we’re here to tell you that City Hall runs on our terms
May 31, 2022 1:22 PM Subscribe
How to defeat the billionaire class. Chris Hedges on Kshama Sawant as a model for effective strategy for change.
If running an explicitly socialist, anti-capitalist, anti-Democrat campaign can be "replicated in city after city ... to dismantle corporate tyranny", it would be good if Hedges could explain why such a thing has never succeeded.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 2:08 PM on May 31, 2022 [13 favorites]
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 2:08 PM on May 31, 2022 [13 favorites]
I think everything is somewhat hyperbolic, but I appreciate the sentiment. It really does seem that Democrats and Republicans are not on the side of regular folks. I think the major difference is that if you shame the Democrats enough they'll do the right thing, but otherwise, it's all about the status quo. They are the status quo, or at least one half of it, and they are not about messing with that.
Also, I agree with her point about winning. You're not changing minds. You need to get the those who don't vote to vote and to do that, you need to give them something to vote for. Democrats are not doing that.
posted by BeReasonable at 2:08 PM on May 31, 2022 [25 favorites]
Also, I agree with her point about winning. You're not changing minds. You need to get the those who don't vote to vote and to do that, you need to give them something to vote for. Democrats are not doing that.
posted by BeReasonable at 2:08 PM on May 31, 2022 [25 favorites]
The issue as I see it is that Democrats are too busy squabbling with each other to recognize that acting in unison (as the Republicans largely do) is how you get shit done. Yes the bill might not be 100% what you truly want, but why the almighty fuck do you keep torpedoing it? Even 50% of what you want is enough to make life better for so many people. Perfect is the enemy of good and all that.
posted by caution live frogs at 2:18 PM on May 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
posted by caution live frogs at 2:18 PM on May 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
Living in an area where we get Seattle news, I stopped reading at this sentence.
Living just north of the city limits (Shoreline) and working in downtown until 10 months ago, that sentence feels very true. During the post-Floyd protest, there was a lot of bad behavior on the part of the Democratic mayor's office and the Seattle PD, and a lot of coverup on texts between their offices. They've refused to cooperate and the new Democratic mayoral administration isn't going to do anything about it.
There's plenty more that the mayor did to block efforts at improving housing density and transportation, but gets credit as a "climate-focused" mayor. Kshama really is the only voice on the council for citizens without $1M properties.
posted by SoundInhabitant at 2:23 PM on May 31, 2022 [31 favorites]
Living just north of the city limits (Shoreline) and working in downtown until 10 months ago, that sentence feels very true. During the post-Floyd protest, there was a lot of bad behavior on the part of the Democratic mayor's office and the Seattle PD, and a lot of coverup on texts between their offices. They've refused to cooperate and the new Democratic mayoral administration isn't going to do anything about it.
There's plenty more that the mayor did to block efforts at improving housing density and transportation, but gets credit as a "climate-focused" mayor. Kshama really is the only voice on the council for citizens without $1M properties.
posted by SoundInhabitant at 2:23 PM on May 31, 2022 [31 favorites]
Everything she's saying here is 1000% correct and many people on Metafilter especially are going to hate hearing it. Well guess what she's right.
posted by windbox at 3:03 PM on May 31, 2022 [31 favorites]
posted by windbox at 3:03 PM on May 31, 2022 [31 favorites]
I'm all for lowering the priority on identity politics in favor of housing, healthcare, and progressive taxation. Identity politics must give Democrats a warm feeling of superiority while they're losing elections.
posted by pashdown at 3:06 PM on May 31, 2022 [9 favorites]
posted by pashdown at 3:06 PM on May 31, 2022 [9 favorites]
I disagree, I think identity politics are good and important. I think empty Identity Politics-esque Soundbites in lieu of actually *doing* anything to help any of the claimed identities, is bad and harmful. And people are starting to catch onto it.
posted by windbox at 3:10 PM on May 31, 2022 [33 favorites]
posted by windbox at 3:10 PM on May 31, 2022 [33 favorites]
I think Hedges is on to something here, and there are small groups in many major cities which are figuring out the same thing-- cities control massive amounts of money, represent huge groups of people, and are far more friendly to left-wing ideas than any other part of the U.S.
"replicated in city after city ... to dismantle corporate tyranny", it would be good if Hedges could explain why such a thing has never succeeded.
It hasn't yet been tried, or at least not in any organized or effective way. Cities consistently elect "progressives" with a D next to their name who are actually beholden to corporate landlords, the police, and other powerful civic entities, and rarely if ever elect actual socialists or labor-focused politicians. In part because those powerful right-wing interests are happy to donate to Democrats as long as they're the type not to actually do anything about the inequality, police violence, union-busting, etc.
posted by chaz at 3:20 PM on May 31, 2022 [16 favorites]
"replicated in city after city ... to dismantle corporate tyranny", it would be good if Hedges could explain why such a thing has never succeeded.
It hasn't yet been tried, or at least not in any organized or effective way. Cities consistently elect "progressives" with a D next to their name who are actually beholden to corporate landlords, the police, and other powerful civic entities, and rarely if ever elect actual socialists or labor-focused politicians. In part because those powerful right-wing interests are happy to donate to Democrats as long as they're the type not to actually do anything about the inequality, police violence, union-busting, etc.
posted by chaz at 3:20 PM on May 31, 2022 [16 favorites]
Bernie Saunders was polling to win against Trump when Clinton was polling to lose. The Democrats preferred to lose and chose Clinton to run against Trump.
Sounds to me like the Democrats would rather have Trump in power than Saunders because Trump represents them better.
posted by Jane the Brown at 3:23 PM on May 31, 2022 [23 favorites]
Sounds to me like the Democrats would rather have Trump in power than Saunders because Trump represents them better.
posted by Jane the Brown at 3:23 PM on May 31, 2022 [23 favorites]
The other thing that they did right was that they made it very clear that the bosses are not on your side. They didn’t cultivate illusions that somehow, they could convince management and Jeff Bezos to be nice just by making morally persuasive arguments.
Politicians, even self-identified progressive politicians, she says, have “made peace with the capitalist system.” They falsely believe that they can negotiate with the billionaire class and barter for a few progressive reforms. This tactic, she says, has failed.
This is an important difference of perspective, I feel, and one not to be under-weighted. People whose ambitions are to be the boss, or *a* boss, aren't going to see necessary changes as desirable/palatable.
posted by CrystalDave at 3:28 PM on May 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
Politicians, even self-identified progressive politicians, she says, have “made peace with the capitalist system.” They falsely believe that they can negotiate with the billionaire class and barter for a few progressive reforms. This tactic, she says, has failed.
This is an important difference of perspective, I feel, and one not to be under-weighted. People whose ambitions are to be the boss, or *a* boss, aren't going to see necessary changes as desirable/palatable.
posted by CrystalDave at 3:28 PM on May 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
I'm most interested in the specific strategic choices suggested by this post: stay on the aggressive, mobilize union membership and groups of workers (rather than entrenched union leadership and rather than dealmaking with establishment politicians), focus on concrete and specific demands, clearly identify enemies (billionaires for example), work with interested constituencies (educators/students/families for example) rather than focusing on winning swing voters.
posted by latkes at 3:32 PM on May 31, 2022 [18 favorites]
posted by latkes at 3:32 PM on May 31, 2022 [18 favorites]
As someone who lives in the area, this article radically underreports the sense that Sawant has not performed well, and that she's more invested in having the rallying cry than she is in crafting good policy, or put differently, that she is very good at being opposed to things, and a lot less useful at being constructive.
To write about opposition to her as if that's just the billionaire class doing billionaire class warfare thing is dismissive in a way I find problematic.
posted by hank_14 at 3:46 PM on May 31, 2022 [17 favorites]
To write about opposition to her as if that's just the billionaire class doing billionaire class warfare thing is dismissive in a way I find problematic.
posted by hank_14 at 3:46 PM on May 31, 2022 [17 favorites]
The Democrats preferred to lose and chose Clinton to run against Trump.
To be fair, she got more votes.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:47 PM on May 31, 2022 [53 favorites]
To be fair, she got more votes.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:47 PM on May 31, 2022 [53 favorites]
That's interesting. It's definitely more propaganda than reporting. But also a fact that huge money interests have mobilized enormous resources against her.
posted by latkes at 3:47 PM on May 31, 2022
posted by latkes at 3:47 PM on May 31, 2022
Yeah, might be more productive to say Sawant as a political activist is great. Useful for shifting the Overton window, useful for standing up to moneyed interests in the area, useful to write about when thinking about tactics and advice for other activists, etc. Sawant as a city council member? That's a very different story, and invites very legit critique, which said moneyed interests can then rally around.
posted by hank_14 at 3:53 PM on May 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by hank_14 at 3:53 PM on May 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
Bernie Saunders was polling to win against Trump when Clinton was polling to lose. The Democrats preferred to lose and chose Clinton to run against Trump.
Sounds to me like the Democrats would rather have Trump in power than Saunders because Trump represents them better.
The fundamental problem with this analysis is that it implies that "the Democrats" are a bunch of party power brokers. The people who chose Clinton to run against Trump were indeed Democrats... but they were Democratic voters, not some shadowy cabal of insiders.
In the 2016 primaries, Democratic voters vastly preferred Clinton to Sanders. Likewise, in the 2020 primaries, they preferred Biden to Sanders. In 2016, Clinton beat Trump in the popular vote, but lost in the electoral college. In 2020, Biden beat Trump on both counts.
The extraordinary claim that Democratic voters preferred Trump to Sanders requires extraordinary evidence.
It's become more and more evident to me that there's a segment of the left that can't face up to the evident electoral unpopularity of some of its positions and candidates, and would prefer to take refuge in conspiracy theories in which the only reason they lose is that "the Democrats" or "the DNC" are rigging everything against them.
