Democratic (Party) Direction

if you wanted to discourage progressives from showing up to vote in November this is almost exactly what you should be publishing

so...basically publish nothing critical from now till Nov?

Lol

Maybe just avoid invective-soaked clickbait built on a skeleton of two remarks by old people which in no way constitute a platform plank or policy

if major Dem players are pushing or even just appearing to push a dumb policy it seems worthy of public pushback in order to maaaybe help shame them into not doing that but clearly mileages vary

Christ:

The Democrats haven’t won back the House of Representatives yet, but their leaders in the House already seem desperate to make sure everyone knows that if they do, they’ll do fuck all to put forward a positive vision for the country they want to run.

That won't shame anyone, that will just make Pelosi and the DCCC laugh all the way to the next donor meeting.

- if you wanted to discourage progressives from showing up to vote in November this is almost exactly what you should be publishing

So, hooray, good job.

― El Tomboto

relying on the splinter news constituency to bring about meaningful political change is about as warranted as expecting a tidal wave of 18 year olds to reshape the political map

the spell only works if you constantly say bad things about Republicans. the minute you slip from that and do something harmful like critical thinking, it stops the magic from happening

yeah, platform planks, always the basis of governance

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/06/superdelegates-house-democrats-630357

expecting a tidal wave of 18 year olds to reshape the political map

in general, people are more likely to vote when they perceive their stake in the outcome is sufficiently large to make the effort. that rarely applies to 18 year olds, whose stake is more about a theoretical future than an immediate present.

what I expect is that the cohort of young people who are already inclined to take this stuff seriously will enter the arena as more activist and radicalized than usual, but not in significantly larger numbers.

what a monster

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/391214-pelosi-medicare-for-all-should-be-evaluated-if-dems-win-house

it's almost like her leadership is guided by what she knows her caucus will support

yeah, it's almost like she's hedging and saying something totally non-committal because she sees writing on the wall

So relieved that party centrists are paying vague lip service to policies they'll never actually support, democracy really works.

Also, you realize that this is only happening because of pushes from the crazy left wing of the party, right?

it's happening because a majority of her caucus supports it. lol @ "never actually support" - if she has the votes, she'll pass it.

which, yes, actually is how democracy is supposed to work

if the donor base supports it

if she has the votes, she'll pass it.

― Οὖτις

also pelosi is a lifelong cat-herder with more ability than most to actually _get_ the votes

itt talk about the nba hall of fame

(not many posts and hasn't been pumped in four years)

You saying Pelosi is a first-ballot HOFer, Clay?

also pelosi is a lifelong cat-herder with more ability than most to actually _get_ the votes

― Arch Bacon (rushomancy)

not to mention that her closest opposition Tim Ryan is less liberal

oh lol leee i didn't get that joke until i just now realize i posted on the wrong thread AS USUAL

Lily Geismer and Matthew Lassiter put the Clinton campaign and the contemporary Democratic Party in long-term historical perspective. https://t.co/gfnoIbqqUJ pic.twitter.com/hGldn8IBoP

— corey robin (@CoreyRobin) June 10, 2018

this sucks

Unsurprising, but disappointing that @SenGillibrand didn’t even bother to talk to nor consider me before endorsing.

You‘d think a progressive leader would at least be interested in how a no-corporate money Bronx Latina triggered the 1st NY-14 primary in 14 years on prog issues. https://t.co/A5ZswcUpW9

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) June 11, 2018

Gillibrand is def running for prez in 2020.

that much is clear

This is basically the same thing as when Gillibrand endorsed Cuomo. She's a sitting US Senator who has a vested interest in maintaining working/workable relationships with the people who are likely to win. It sucks, but so does politics.

If the Crowley/O-C race were a coin flip, she might have acted differently.

if you endorse the challenger and they lose, the incumbent hates you; if you endorse the incumbent and they lose, the challenger is not going to hate you quite so much, is a reasonable calculation to make, all else being equal

"reasonable" but also disgusting given that genuinely progressive candidates need all the help they can get

No one succeeds in becoming a major party nominee without engaging in some pretty disgusting calculated behavior. Probably the least compromised nominee in my lifetime was George McGovern, and we all know what happened to him.

I guess I just don't see the Huge Risk here, people endorse opponents and then work together down the line all the time

I don't believe Gillibrand to be the progressive-in-disguise that a lot of Bernie twitter believes her to be, but she's definitely set herself apart from the stock DNC presidential hopeful template. Until further notice, I trust she knows what she's doing here. There's not really any good public polling on NY-14, but I guarantee you she's got access to some numbers.

In which case she could have just stayed out of it

I just don't see the Huge Risk here

Those who think they have a strong shot at the nomination tend to become risk averse. Especially early in the game, when you are putting together your national organization and defining yourself to the insiders in every state, it doesn't have to be a huge risk to deter you, just an obvious risk with unclear consequences. Once you've won enough delegates to be a top two contender for the nomination, then risk taking becomes more of a virtue, since you can focus more sharply on surpassing just one opponent.

I should've worded that better. Bernie twitter believes her to be a fake progressive. xps

I think we all got the idea

Anyway it'll be an interesting race to watch, that's for sure. Crowley might be ahead right now but there's weeks to go and he's not much of a campaigner.

really liked the article morbz/corey robin linked

"reasonable" but also disgusting given that genuinely progressive candidates need all the help they can get

― Simon H.

if elections were decided by endorsements, i guess this would be a big deal, but they seem to be more decided by how much the voter pool specifically knows and likes the candidates in question. not endorsing would piss off any possible eventual winner and probably not make that much difference!

Yeah, who are endorsements even for? People who wait until the last possible moment to decide which candidate to vote for—everyone else has already made a choice—so an endorsement for the incumbent in a house race is basically nothing. Lots of people don't even know the name of their congressional rep until they're reminded of it on the ballot.

To that end, maybe Gillibrand putting in a good word for Ocasio-Cortez could've been a small boon, but in the end we're talking about a house race and, sadly, as far as the electorate is concerned, that's only a step above school board.

When I am less than familiar with the details of a candidate's positions, I pay attention to endorsements from labor unions, environmental groups, and politicians I think are credible. They often tell a coherent story.

ICYMI: pure Bernie spite

https://truthout.org/articles/dnc-adopts-rule-forcing-presidential-candidates-to-be-members-of-democratic-party/

Surely he can do just what he did in 2016 and become a Democrat for the season if he runs?

(I really don't quite understand why 'our candidate should, you know, be a member of our party' is quite a contentious thing…)

Ocasio-Cortez went on TheIntercept the other day, so I can understand Gillibrand not wanting to endorse her.

whut

Fred, you're ... kinda feckless.

carson went there, huh. the artcle sez why.

If, as some Twitter buffoon states in that piece, "there are more independents than Democrats in the US," then independents will do just fine running as independents. They don't need the Democratic party - they've got the numbers! Really! They do! You just can't see 'em, 'cause...'cause...'cause fuck you, dad!

average people think about politics 2 hours a year

ie most Dem voters know the Dems suck

most GOP voters know the GOP sucks. To oppose a party is a natural human condition.

still smdh at unswerving party loyalty = adulthood. is that as good as it gets, unperson?