives. Let them imagine it. But make Trump appear unacceptable.

Or you can do B, and have a political philosophical voter for tens of millions of low-information, low-care voters that Trump will utterly walk over on the back of his "make America great" slogan.

Don't give American voters more credit than their due. Expect a close mind. Expect backwardness. Expect parochialism. You can EASILY make that work against Trump. But you CANNOT make that work for the progressive slate.

[JohnBrown1917]

Chuck Schumer represents NY state...so wtf?

That is exactly why.

[Rukh]

Just like how Clinton won by campaigning on Trump's personal character rather than pushing her policy positions.

People already know what Trump is like, Skroe. They either care enough for it to be a factor, or they don't. That base has been tapped, and if you deem that insufficient that's a problem with the voting public, not us.

This revisionism. Clinton talked about her policies all the time. She had actual policies while Trump had "Trust me, wink". The media didn't cover it because it wasn't interesting. They cover attacks and bickering. And of course emails.

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/7/167477...lintons-emails

“In just six days, the New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all the policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election.”

[Elegiac]

-snip-

Uh huh.

How'd that anti-Obama coalition work out for the Republican Party.

[Skroe]

Just like how Clinton won by campaigning on Trump's personal character rather than pushing her policy positions.

People already know what Trump is like, Skroe. They either care enough for it to be a factor, or they don't. That base has been tapped, and if you deem that insufficient that's a problem with the voting public, not us.

Hillary lost because of Russian interference and her own fucked up campaign travel plan. Not the message. The message worked.

And we're not talking about Trump's hardcore supporters. We're talking about swing voters. Independents. The largest electoral group in the country. Progressive groups like Justice Democrats have nothing but disdain for those voters because they can't control/predict them. That is why they emphasize appeal-to-the-base approach. Because that enhances their own power. The Tea Party did the same thing.

The only reason Trump won, is that his campaign ignored that and grabbed independents.

Independents have turned against Trump the man. And my approach is superior to yours at reaching them, because there is no evidence that in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that they have turned TOWARDS progressive ideas. Given the option between Trump the man and progressive ideology, they will go with the devil they know.

That is why you downplay the progressive ideology and focus on Trump the man. He will lose against himself. That coalition is already there. You just have to want to utilize it. And all it takes is putting down your pride.

I don't think progressives have the courage to do that.

[Elegiac]

The media didn't cover it because it wasn't interesting.

Uh huh.

Now, wait for it.

Saying that the only way to beat Trump is a non-policy focused campaign when the media narrative in 2016 was, by your own admission, not policy focused is completely contradictory.

Like I said. People already know what Trump is like; they care enough for it to be a factor, or they don't. Pretending there's some big base of untapped ignorant rubes who would vote Democrat if only they could see the real Donald Trump is naive.

- - - Updated - - -

And all it takes is putting down your pride.

I don't think progressives have the courage to do that.

Fuck off with this. What do you think left wingers have been doing in Anglophone countries since the Reagan era.

Why do you think the Third Way even exists, given this absolute nonsense statement?

[Rukh]

Uh huh.

How'd that anti-Obama coalition work out for the Republican Party.

Obama was popular. Trump aint.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh huh.

Now, wait for it.

Saying that the only way to beat Trump is a non-policy focused campaign when the media narrative in 2016 was, by your own admission, not policy focused is completely contradictory.

Like I said. People already know what Trump is like; they care enough for it to be a factor, or they don't. Pretending there's some big base of untapped ignorant rubes who would vote Democrat if only they could see the real Donald Trump is naive.

- - - Updated - - -



Fuck off with this. What do you think left wingers have been doing in Anglophone countries since the Reagan era.

Why do you think the Third Way even exists, given this absolute nonsense statement?

Trump isn't popular now. He's very unpopular. Also, Clinton's policies were mode for a moderate left audience. If Trump can get the campaign to be against far-left policies, it's just unfortunate but that doesn't resonate with the larger portion of the US.