Functionally, this is pretty hard to distinguish from the Trumpian Big Lie.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:59 PM on May 31, 2022 [43 favorites]
Sounds to me like the Democrats would rather have Trump in power than Saunders because Trump represents them better.
The fundamental problem with this analysis is that it implies that "the Democrats" are a bunch of party power brokers. The people who chose Clinton to run against Trump were indeed Democrats... but they were Democratic voters, not some shadowy cabal of insiders.
In the 2016 primaries, Democratic voters vastly preferred Clinton to Sanders. Likewise, in the 2020 primaries, they preferred Biden to Sanders. In 2016, Clinton beat Trump in the popular vote, but lost in the electoral college. In 2020, Biden beat Trump on both counts.
The extraordinary claim that Democratic voters preferred Trump to Sanders requires extraordinary evidence.
It's become more and more evident to me that there's a segment of the left that can't face up to the evident electoral unpopularity of some of its positions and candidates, and would prefer to take refuge in conspiracy theories in which the only reason they lose is that "the Democrats" or "the DNC" are rigging everything against them.
Functionally, this is pretty hard to distinguish from the Trumpian Big Lie.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:59 PM on May 31, 2022 [43 favorites]
she is very good at being opposed to things, and a lot less useful at being constructive
She needs a couple of other Socialists on the council to really start "crafting policy". The other council people are all beholden to the cops, corporate landlords, and other regressive forces, they aren't going to get behind her ideas no matter what she does, she simply doesn't have enough power. Being opposed to things is a great thing at this stage, there is so much to be opposed to.
posted by chaz at 4:04 PM on May 31, 2022 [9 favorites]
She needs a couple of other Socialists on the council to really start "crafting policy". The other council people are all beholden to the cops, corporate landlords, and other regressive forces, they aren't going to get behind her ideas no matter what she does, she simply doesn't have enough power. Being opposed to things is a great thing at this stage, there is so much to be opposed to.
posted by chaz at 4:04 PM on May 31, 2022 [9 favorites]
The Democrats preferred to lose and chose Clinton to run against Trump.
Jane the Brown
As Artifice_Eternity noted "the Democrats" were the Democratic primary voters, who Sanders failed to win over. The Sanders campaign both times was largely premised on exactly what this article espouses: that there is a vast Silent Majority of voters hungry for Real Socialism who will rise up en masse in elections when someone dares to speak the right policies. This demonstrably did not happen, not only with Sanders but at city and state level elections after. The DSA and the like have had successes, but nowhere near what articles like this seem to believe. It's not that simple, and doing the hard work to figure out why is important.
It's ironically reminiscent of all the pre-Trump pining Republicans used to do for a mythic Real Conservative who would win in a landslide because the country is obviously full of huge majorities of secret conservatives who just needed a proper conservative candidate to motivate them.
posted by star gentle uterus at 4:27 PM on May 31, 2022 [21 favorites]
Jane the Brown
As Artifice_Eternity noted "the Democrats" were the Democratic primary voters, who Sanders failed to win over. The Sanders campaign both times was largely premised on exactly what this article espouses: that there is a vast Silent Majority of voters hungry for Real Socialism who will rise up en masse in elections when someone dares to speak the right policies. This demonstrably did not happen, not only with Sanders but at city and state level elections after. The DSA and the like have had successes, but nowhere near what articles like this seem to believe. It's not that simple, and doing the hard work to figure out why is important.
It's ironically reminiscent of all the pre-Trump pining Republicans used to do for a mythic Real Conservative who would win in a landslide because the country is obviously full of huge majorities of secret conservatives who just needed a proper conservative candidate to motivate them.
posted by star gentle uterus at 4:27 PM on May 31, 2022 [21 favorites]
You know what you guys are right, it's *just* voters! Just a bunch of voters doin' some good old wholesome voting, and they just so happen to be voting for the moderate candidates who side with billionaires over working people. There is no Democratic National Committee, State Committees, DCCC funding apparatus, no PACs, no Think Tanks, no lobbyists. No silence from national democratic leaders when they should be speaking up, no endorsements for candidates that just so happen to not only be progressive but running primary campaigns against genuinely bad incumbents. None of that! Just voters votin'.
This demonstrably did not happen, not only with Sanders but at city and state level elections after.
You're right - things like that don't happen! It's not like the chair of the NYS Democratic party compared Dem Socialist India Walton - who had won her primary fair and fucking square - to the KKK and refused to endorse her against a write-in Incumbent who was funded by the real estate lobby. No that totally didn't happen, it's just conspiracy theories yall!
What about when a slate of progressives won Nevada Democratic Party committee seats and not only did the entire staff quit, but looted the place of funds so they had to start from nothing? Or am I going to get flagged for disseminating Fake News? Because the reality is that the Democratic voters and only the voters are making these decisions right? They *want* this stuff to happen!
What about just a couple weeks ago, when a pro-choice pro-working class democratic primary congressional candidate in Texas was running against a corrupt, pro-life NRA-friendly incumbent ...and a bunch of party leaders rushed off of their ass to endorse him over the progressive primary challenger? Or maybe I shouldn't mention that at risk of sounding like a Trumper doing the Big Lie! Don't you know that these types of primaries are chosen by voters and nothing else?
I can keep going with a few dozen more examples of this sort of thing if you want! But I know that doing so could imply that the Democratic Party is, you know, an actual organized party apparatus that makes multiple top-level decisions? Best be careful because that's *dangerously close* to Big Lie Secret Cabal Insurrectionist Conspiracy Theories and honestly it can be *hard* to tell the difference these days!
posted by windbox at 5:07 PM on May 31, 2022 [80 favorites]
This demonstrably did not happen, not only with Sanders but at city and state level elections after.
You're right - things like that don't happen! It's not like the chair of the NYS Democratic party compared Dem Socialist India Walton - who had won her primary fair and fucking square - to the KKK and refused to endorse her against a write-in Incumbent who was funded by the real estate lobby. No that totally didn't happen, it's just conspiracy theories yall!
What about when a slate of progressives won Nevada Democratic Party committee seats and not only did the entire staff quit, but looted the place of funds so they had to start from nothing? Or am I going to get flagged for disseminating Fake News? Because the reality is that the Democratic voters and only the voters are making these decisions right? They *want* this stuff to happen!
What about just a couple weeks ago, when a pro-choice pro-working class democratic primary congressional candidate in Texas was running against a corrupt, pro-life NRA-friendly incumbent ...and a bunch of party leaders rushed off of their ass to endorse him over the progressive primary challenger? Or maybe I shouldn't mention that at risk of sounding like a Trumper doing the Big Lie! Don't you know that these types of primaries are chosen by voters and nothing else?
I can keep going with a few dozen more examples of this sort of thing if you want! But I know that doing so could imply that the Democratic Party is, you know, an actual organized party apparatus that makes multiple top-level decisions? Best be careful because that's *dangerously close* to Big Lie Secret Cabal Insurrectionist Conspiracy Theories and honestly it can be *hard* to tell the difference these days!
posted by windbox at 5:07 PM on May 31, 2022 [80 favorites]
The DSA and the like have had successes, but nowhere near what articles like this seem to believe. It's not that simple, and doing the hard work to figure out why is important.
I'd argue it's pretty unrealistic to presume there's a large pool of people who don't vote that could be persuaded through just a set of policy positions they haven't seen from candidates. If you were to pie chart non-voter apathy would be a giant slice and cutting through that apathy would take more than "I promise your life will be a lot better". They've heard claims like "I will work to make your life a little better" and depending on the claim its been not true a lot of the time (outcomes, not effort).
If you're not a veteran or retiree you have very limited interaction with the federal government. The USPS is maybe the one place many people deal with the Fed and it usually a long line, understaffed, and kind of a hassle. I've interacted with some very nice employees of the USPS but I wouldn't rate it as a great experience. So if you tell non-voter hey we want to make more of your life involve scenarios like that it's going to be hard to generate enthusiasm.
Also, they didn't show up in the primaries in 2016 or 2020, so it's hard to believe somehow they're just sitting on their hands waiting for a general election candidate. And non voters don't take cues from the DCCC or the DNC or what Democratic party insiders suggest they should do.
posted by uleekunkel at 5:21 PM on May 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
I'd argue it's pretty unrealistic to presume there's a large pool of people who don't vote that could be persuaded through just a set of policy positions they haven't seen from candidates. If you were to pie chart non-voter apathy would be a giant slice and cutting through that apathy would take more than "I promise your life will be a lot better". They've heard claims like "I will work to make your life a little better" and depending on the claim its been not true a lot of the time (outcomes, not effort).
If you're not a veteran or retiree you have very limited interaction with the federal government. The USPS is maybe the one place many people deal with the Fed and it usually a long line, understaffed, and kind of a hassle. I've interacted with some very nice employees of the USPS but I wouldn't rate it as a great experience. So if you tell non-voter hey we want to make more of your life involve scenarios like that it's going to be hard to generate enthusiasm.
Also, they didn't show up in the primaries in 2016 or 2020, so it's hard to believe somehow they're just sitting on their hands waiting for a general election candidate. And non voters don't take cues from the DCCC or the DNC or what Democratic party insiders suggest they should do.
posted by uleekunkel at 5:21 PM on May 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
windbox, allow me to be a bit rude and respond to your questions with a question: what about when, say, Black primary voters overwhelmingly voted for Biden in every primary, and were key to Biden's crushing victory on Super Tuesday that led to Sanders dropping out?
Are these Black voters all stooges for the DNC? Secret Trump supports? Just plain stupid?
I look forward to your answer, because these are the kind of uncomfortable questions that quickly come up in the face of this "Sanders would totally have won if only the DNC didn't kneecap him" narratives.
posted by star gentle uterus at 5:22 PM on May 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
Are these Black voters all stooges for the DNC? Secret Trump supports? Just plain stupid?
I look forward to your answer, because these are the kind of uncomfortable questions that quickly come up in the face of this "Sanders would totally have won if only the DNC didn't kneecap him" narratives.
posted by star gentle uterus at 5:22 PM on May 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
On the bright side, we're only 24 short months away from being able to relitigate the 2024 primaries.
posted by Superilla at 5:27 PM on May 31, 2022 [45 favorites]
posted by Superilla at 5:27 PM on May 31, 2022 [45 favorites]
Sounds to me like the Democrats would rather have Trump in power than Saunders because Trump represents them better.
Who are these "The Democrats" that you speak of? Is it all of us? Some of us? Some mysterious power brokers? Who are these people exactly? Do you really think the "The Democrats" somehow mysteriously threw the election, cause untold turmoil and misery that we're still digging out of just to keep your particular candidate out of office? Seriously, do you really think that?
posted by octothorpe at 5:28 PM on May 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
Who are these "The Democrats" that you speak of? Is it all of us? Some of us? Some mysterious power brokers? Who are these people exactly? Do you really think the "The Democrats" somehow mysteriously threw the election, cause untold turmoil and misery that we're still digging out of just to keep your particular candidate out of office? Seriously, do you really think that?
posted by octothorpe at 5:28 PM on May 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
Don't worry, gang, THIS time we'll win 2016!
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 5:30 PM on May 31, 2022 [29 favorites]
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 5:30 PM on May 31, 2022 [29 favorites]
windbox, allow me to be a bit rude and respond to your questions with a question: what about when, say, Black primary voters overwhelmingly voted for Biden in every primary, and were key to Biden's crushing victory on Super Tuesday that led to Sanders dropping out?
I would tell you to stop treating black voters like a monolith though I can tell you salivate at the idea of using them as a cudgel to make your case.
posted by windbox at 5:31 PM on May 31, 2022 [23 favorites]
I would tell you to stop treating black voters like a monolith though I can tell you salivate at the idea of using them as a cudgel to make your case.
posted by windbox at 5:31 PM on May 31, 2022 [23 favorites]
could someone explain the magic policies that will override a country that's been gerrymandered to hell and back and requires Democrats to take like 55% of the vote on average to barely tie the House
it's much easier to point fingers at Democrats than it is to face up to the fact that holding off the fascists, if we can at all, is going to require a mass voting rights and voter education campaign that needs to take precedence over theorizing about the existence of The Great Cabal
posted by a_masterpiece_of_cold_cuts at 5:32 PM on May 31, 2022 [13 favorites]
it's much easier to point fingers at Democrats than it is to face up to the fact that holding off the fascists, if we can at all, is going to require a mass voting rights and voter education campaign that needs to take precedence over theorizing about the existence of The Great Cabal
posted by a_masterpiece_of_cold_cuts at 5:32 PM on May 31, 2022 [13 favorites]
Let me just be super clear: When I talk about "The Democrats" it's pretty simple, I'm talking about party leadership. There are party leaders. They make decisions about the direction of the party, who they will endorse, who they will not, who gets funding, who does not, etc. This should not be remotely controversial.
But I like how everyone disingenuously is like "OH IT'S A SECRET CABAL NOW?" My god, get the fuck out of here with this weak shit already.
posted by windbox at 5:36 PM on May 31, 2022 [32 favorites]
But I like how everyone disingenuously is like "OH IT'S A SECRET CABAL NOW?" My god, get the fuck out of here with this weak shit already.
posted by windbox at 5:36 PM on May 31, 2022 [32 favorites]
Black voters not being a monolith doesn't change the fact that you're dismissing their voices when you persist with your BernieWouldaWon But For The Great Cabal nonsense
also could you please get the FUCK over yourselves, he lost TWICE, Democratic voters were not interested, what progress do you think is going to be made with your relitigation? What do you hope to get out of it?
posted by a_masterpiece_of_cold_cuts at 5:36 PM on May 31, 2022 [13 favorites]
also could you please get the FUCK over yourselves, he lost TWICE, Democratic voters were not interested, what progress do you think is going to be made with your relitigation? What do you hope to get out of it?
posted by a_masterpiece_of_cold_cuts at 5:36 PM on May 31, 2022 [13 favorites]
Black voters not being a monolith doesn't change the fact that you're dismissing their voices
Why are you dismissing the voices of hispanic voters? Why are you dismissing the voices of black female voters under 40?
This shit is getting tired dude. No one is falling for it anymore.
posted by windbox at 5:38 PM on May 31, 2022 [11 favorites]
Why are you dismissing the voices of hispanic voters? Why are you dismissing the voices of black female voters under 40?
This shit is getting tired dude. No one is falling for it anymore.
posted by windbox at 5:38 PM on May 31, 2022 [11 favorites]
though I can tell you salivate at the idea of using them as a cudgel to make your case.
windbox
Pot, meet kettle. But then, you're also dodging the question: why aren't these voters voting as you are insisting they "should" have?
At some point, if you are serious about change, you will have to face the fact that whatever the feelings of the DNC ruling class towards Sanders/the DSA/etc, they are also simply not winning over voters.
Figuring out how to do so would be much more constructive than these sneering tirades about how They won't let the inevitable victory come to pass.
posted by star gentle uterus at 5:38 PM on May 31, 2022 [9 favorites]
windbox
Pot, meet kettle. But then, you're also dodging the question: why aren't these voters voting as you are insisting they "should" have?
At some point, if you are serious about change, you will have to face the fact that whatever the feelings of the DNC ruling class towards Sanders/the DSA/etc, they are also simply not winning over voters.
Figuring out how to do so would be much more constructive than these sneering tirades about how They won't let the inevitable victory come to pass.
posted by star gentle uterus at 5:38 PM on May 31, 2022 [9 favorites]
No one is falling for it anymore.
Except the majority of voters who didn't vote for Sanders, I guess.
posted by star gentle uterus at 5:40 PM on May 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
Except the majority of voters who didn't vote for Sanders, I guess.
posted by star gentle uterus at 5:40 PM on May 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
Dudes. This thread is not about the 2016 presidential election. We have heard every argument you're making here. How are city politics different?
posted by latkes at 5:48 PM on May 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
posted by latkes at 5:48 PM on May 31, 2022 [10 favorites]
why aren't these voters voting as you are insisting they "should" have?
That's not what I'm insisting at all, I am insisting that party leadership should stop endorsing anti-choice candidates, should stop endorsing candidates who take money from the real estate lobby, should stop looting their state offices when progressives win their seats. It's not even about Bernie vs. Biden. vs. Clinton the way you seem to wish I was making it out to be. Let's take them off the table entirely! I'm sick of talking about Bernie too! All of my examples are from 2020 onward, and concerning State/Local elections!
People can, should, will vote for whoever they want, but let's stop pretending that all this voting is done in a vacuum devoid of any kind of leadership decisions from the top down. Ah right, I can't say that because it implies a "secret cabal". When Byron Brown beat India Walton in Buffalo, that was just fair and square right? When Nancy Pelosi and Jim Clyburn fly down to Texas to endorse a Pro-Life candidate over a Pro Choice one who loses by a tiny handful of votes, well, that makes zero difference in anything right? I am simply dismissing the desires of the voters.
I'm peacing from this thread so I don't further pollute it with my *conspiracy theories*.
posted by windbox at 5:53 PM on May 31, 2022 [24 favorites]
That's not what I'm insisting at all, I am insisting that party leadership should stop endorsing anti-choice candidates, should stop endorsing candidates who take money from the real estate lobby, should stop looting their state offices when progressives win their seats. It's not even about Bernie vs. Biden. vs. Clinton the way you seem to wish I was making it out to be. Let's take them off the table entirely! I'm sick of talking about Bernie too! All of my examples are from 2020 onward, and concerning State/Local elections!
People can, should, will vote for whoever they want, but let's stop pretending that all this voting is done in a vacuum devoid of any kind of leadership decisions from the top down. Ah right, I can't say that because it implies a "secret cabal". When Byron Brown beat India Walton in Buffalo, that was just fair and square right? When Nancy Pelosi and Jim Clyburn fly down to Texas to endorse a Pro-Life candidate over a Pro Choice one who loses by a tiny handful of votes, well, that makes zero difference in anything right? I am simply dismissing the desires of the voters.
I'm peacing from this thread so I don't further pollute it with my *conspiracy theories*.
posted by windbox at 5:53 PM on May 31, 2022 [24 favorites]
We have heard every argument you're making here. How are city politics different?
City politics are vastly different, and 'Republican' and 'Democrat' can have the same anti-populist policy positions in outcome, if not in language. For example: limiting development to stop gentrification or save the environment vs limiting development to a percent of the affordable housing development constructed or to increase property value.
Also big tentpole issues don't really play, and both generally run on lowering city taxes.
posted by The_Vegetables at 6:12 PM on May 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
City politics are vastly different, and 'Republican' and 'Democrat' can have the same anti-populist policy positions in outcome, if not in language. For example: limiting development to stop gentrification or save the environment vs limiting development to a percent of the affordable housing development constructed or to increase property value.
Also big tentpole issues don't really play, and both generally run on lowering city taxes.
posted by The_Vegetables at 6:12 PM on May 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
Mod note: A few deleted, please stop derailing this thread. The back and forth debating with other users is making it difficult for other users to participate in this thread.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 6:13 PM on May 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 6:13 PM on May 31, 2022 [7 favorites]
Often city council members even run 'non-partisan' ie they don't put their national party affiliations on their city-council level advertising, though that is starting to change, and some cities have long been more partisan than others.
Some issues have started to split at partisan levels- ie: being opposed to unisex bathrooms (for trans rights - corporations actually like them) and sanctuary cities, which is shorthand for how much local police support federal initiatives.
Totally my opinion: Seattle and Washington state in general has taken the 'liberal experiment' title from California,and they are doing some really interesting stuff locally and sort of flying under the radar due to their smaller size and distance from major media markets. I have no idea what east coast states it would compare to, maybe Virginia or the DC area.
posted by The_Vegetables at 6:19 PM on May 31, 2022
Some issues have started to split at partisan levels- ie: being opposed to unisex bathrooms (for trans rights - corporations actually like them) and sanctuary cities, which is shorthand for how much local police support federal initiatives.
Totally my opinion: Seattle and Washington state in general has taken the 'liberal experiment' title from California,and they are doing some really interesting stuff locally and sort of flying under the radar due to their smaller size and distance from major media markets. I have no idea what east coast states it would compare to, maybe Virginia or the DC area.
posted by The_Vegetables at 6:19 PM on May 31, 2022
In the 2016 primaries, Democratic voters vastly preferred Clinton to Sanders. Likewise, in the 2020 primaries, they preferred Biden to Sanders. In 2016, Clinton beat Trump in the popular vote, but lost in the electoral college. In 2020, Biden beat Trump on both counts.
Windbox has it here though. During the 2020 primaries, like 30 big names endorsed Biden on the same Saturday. It was obviously a whoooooole lot of backroom dealing among the DNC to get that done.
And then again, last week Bernie Sanders came down to endorse a progressive state dem here in Texas, but the other "progressive" anti-choice, anti-public school dem won. And he was helped when Nancy Pelosi came out to endorse him.
Bernie lost, yah. Twice even. But he came pretty close, considering the DNC and all of its people hate him and fight him every chance they get.
posted by nushustu at 7:05 PM on May 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
Windbox has it here though. During the 2020 primaries, like 30 big names endorsed Biden on the same Saturday. It was obviously a whoooooole lot of backroom dealing among the DNC to get that done.
And then again, last week Bernie Sanders came down to endorse a progressive state dem here in Texas, but the other "progressive" anti-choice, anti-public school dem won. And he was helped when Nancy Pelosi came out to endorse him.
Bernie lost, yah. Twice even. But he came pretty close, considering the DNC and all of its people hate him and fight him every chance they get.
posted by nushustu at 7:05 PM on May 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
Also? When did this place become so fucking centrist? We used to have lefties on here. It feels like there are like five of us now, and then just a bunch of loud dems who can't figure out why telling people "the problem is people don't vote enough" is just the dumbest.
posted by nushustu at 7:12 PM on May 31, 2022 [23 favorites]
posted by nushustu at 7:12 PM on May 31, 2022 [23 favorites]
Lefties are still here, nushustu. Most of us just find re-litigating 2016/2012/whenever to be mind-numbingly tedious (with nothing to be gained). Bernie’s an octogenarian that should get out of the way and let the future happen, same as all the other octogenarians.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 7:28 PM on May 31, 2022 [37 favorites]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 7:28 PM on May 31, 2022 [37 favorites]
How about: Let's resolve to NOT talk about Bernie in the thread moving forward, I wish to state for the Metafilter Record that I didn't even bring the guy up. I brought up state/city elections - effectively the OP content - and to make the incredibly uncontroversial and well-documented case that yes there is a Dem Party, no they do not happen to like Progressives at the congressional state and local level, no that's not a "conspiracy theory". Some other goober said "Bernie Saunders would have won" and got everyone violently pissing and shitting themselves about presidential primaries as per usual.
Ok for real this time - I'm out as I've already become "makes up 23% of the comments guy" and it feels gross.
posted by windbox at 7:49 PM on May 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
Ok for real this time - I'm out as I've already become "makes up 23% of the comments guy" and it feels gross.
posted by windbox at 7:49 PM on May 31, 2022 [12 favorites]
[DNC anti-progressivism]
[Black voter support of Biden]
Putting Bernie and DSA way outside of the conversation, these two observations don't seem mutually exclusive at all. I don't know, but if I were to guess, these voting blocks were just being pragmatic. Right now there isn't a left option that has standing on a stage larger than a county.
I'll go the actual distance and put it the way I think about it: there will never be this kind of progressive buy in at a substantial concentration of power. Why? Guns.
The reason why voting blocks are pragmatic towards Biden vs [anyone left of Jimmy Carter] is because they understand what happened in 1968. And if they had drones and robo-dogs in early 20th century Russia this would be an even more limited conversation.
I have a lot of faith in the morality of people, but in terms of change, it feels like the high ground is a long ways away these days.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 7:58 PM on May 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
[Black voter support of Biden]
Putting Bernie and DSA way outside of the conversation, these two observations don't seem mutually exclusive at all. I don't know, but if I were to guess, these voting blocks were just being pragmatic. Right now there isn't a left option that has standing on a stage larger than a county.
I'll go the actual distance and put it the way I think about it: there will never be this kind of progressive buy in at a substantial concentration of power. Why? Guns.
The reason why voting blocks are pragmatic towards Biden vs [anyone left of Jimmy Carter] is because they understand what happened in 1968. And if they had drones and robo-dogs in early 20th century Russia this would be an even more limited conversation.
I have a lot of faith in the morality of people, but in terms of change, it feels like the high ground is a long ways away these days.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 7:58 PM on May 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
Just to chime in as another Seattle resident, Sawant can be a grandstander and an important activist and force for change. In my view she's all three. Her solutions aren't implemented because they're radical, but they've shifted the conversation, often putting Amazon and rich developers and the like on their back foot.
Importantly a lot of new faces in local politics have been emboldened to enter the arena who are more realistic than Sawant but equally progressive on many issues. They've come out because they see either that she needs support (more leftists on the council or in Olympia) or that she's going to flame out soon and someone needs to be ready to fill the void. People re-elected her in this district despite major organized opposition because, I think, most recognize that.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 8:16 PM on May 31, 2022 [16 favorites]
Importantly a lot of new faces in local politics have been emboldened to enter the arena who are more realistic than Sawant but equally progressive on many issues. They've come out because they see either that she needs support (more leftists on the council or in Olympia) or that she's going to flame out soon and someone needs to be ready to fill the void. People re-elected her in this district despite major organized opposition because, I think, most recognize that.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 8:16 PM on May 31, 2022 [16 favorites]
People who believe that the Democratic Party has a progressive agenda should really read the article on Cuellar. Dude voted with Trump most of the time, and the DCCC pushed hard for him over Cisneros, the real candidate. He votes against the Biden agenda. He is pro oil and anti-abortion. The DCCC comes out hard for him every time.
Cisneros isn't even a socialist or anything, just someone who has some kind of values. A bunch of the Cisneros team are former Cuellar people who are sick of the DCCC bullshit.
He looks like he is winning, but by 117 votes, so there is a recount challenge.
Just imagine if the democratic candidates didn't have to fight the DCCC.
But I imagine that the 'cities first' strategy is so appealing because people with democratic values don't have to fight the Democratic Party in those races.
posted by eustatic at 8:23 PM on May 31, 2022 [16 favorites]
Cisneros isn't even a socialist or anything, just someone who has some kind of values. A bunch of the Cisneros team are former Cuellar people who are sick of the DCCC bullshit.
He looks like he is winning, but by 117 votes, so there is a recount challenge.
Just imagine if the democratic candidates didn't have to fight the DCCC.
But I imagine that the 'cities first' strategy is so appealing because people with democratic values don't have to fight the Democratic Party in those races.
posted by eustatic at 8:23 PM on May 31, 2022 [16 favorites]
For Seattlites saying Sawant can't get anything done: I'm curious if you feel confident that this differs from other city counselors? Like can you point to legislation others have championed successfully and recently and that differs from her achievements numerically? I'm definitely prepared to believe that's true! My city council is a swamp of minimal progress here in Oakland... sighh..
The article makes the case that Sawant is especially effective in getting big legislation through: progressive business tax, tenant protections.. does that ring hollow to a local?
posted by latkes at 9:16 PM on May 31, 2022 [4 favorites]
The article makes the case that Sawant is especially effective in getting big legislation through: progressive business tax, tenant protections.. does that ring hollow to a local?
posted by latkes at 9:16 PM on May 31, 2022 [4 favorites]
Totally my opinion: Seattle and Washington state in general has taken the 'liberal experiment' title from California,and they are doing some really interesting stuff locally and sort of flying under the radar due to their smaller size and distance from major media markets. I have no idea what east coast states it would compare to, maybe Virginia or the DC area.
Alternate take, Seattle and Washington state in general have a ridiculously stupid racist past, and should really think hard about presenting themselves as a model for the rest of the country.
posted by Quonab at 9:18 PM on May 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
Alternate take, Seattle and Washington state in general have a ridiculously stupid racist past, and should really think hard about presenting themselves as a model for the rest of the country.
posted by Quonab at 9:18 PM on May 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
The issue as I see it is that Democrats are too busy squabbling with each other to recognize that acting in unison (as the Republicans largely do) is how you get shit done.
The unison thing is not really a useful way of looking at the parties because the Democratic and Republican parties are not the same kind of entity. The GOP has become ideologically fairly narrow; people who are in 2022 members of the party disagree largely on details or strategy and not on underlying principles or theories. If you're still in the GOP, it's extremely unlikely that you see members of marginalized groups as people, or believe that Americans have the right to elect non-Republican politicians if they want. This is in part due to the ongoing purges of the Republican Party that started in the 80's and really accelerated in the 90's and aughts, but it's also the result of ever-intensifying propaganda pushing existing Republicans to the right.
In part as a result of that, the Democratic Party is a fractured party; the Dems cannot act with unity because the Dems do not have a cohesive worldview or set of goals, because the Democratic Party is really a coalition of everybody who is a) involved in electoral politics and b) not an increasingly violent fascist. There's a lot of Democrats who would simply be Republicans if the GOP had not spent the past forty years screaming down the highway to hell, there's a lot of Democrats who want to build a more just world, and people at all points along the spectrum between, and access to power and wealth is, predictably, very heavily weighted toward the right end of the party. This is not a recipe for an organization which is capable of putting up a good fight against the, again, violent fascists, because there's several different goals and moral positions that prevent the Party from convincingly standing for any specific ethos. So you get a party that drifts into power whenever the people who are able to, as an organization, put forth a specific, coherent ethos and worldview (even if it is openly, shamelessly in service to Hell) fuck up and piss off the voters, and then fails to accomplish very much because the Party, as an entity, is so bereft of common beliefs and goals that it is incapable of actually standing for something, even something as obvious as "we should protect the ability of voters to elect us, if they want to."
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:57 PM on May 31, 2022 [22 favorites]
The unison thing is not really a useful way of looking at the parties because the Democratic and Republican parties are not the same kind of entity. The GOP has become ideologically fairly narrow; people who are in 2022 members of the party disagree largely on details or strategy and not on underlying principles or theories. If you're still in the GOP, it's extremely unlikely that you see members of marginalized groups as people, or believe that Americans have the right to elect non-Republican politicians if they want. This is in part due to the ongoing purges of the Republican Party that started in the 80's and really accelerated in the 90's and aughts, but it's also the result of ever-intensifying propaganda pushing existing Republicans to the right.
In part as a result of that, the Democratic Party is a fractured party; the Dems cannot act with unity because the Dems do not have a cohesive worldview or set of goals, because the Democratic Party is really a coalition of everybody who is a) involved in electoral politics and b) not an increasingly violent fascist. There's a lot of Democrats who would simply be Republicans if the GOP had not spent the past forty years screaming down the highway to hell, there's a lot of Democrats who want to build a more just world, and people at all points along the spectrum between, and access to power and wealth is, predictably, very heavily weighted toward the right end of the party. This is not a recipe for an organization which is capable of putting up a good fight against the, again, violent fascists, because there's several different goals and moral positions that prevent the Party from convincingly standing for any specific ethos. So you get a party that drifts into power whenever the people who are able to, as an organization, put forth a specific, coherent ethos and worldview (even if it is openly, shamelessly in service to Hell) fuck up and piss off the voters, and then fails to accomplish very much because the Party, as an entity, is so bereft of common beliefs and goals that it is incapable of actually standing for something, even something as obvious as "we should protect the ability of voters to elect us, if they want to."
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:57 PM on May 31, 2022 [22 favorites]
I'm sorry, are you saying there are places in America without a stupidly racist past? Where are they? And how's the housing market? I'd love to move there.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 9:58 PM on May 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 9:58 PM on May 31, 2022 [5 favorites]
I mean fuck I guess careerism is also a big part of the problem? The Dem Party is also being run for the benefit of the leadership, Pelosi and Schumer and Clyburn and all of them, and their protection of Cuellar is telling because there is no Republican Cuellar, or Manchin, or Sinema, and the nearest comparable people are Republicans like Collins or Murkowski (or, going back a few years, McCain) who will smirkingly pretend they're thinking about doing the right thing before voting with the Party, and build a reputation on that pretense.
Hell, who remembers Eric Cantor? He was the House Majority Leader! And then he got primaried and the Republican response was basically to laugh at him and forget he ever existed, because the Republican Party exists to serve the goals and worldview of the Republican Party, and Cantor was no longer useful to that end and was thus thrown away. Meanwhile the Democratic leadership goes all out to protect the most useless Republican-in-Democrat-closing piece of trash in the House, to help keep in the House somebody who frequently votes against them, and why? This is not the behavior of a Party that exists to advance a unified worldview or set of goals.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:07 PM on May 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
Hell, who remembers Eric Cantor? He was the House Majority Leader! And then he got primaried and the Republican response was basically to laugh at him and forget he ever existed, because the Republican Party exists to serve the goals and worldview of the Republican Party, and Cantor was no longer useful to that end and was thus thrown away. Meanwhile the Democratic leadership goes all out to protect the most useless Republican-in-Democrat-closing piece of trash in the House, to help keep in the House somebody who frequently votes against them, and why? This is not the behavior of a Party that exists to advance a unified worldview or set of goals.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:07 PM on May 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
The issue as I see it is that Democrats are too busy squabbling with each other to recognize that acting in unison (as the Republicans largely do) is how you get shit done.
Some factions of the party want police (and carceral) abolition. Some want to continue the status quo of increasing their budgets year after year, measured in "fractions of national militaries". Let's hit the 50% mark, and drastically defund police budgets in favor of the ~80-some percent of police call-outs which *don't* require them.
Surely everyone'll be happy about full-throatedly supporting that, right? Vote blue no matter who? 50% of everything is better than the alternatives? No? No?
Well then. Perhaps it's not as simple as that.
posted by CrystalDave at 10:17 PM on May 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
Some factions of the party want police (and carceral) abolition. Some want to continue the status quo of increasing their budgets year after year, measured in "fractions of national militaries". Let's hit the 50% mark, and drastically defund police budgets in favor of the ~80-some percent of police call-outs which *don't* require them.
Surely everyone'll be happy about full-throatedly supporting that, right? Vote blue no matter who? 50% of everything is better than the alternatives? No? No?
Well then. Perhaps it's not as simple as that.
posted by CrystalDave at 10:17 PM on May 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
Has anyone even been elected who wants police abolition?
posted by Selena777 at 10:20 PM on May 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Selena777 at 10:20 PM on May 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
I mean, we almost got Nicole Thomas-Kennedy as City Attorney in Seattle, but we were on a backlash election & we wanted someone to talk big about cracking down on homeless people & throwing the book at them before realizing that City Attorney only has jurisdiction for misdemeanors & would have to throw out ~2k cases regardless of who was at the helm.
That's the thing with Seattle politics; we occasionally get close to getting people in positions where they could do something useful; but their efforts get conflated with the "how do I make business-Republicans happy and people they say they want things changed happy? I know, let's do symbolic things which don't rock the boat for anyone!" liberal Democrat faction and when that fails to produce results the people vote for Trumpists because "at least they do what they say they're going to do". That this is arguably the high-water mark for progressive politics in the US leaves the rest as an exercise to the reader.
posted by CrystalDave at 10:27 PM on May 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
That's the thing with Seattle politics; we occasionally get close to getting people in positions where they could do something useful; but their efforts get conflated with the "how do I make business-Republicans happy and people they say they want things changed happy? I know, let's do symbolic things which don't rock the boat for anyone!" liberal Democrat faction and when that fails to produce results the people vote for Trumpists because "at least they do what they say they're going to do". That this is arguably the high-water mark for progressive politics in the US leaves the rest as an exercise to the reader.
posted by CrystalDave at 10:27 PM on May 31, 2022 [2 favorites]
Something I have noticed locally in the Los Angeles area is that once elected, the council members must contend with pre-existing police union contracts when voting on the budget and those contracts have pay raises already locked for a certain # of years. It seems like even those who ran on progressive platforms don't want to deal with the reality of what breaking those contracts would entail.
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 10:31 PM on May 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 10:31 PM on May 31, 2022 [1 favorite]
Several posters on this thread seem to think that all the decisions within the Democratic Party are made, ahem, democratically, and that the reason progressive or left-leaning candidates don't do better is simply because people don't vote for them. This may or may not be true at the primary or general election level, but is certainly not true within the party.
Several years ago my wife was among those elected as Assembly Delegates ("ADEMs"), which are the lowest rung of elected office in the Democratic Party in California. She got to see how the sausage is made. It's true that party decisions are made through a process of voting. However, the voting population consists of about one third ADEMs, one third elected officials (i.e. state congress, senate, and other offices), and one third appointees. Appointees are awarded to powerful elected officials; the more powerful the more appointees you get. Higher electeds within the party might get 50 or more appointees, who are mostly lobbyists who vote as instructed by their appointer. Every year (term?) there is a convention where ADEMs get to submit proposals for legislation. Sometimes these even get enough to votes to pass, but they then have to go through levels of committees, where they get killed by party loyalists.
A chorus of voices on this and many other Mefi threads always calls on progressives to "not re-litigate the 2016 primary". But many Clinton supporters treated Bernie people like shit during and after the primary and they continue to this day, and this thread. If the Party wants Bernie people to be able to move past that, how about reforming the party at the state level to make it more democratic?
For the record, lots of Bernie people held our noses and worked to get Clinton and Biden elected despite our experiences. Democrats may be feckless and corrupt, but at least they have to at least *act* like they're working for the people, and they still believe in our system of government, whereas Republicans have become actual antidemocratic fascists.
posted by technodelic at 11:05 PM on May 31, 2022 [19 favorites]
Several years ago my wife was among those elected as Assembly Delegates ("ADEMs"), which are the lowest rung of elected office in the Democratic Party in California. She got to see how the sausage is made. It's true that party decisions are made through a process of voting. However, the voting population consists of about one third ADEMs, one third elected officials (i.e. state congress, senate, and other offices), and one third appointees. Appointees are awarded to powerful elected officials; the more powerful the more appointees you get. Higher electeds within the party might get 50 or more appointees, who are mostly lobbyists who vote as instructed by their appointer. Every year (term?) there is a convention where ADEMs get to submit proposals for legislation. Sometimes these even get enough to votes to pass, but they then have to go through levels of committees, where they get killed by party loyalists.
A chorus of voices on this and many other Mefi threads always calls on progressives to "not re-litigate the 2016 primary". But many Clinton supporters treated Bernie people like shit during and after the primary and they continue to this day, and this thread. If the Party wants Bernie people to be able to move past that, how about reforming the party at the state level to make it more democratic?
For the record, lots of Bernie people held our noses and worked to get Clinton and Biden elected despite our experiences. Democrats may be feckless and corrupt, but at least they have to at least *act* like they're working for the people, and they still believe in our system of government, whereas Republicans have become actual antidemocratic fascists.
posted by technodelic at 11:05 PM on May 31, 2022 [19 favorites]
Since this has become something of a strategy discussion, I'd like to note there there is a large contingent of folks who are viscerally opposed to anything they see as a half measure. They think that incremental progress isn't worth it because the increment becomes the entrenched status quo and believe that further progress will then be impossible.
I submit that we should learn from the forced birth assholes. They had no problem with incrementally whittling away at abortion rights, being happy with whatever minor (in their view) bullshit they could get away with, largely shutting up for a few months or a year, and then coming back for another bite at the apple. And it has worked, much to our detriment and dismay.
Similarly, the crazypants Republicans took over the party incrementally, slowly whittling away at the contingent who believed in free elections and had some ties to factual reality and all the while being happy to use them in service of their fascist goals right up until they became obstacles to the larger program at which time they were unceremoniously dumped. They didn't get there all at once, even though the program as a whole was devised decades ago. They incrementally pushed individual candidates in individual districts further and further to the extremist end of the spectrum. They didn't start by trying to elect people far outside the mainstream of political thought. A few where they could get away with it, sure, but for the most part just people who were a little more right wing every time. Of course, they had the advantage of being able to offer high paid no show jobs to get the last round out and make room for each successive wave of replacements. And they had the Fox News psyop helping to slowly radicalize the voters along with the candidates.
The point, however, is that they took the long view despite feeling like the country was burning and kept at it even as the first decade showed relatively limited actual progress and now here we are living in their world despite a healthy majority of people in the country not agreeing with them. Some of that is due to gerrymandering, but a lot is due to the wholehearted acceptance of incrementalism allowing them to build on what seem like small gains at the time.
The Qnuts may actually ruin this for them in the long run, but only time will tell.
posted by wierdo at 11:32 PM on May 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
I submit that we should learn from the forced birth assholes. They had no problem with incrementally whittling away at abortion rights, being happy with whatever minor (in their view) bullshit they could get away with, largely shutting up for a few months or a year, and then coming back for another bite at the apple. And it has worked, much to our detriment and dismay.
Similarly, the crazypants Republicans took over the party incrementally, slowly whittling away at the contingent who believed in free elections and had some ties to factual reality and all the while being happy to use them in service of their fascist goals right up until they became obstacles to the larger program at which time they were unceremoniously dumped. They didn't get there all at once, even though the program as a whole was devised decades ago. They incrementally pushed individual candidates in individual districts further and further to the extremist end of the spectrum. They didn't start by trying to elect people far outside the mainstream of political thought. A few where they could get away with it, sure, but for the most part just people who were a little more right wing every time. Of course, they had the advantage of being able to offer high paid no show jobs to get the last round out and make room for each successive wave of replacements. And they had the Fox News psyop helping to slowly radicalize the voters along with the candidates.
The point, however, is that they took the long view despite feeling like the country was burning and kept at it even as the first decade showed relatively limited actual progress and now here we are living in their world despite a healthy majority of people in the country not agreeing with them. Some of that is due to gerrymandering, but a lot is due to the wholehearted acceptance of incrementalism allowing them to build on what seem like small gains at the time.
The Qnuts may actually ruin this for them in the long run, but only time will tell.
posted by wierdo at 11:32 PM on May 31, 2022 [15 favorites]
Has anyone even been elected who wants police abolition?
We’ve had a couple in DC at the City Council level, although they now seem to be taking personal flak for the national increase in violent crime.
posted by aspersioncast at 4:56 AM on June 1, 2022
We’ve had a couple in DC at the City Council level, although they now seem to be taking personal flak for the national increase in violent crime.
posted by aspersioncast at 4:56 AM on June 1, 2022
> has a PhD in economics from North Carolina State University,
...
> Sawant, who lives on $40,000 of her $140,000 salary and places the rest into a political fund that she uses for social justice campaigns,
In case you ever wonder why your student loans are never ever going away no matter how popular the idea is. The Democrats want people like this in high paying corporate jobs and away from this type of work.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:43 AM on June 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
...
> Sawant, who lives on $40,000 of her $140,000 salary and places the rest into a political fund that she uses for social justice campaigns,
In case you ever wonder why your student loans are never ever going away no matter how popular the idea is. The Democrats want people like this in high paying corporate jobs and away from this type of work.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:43 AM on June 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
They think that incremental progress isn't worth it because the increment becomes the entrenched status quo...They had no problem with incrementally whittling away at abortion rights, being happy with whatever minor (in their view) bullshit they could get away with, largely shutting up for a few months or a year, and then coming back for another bite at the apple.
I'm not sure if the first part is widely held (cite?) but the 2nd part requires a lot of oligarch funding and institutional continuity to work. Sometimes you have to go to war with the army you've got, right? This seems like another not-both sides thing.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 5:47 AM on June 1, 2022
I'm not sure if the first part is widely held (cite?) but the 2nd part requires a lot of oligarch funding and institutional continuity to work. Sometimes you have to go to war with the army you've got, right? This seems like another not-both sides thing.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 5:47 AM on June 1, 2022
I think the major difference is that if you shame the Democrats enough they'll do the right thing, but otherwise, it's all about the status quo.
If you shame Democrats enough, they'll say the right thing, but otherwise, it's all about the status quo.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 5:48 AM on June 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
If you shame Democrats enough, they'll say the right thing, but otherwise, it's all about the status quo.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 5:48 AM on June 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
FWIW, Chris Hedges wrote one of the most prophetic books I've ever read: 2007's American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.
wierdo: I'd like to note there there is a large contingent of folks who are viscerally opposed to anything they see as a half measure. They think that incremental progress isn't worth it [...] I submit that we should learn from the forced birth assholes. They had no problem with incrementally whittling away at abortion rights [...] And it has worked, much to our detriment and dismay.
Yes; among the many topics of Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies is a section on why incrementalism not only works, but is kind of the only thing that works, at least if your goal is major change without bloody revolution.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 6:29 AM on June 1, 2022 [14 favorites]
wierdo: I'd like to note there there is a large contingent of folks who are viscerally opposed to anything they see as a half measure. They think that incremental progress isn't worth it [...] I submit that we should learn from the forced birth assholes. They had no problem with incrementally whittling away at abortion rights [...] And it has worked, much to our detriment and dismay.
Yes; among the many topics of Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies is a section on why incrementalism not only works, but is kind of the only thing that works, at least if your goal is major change without bloody revolution.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 6:29 AM on June 1, 2022 [14 favorites]
Sometimes you have to go to war with the army you've got, right?
If you go to war with an army that can't win, then you lose. History is pretty clear on this.
Continuing with this metaphor, the Republicans can field an army based on evangelical white nationalists. IMHO "the Democrats" (using the term as a lot of people are using it here) feel to have a chance they need to cobble together a force of allied people who oppose them. So, well educated class women worried about abortion and corporate promotions, labor unions, black activists, the professional class, working class Hispanic Catholics, etc. And yes, this includes rich people who are worried about public education and gay rights and xenophobia.
The leadership ends up being people who can sort of get all these factions moving in the same direction. You end up with an inherently cautious strategy if a good bit of your army is unwilling to risk an offensive. And yeah, if one faction looks like they are alienating the others they'll try to push it back in line.
Or at least the current leadership cadre thinks that. Are they right? I'm not sure, but if it were obviously wrong we'd have different leaders.
I do think we saw one problem with the "motivate your base" focus last election: motivating your base also motivates the other sides base, so record breaking turnout on the Democratic side was matched by record breaking turnout on the Republican side and it was a narrow win, with net losses in the House and Senate.
In case you ever wonder why your student loans are never ever going away no matter how popular the idea is. The Democrats want people like this in high paying corporate jobs and away from this type of work.
There's a lot I'm not sure about, but I can guarantee you that "the Democrats" are not worried about Ph.D.'s in six figure jobs using, en masse, their disposable income to help minimum wage workers.
posted by mark k at 7:12 AM on June 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
If you go to war with an army that can't win, then you lose. History is pretty clear on this.
Continuing with this metaphor, the Republicans can field an army based on evangelical white nationalists. IMHO "the Democrats" (using the term as a lot of people are using it here) feel to have a chance they need to cobble together a force of allied people who oppose them. So, well educated class women worried about abortion and corporate promotions, labor unions, black activists, the professional class, working class Hispanic Catholics, etc. And yes, this includes rich people who are worried about public education and gay rights and xenophobia.
The leadership ends up being people who can sort of get all these factions moving in the same direction. You end up with an inherently cautious strategy if a good bit of your army is unwilling to risk an offensive. And yeah, if one faction looks like they are alienating the others they'll try to push it back in line.
Or at least the current leadership cadre thinks that. Are they right? I'm not sure, but if it were obviously wrong we'd have different leaders.
I do think we saw one problem with the "motivate your base" focus last election: motivating your base also motivates the other sides base, so record breaking turnout on the Democratic side was matched by record breaking turnout on the Republican side and it was a narrow win, with net losses in the House and Senate.
In case you ever wonder why your student loans are never ever going away no matter how popular the idea is. The Democrats want people like this in high paying corporate jobs and away from this type of work.
There's a lot I'm not sure about, but I can guarantee you that "the Democrats" are not worried about Ph.D.'s in six figure jobs using, en masse, their disposable income to help minimum wage workers.
posted by mark k at 7:12 AM on June 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
I'm not sure if the first part is widely held (cite?) but the 2nd part requires a lot of oligarch funding and institutional continuity to work. Sometimes you have to go to war with the army you've got, right? This seems like another not-both sides thing.
The left and the right do not play by the same rules and cannot operate on the same playbook because the left does not have billions of dollars of often secret funding being funneled to it by billionaires, does not have the tacit support of police to do crimes, does not have a news network pumping left-wing ideology into millions of homes, and all because, specifically, the left is a movement to end the situation in which a handful of people have enough money to conjure a political movement out of nothing and sustain it until it kills the human species. What works for the right cannot work for the left.
The leadership ends up being people who can sort of get all these factions moving in the same direction.
Not really- the leadership ends up being the people who have access to the money, just like how leadership in military coalitions turns out to be the folks with the materiel. In the past the unions used to play a lot of this role, but since the dominant faction of the Democrats- the DLC and their descendants- sat back, watched, and giggled as the unions withered, it's pretty much been the corporate Dems raising money from the rich, led by, for example, a House Majority Leader who is a landlord with a 9-figure net worth.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:33 AM on June 1, 2022 [11 favorites]
The left and the right do not play by the same rules and cannot operate on the same playbook because the left does not have billions of dollars of often secret funding being funneled to it by billionaires, does not have the tacit support of police to do crimes, does not have a news network pumping left-wing ideology into millions of homes, and all because, specifically, the left is a movement to end the situation in which a handful of people have enough money to conjure a political movement out of nothing and sustain it until it kills the human species. What works for the right cannot work for the left.
The leadership ends up being people who can sort of get all these factions moving in the same direction.
Not really- the leadership ends up being the people who have access to the money, just like how leadership in military coalitions turns out to be the folks with the materiel. In the past the unions used to play a lot of this role, but since the dominant faction of the Democrats- the DLC and their descendants- sat back, watched, and giggled as the unions withered, it's pretty much been the corporate Dems raising money from the rich, led by, for example, a House Majority Leader who is a landlord with a 9-figure net worth.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:33 AM on June 1, 2022 [11 favorites]
Not really- the leadership ends up being the people who have access to the money
Going to disagree with this. Bloomberg or Steyer have plenty of access to money but won't ever be prime movers because they don't bring a big constituency of their own, nor have any particular skill at dealing with other important factions. Pelosi (Speaker, not Majority Leader, but I assume you mean her) may be wealthy but is leader precisely because she can do things like suppress a centrist revolt and support the Squad during the BBB negotiations.
By definition the leader is going to be someone like that, because anyone who's not like that will be replaced by someone who is.
"Money" (meaning people with money) is an important faction in the current coalition so people without access aren't going to step into the role, but that's not the same as saying that's all that matters.
posted by mark k at 7:57 AM on June 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
Going to disagree with this. Bloomberg or Steyer have plenty of access to money but won't ever be prime movers because they don't bring a big constituency of their own, nor have any particular skill at dealing with other important factions. Pelosi (Speaker, not Majority Leader, but I assume you mean her) may be wealthy but is leader precisely because she can do things like suppress a centrist revolt and support the Squad during the BBB negotiations.
By definition the leader is going to be someone like that, because anyone who's not like that will be replaced by someone who is.
"Money" (meaning people with money) is an important faction in the current coalition so people without access aren't going to step into the role, but that's not the same as saying that's all that matters.
posted by mark k at 7:57 AM on June 1, 2022 [5 favorites]
> There's a lot I'm not sure about, but I can guarantee you that "the Democrats" are not worried about Ph.D.'s in six figure jobs using, en masse, their disposable income to help minimum wage workers.
What they want is people with a lot of education to be hamstrung by having to repay their student loans so they are forced to take and stay in high paying jobs and not take low paying activist work. You can see this confirmed whenever someone complains about how much student loan debt they have and centrists scold them for taking on loans they could not afford, with the unspoken assumption that top-quality education is for the rich only.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:59 AM on June 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
What they want is people with a lot of education to be hamstrung by having to repay their student loans so they are forced to take and stay in high paying jobs and not take low paying activist work. You can see this confirmed whenever someone complains about how much student loan debt they have and centrists scold them for taking on loans they could not afford, with the unspoken assumption that top-quality education is for the rich only.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:59 AM on June 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
Pelosi (Speaker, not Majority Leader, but I assume you mean her) may be wealthy but is leader precisely because she can do things like suppress a centrist revolt and support the Squad during the BBB negotiations.
By definition the leader is going to be someone like that, because anyone who's not like that will be replaced by someone who is.
"Money" (meaning people with money) is an important faction in the current coalition so people without access aren't going to step into the role, but that's not the same as saying that's all that matters.
I think what's being litigated here is the difference (or the conversion rate between) money and power. Pelosi has power, and a good portion of that power comes from being wealthy and being from a family that has been influential in politics in states on both coasts since the 1930s. Being able to leverage the Getty-Brown-Newsom-Pelosi money power from CA politics into establishing that same level of power on the national level has been Pelosi's skill. You don't "suppress a a centrist revolt" because you're a talented negotiator in the room, but because you have leverage over people's ability to be re-elected before you even reach the negotiating table.
posted by JauntyFedora at 8:57 AM on June 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
By definition the leader is going to be someone like that, because anyone who's not like that will be replaced by someone who is.
"Money" (meaning people with money) is an important faction in the current coalition so people without access aren't going to step into the role, but that's not the same as saying that's all that matters.
I think what's being litigated here is the difference (or the conversion rate between) money and power. Pelosi has power, and a good portion of that power comes from being wealthy and being from a family that has been influential in politics in states on both coasts since the 1930s. Being able to leverage the Getty-Brown-Newsom-Pelosi money power from CA politics into establishing that same level of power on the national level has been Pelosi's skill. You don't "suppress a a centrist revolt" because you're a talented negotiator in the room, but because you have leverage over people's ability to be re-elected before you even reach the negotiating table.
posted by JauntyFedora at 8:57 AM on June 1, 2022 [6 favorites]
Sorry to double post but the TX house race for example: if Cisneros had gotten 500 more votes and gotten the seat despite Pelosi campaigning for her opponent, Cisneros would owe Pelosi nothing except when cooperation is in both their favor. Cuellar getting the seat because Pelosi and others came out to stump for him with barely 50% of the vote, means he now owes her a lot. The less popular you are the more useful you are to the party leadership in terms of leverage.
posted by JauntyFedora at 9:01 AM on June 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by JauntyFedora at 9:01 AM on June 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
She also backed him in the last primary against Cisneros, and he continued to be Henry Cuellar.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:28 AM on June 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:28 AM on June 1, 2022 [2 favorites]
Pelosi (Speaker, not Majority Leader, but I assume you mean her) may be wealthy but is leader precisely because she can do things like suppress a centrist revolt and support the Squad during the BBB negotiations.
Ah yes, Pelosi... famously supportive of the Squad during the BBB negotiations.
posted by Gadarene at 9:29 AM on June 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
Ah yes, Pelosi... famously supportive of the Squad during the BBB negotiations.
posted by Gadarene at 9:29 AM on June 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
Going back to the article in question, it would be interesting to see what would happen if Sawant had a couple of allies on the city council. If it's 1v8 at the moment then something like 3v6 might really push things and would mean that it's not all riding on her to be the perfect answer.
FWIW on the bigger picture, I think progressives should be trying to get progressives into safe Democrat seats at all levels, and people either with a chance of winning over occasional Republican voters (possibly eg Chloe Maxmin) or who can really mobilise non-voters (eg Stacey Abrams) in marginal/flippable seats at all levels. Ideally the 50th senator would be anywhere to the left of Manchin and Sinema.
The USA uses first-past-the-post system for its elections so it inevitably tends to a two-party state. To get progressive policies enacted, you need both the more progressive of the two parties to be in power and the balance within that party to be tilted progressive. Not one or the other, but both.
posted by plonkee at 9:29 AM on June 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
FWIW on the bigger picture, I think progressives should be trying to get progressives into safe Democrat seats at all levels, and people either with a chance of winning over occasional Republican voters (possibly eg Chloe Maxmin) or who can really mobilise non-voters (eg Stacey Abrams) in marginal/flippable seats at all levels. Ideally the 50th senator would be anywhere to the left of Manchin and Sinema.
The USA uses first-past-the-post system for its elections so it inevitably tends to a two-party state. To get progressive policies enacted, you need both the more progressive of the two parties to be in power and the balance within that party to be tilted progressive. Not one or the other, but both.
posted by plonkee at 9:29 AM on June 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
Being opposed to things is a great thing at this stage, there is so much to be opposed to.
+++ great piece of insight, appreciate this. The common sleight of hand here is that "doing things" is equated with liberal/conservative solutions, so in that framework it is fundamentally impossible to "do things" without advancing liberal or conservative policies. Exposure to abolitionist practice and community may lead some to understand more fluently that dismantling is often an act of construction.
posted by dusty potato at 10:04 AM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
+++ great piece of insight, appreciate this. The common sleight of hand here is that "doing things" is equated with liberal/conservative solutions, so in that framework it is fundamentally impossible to "do things" without advancing liberal or conservative policies. Exposure to abolitionist practice and community may lead some to understand more fluently that dismantling is often an act of construction.
posted by dusty potato at 10:04 AM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure there's an end to the opposition stage. But "good" news is looks like we'll get to test that empirically.
posted by hank_14 at 10:12 AM on June 1, 2022
posted by hank_14 at 10:12 AM on June 1, 2022
Ah yes, Pelosi... famously supportive of the Squad during the BBB negotiations.
Yes, she was. She kept the House together and supported holding back the infrastructure bill to see if that delay would get Manchin or Sinema to compromise on BBB. She let the progressive wing take the lead on advocating for the bills to be coupled. It was the centrists--who were trying to advance the infrastructure bill immediately--who she pushed back in line. Unfortunately in between inflation and Biden's falling poll numbers, this didn't lead to any particular leverage on the Senate die hards who killed the bill.
Given that none of this actually worked there's a lot of frustration, but the House went with something pretty close to the progressive playbook on tactics this time.
posted by mark k at 10:21 AM on June 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
Yes, she was. She kept the House together and supported holding back the infrastructure bill to see if that delay would get Manchin or Sinema to compromise on BBB. She let the progressive wing take the lead on advocating for the bills to be coupled. It was the centrists--who were trying to advance the infrastructure bill immediately--who she pushed back in line. Unfortunately in between inflation and Biden's falling poll numbers, this didn't lead to any particular leverage on the Senate die hards who killed the bill.
Given that none of this actually worked there's a lot of frustration, but the House went with something pretty close to the progressive playbook on tactics this time.
posted by mark k at 10:21 AM on June 1, 2022 [4 favorites]
It had nothing to do with inflation or Biden's poll numbers and everything to do with getting predictably played by Manchin and the Blue Dogs (one of whom Biden then endorsed in his primary! Jesus. Must be nice, Kurt Schrader. Also, ha ha.), but I accept the correction otherwise.
posted by Gadarene at 12:12 PM on June 1, 2022
posted by Gadarene at 12:12 PM on June 1, 2022
Bernie’s an octogenarian that should get out of the way and let the future happen, same as all the other octogenarians.
Bernie's not stopping anyone from taking over; I'd bet he'd be happy to do so. The problem is that no one else is like him. He's a firebrand, a machine. He's been talking the same talk and walking the same walk for decades now, and he's as pissed off now as he ever was. Show me any other politician on the left so dedicated, so completely non-cynical as Bernie Sanders. Like him or hate him, but it's hard to argue he doesn't believe what he says he believes.
But to this point: even the up and coming socialist leaders like AOC have a sort of limited range. I don't know if that's due to the limits of the job or if, say, AOC just isn't quite as left-leaning as we'd like to think.
posted by zardoz at 6:01 PM on June 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
Bernie's not stopping anyone from taking over; I'd bet he'd be happy to do so. The problem is that no one else is like him. He's a firebrand, a machine. He's been talking the same talk and walking the same walk for decades now, and he's as pissed off now as he ever was. Show me any other politician on the left so dedicated, so completely non-cynical as Bernie Sanders. Like him or hate him, but it's hard to argue he doesn't believe what he says he believes.
But to this point: even the up and coming socialist leaders like AOC have a sort of limited range. I don't know if that's due to the limits of the job or if, say, AOC just isn't quite as left-leaning as we'd like to think.
posted by zardoz at 6:01 PM on June 1, 2022 [3 favorites]
The problem is that no one else is like him.
If your populist uprising is one single person, you’ve got some massive problems to solve before anyone takes it seriously.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:22 PM on June 1, 2022 [10 favorites]
If your populist uprising is one single person, you’ve got some massive problems to solve before anyone takes it seriously.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:22 PM on June 1, 2022 [10 favorites]
Warren is everything Bernie is in term of passion, but better.
posted by Gadarene at 10:09 PM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Gadarene at 10:09 PM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
Warren is a capitalist, she said it herself.
posted by polymodus at 11:29 PM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by polymodus at 11:29 PM on June 1, 2022 [1 favorite]
If your populist uprising is one single person, you’ve got some massive problems to solve before anyone takes it seriously.
It's not that simple. There's a very large and well-moneyed range of apparatuses that look for outbreaks of socialism and stamp them flat. Including, as windbox explained very well, plenty of centrist/center-right leaders of the Democratic Party.
It depends on how you make your measurements, but I would argue that a majority of Americans are in fact "socialists," and I would also make the case that there are very real checks on its growth. In a healthy political atmosphere, there would in fact be plenty of people to replace Bernie Sanders, but America doesn't have a healthy political atmosphere.
posted by zardoz at 4:08 AM on June 2, 2022 [4 favorites]
It's not that simple. There's a very large and well-moneyed range of apparatuses that look for outbreaks of socialism and stamp them flat. Including, as windbox explained very well, plenty of centrist/center-right leaders of the Democratic Party.
It depends on how you make your measurements, but I would argue that a majority of Americans are in fact "socialists," and I would also make the case that there are very real checks on its growth. In a healthy political atmosphere, there would in fact be plenty of people to replace Bernie Sanders, but America doesn't have a healthy political atmosphere.
posted by zardoz at 4:08 AM on June 2, 2022 [4 favorites]
I favored Warren in the primaries until she tried to cozy up to the left by bad-mouthing the center and the center by bad-mouthing the left- good instinct for broad-base coalition building, terrible strategy when we can all hear you talking. She still would've got buried by Biden on Super Tuesday, same as Sanders did, though.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:44 AM on June 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:44 AM on June 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
Ah yes, what we really need is the octogenarian white man, there's just something about Warren and AOC and Clinton that I just don't like
posted by a_masterpiece_of_cold_cuts at 3:25 PM on June 2, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by a_masterpiece_of_cold_cuts at 3:25 PM on June 2, 2022 [8 favorites]
Ah yes, what we really need is the octogenarian white man, there's just something about Warren and AOC and Clinton that I just don't like
He may be a white man, but as I said previously, I don't think anyone can deny Sanders' sincerity. He's said the same things over and over for 35 years.
If you think Warren and Clinton, to me, didn't have that level of sincerity. At times they checked which way the wind was blowing to let their positions be known. Which, frankly, is par for the course for most politicians.
You'll notice how gender doesn't come into play at all with my argument.
posted by zardoz at 4:36 PM on June 2, 2022
He may be a white man, but as I said previously, I don't think anyone can deny Sanders' sincerity. He's said the same things over and over for 35 years.
If you think Warren and Clinton, to me, didn't have that level of sincerity. At times they checked which way the wind was blowing to let their positions be known. Which, frankly, is par for the course for most politicians.
You'll notice how gender doesn't come into play at all with my argument.
posted by zardoz at 4:36 PM on June 2, 2022
yeah man, I get it, you just don't feel they're sincere. And if there's one thing in this world that's unaffected by biases it's our feelings and our perceptions of people we don't know!
posted by a_masterpiece_of_cold_cuts at 4:41 PM on June 2, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by a_masterpiece_of_cold_cuts at 4:41 PM on June 2, 2022 [4 favorites]
Gender bias only exists if you are someone who explicitly says "I don't like women" while rubbing your hands together and cackling.
posted by a_masterpiece_of_cold_cuts at 4:42 PM on June 2, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by a_masterpiece_of_cold_cuts at 4:42 PM on June 2, 2022 [5 favorites]
Jesus christ can we stop talking Clinton vs Sanders? A mod already called that out once.
This post is about a woman socialist office holder. Any thoughts on her work?
posted by latkes at 4:56 PM on June 2, 2022 [4 favorites]
This post is about a woman socialist office holder. Any thoughts on her work?
posted by latkes at 4:56 PM on June 2, 2022 [4 favorites]
During the 2020 primaries, like 30 big names endorsed Biden on the same Saturday. It was obviously a whoooooole lot of backroom dealing among the DNC to get that done.
What it was, was a crowded primary field suddenly being winnowed down right around Super Tuesday.
This literally happens in every heavily contested presidential primary. Super Tuesday is the moment of truth. When you have a dozen or more candidates still hanging on at that point, they're all looking at their poll numbers, and whole bunch of them are seeing that either (1) they've got to win something on Super Tuesday if they want to keep going, or (2) they don't have any chance of winning anything on Super Tuesday.
So a whole bunch of them drop out either right before or right after Super Tuesday... and most of them then endorse the front-runner.
This is what happened in the Dem primaries in 2020... just as it's happened in heavily contested Dem and GOP primaries for decades.
When I saw people presenting this as evidence of some sinister DNC conspiracy, it became evident to me that there are some folks who just prefer conspiracy narratives... and/or who don't seem to have paid much attention in previous election cycles.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:17 PM on June 2, 2022 [4 favorites]
What it was, was a crowded primary field suddenly being winnowed down right around Super Tuesday.
This literally happens in every heavily contested presidential primary. Super Tuesday is the moment of truth. When you have a dozen or more candidates still hanging on at that point, they're all looking at their poll numbers, and whole bunch of them are seeing that either (1) they've got to win something on Super Tuesday if they want to keep going, or (2) they don't have any chance of winning anything on Super Tuesday.
So a whole bunch of them drop out either right before or right after Super Tuesday... and most of them then endorse the front-runner.
This is what happened in the Dem primaries in 2020... just as it's happened in heavily contested Dem and GOP primaries for decades.
When I saw people presenting this as evidence of some sinister DNC conspiracy, it became evident to me that there are some folks who just prefer conspiracy narratives... and/or who don't seem to have paid much attention in previous election cycles.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:17 PM on June 2, 2022 [4 favorites]
Kshama Sawant might not be feel-good liberalism's cup of tea, but she has loudly proclaimed her loyalties again and again, and has called out a city council that pats itself on the back for "not being Republican." Liberalism is not going to change the dynamics of the working class in American. When push comes to shove, liberalism will call the cops, side with the bosses over the workers, deny healthcare, and clear away homeless people from underpasses and parks. We need something else, something better.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:31 AM on June 3, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:31 AM on June 3, 2022 [5 favorites]
This post is about a woman socialist office holder. Any thoughts on her work?
I am extremely sympathetic to her positions but JFHC, her presentation! ...that one might catch more flies with vinegar than with sulfuric acid is a concept that has yet occur to her.
posted by y2karl at 6:29 PM on June 5, 2022
I am extremely sympathetic to her positions but JFHC, her presentation! ...that one might catch more flies with vinegar than with sulfuric acid is a concept that has yet occur to her.
posted by y2karl at 6:29 PM on June 5, 2022
Perhaps she doesn't want to catch certain flies. Perhaps we've been waiting for someone to proclaim publicly the owning class as our enemy and not to mince words. I'm sick of pols playing nice with people who are destroying human lives.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:40 AM on June 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:40 AM on June 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
Your comments have merit and your point is taken
posted by y2karl at 12:59 PM on June 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by y2karl at 12:59 PM on June 6, 2022 [1 favorite]
« Older We cry out for utopias, for powerful presentations... | Today do this Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
". . . exposed the Democratic Party leadership as craven tools of the billionaire class. "
I don't really believe it is that simple.
posted by olykate at 1:59 PM on May 31, 2022 [15 favorites]