Democratic (Party) Direction

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?

I interviewed @Ocasio2018 today. We'll have the video up early in the week. She's one of the most impressive, interesting, and inspiring new candidates we've seen in awhile. If you want to change US politics, it's going to be by supporting people like her: https://t.co/Jac6RMhYOQ

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 8, 2018

I mean, I'll paraphrase that, and say that if you want to build a movement to change things, the Intercept are the kind of people you should avoid like the plague. Ocasio-Cortez to me kinda seems like another candidate who confuses virality for movement-building, and I don't know, but they don't seem to have the biggest success rate on the ground.

It should be patently obvious that, as the system stands, someone with a D or an R is going to win the Oval Office and the vast majority of Federal seats every election. Do the Democrats want candidates who are going to bring more people to the polls, or do they only want candidates who will say a magic word in public? Christ, I've voted as a "loyal" Democrat for three decades and I get why this is a dumb idea, and I'm not very smart.

hey Fred i'm building a movement right now. a bowel movement

You're full of shit

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/bitchin-politician-just-blasts-himself-right-in-the-eye-1826750610

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--XpmA1nYm--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/h8th3pwt8uq0h7kyxyik.png

The Intercept has a few annoying writers and some very fine ones, like any other publication. Their owners are sketchy, but so are WaPo's.

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.

― A is for (Aimless)

that's another good factor - how easy is it for the new york electorate to be informed? in indiana it was fucking impossible, because the state is run by republicans, who thrive on ignorance. in oregon it's a lot easier for anyone who's literate - all voting is by mail and the state sends out pamphlets before the election where all the candidates tell you why they should vote for them and tell you who's endorsed them. if the candidates' own words are too mealy-mouthed and vague to decide anything, i do find it sometimes helps me to make a decision to see that one candidate is endorsed by everybody and the other candidate is endorsed by, uh, nambla. i also tend to make voting decisions by voting for anyone who's not a white man.

^ very rarely can you go too badly wrong with that last heuristic. Except for one school board race here where the white man was fine and the black woman was a charter schooler

I live within a mile of Ocasio-Cortez's district and know a bunch of people involved, they are very much involved in movement-building. The virality is just a nice way to get money to come in, Crowley raises a ridiculous amount and it's hard to compete otherwise.

I can also tell you that most of the people in her district don't give a shit what libdems think about the Intercept.

I mean don't get me wrong, she is still a longshot and if she wins it will be a political coup on par with Eric Cantor's unseating. But I think it could happen. And even if it doesn't, her campaign is definitely contributing to organizing in the area, and the attention she is bringing is also boosting state-level campaigns that are also DSA-endorsed, like Julia Salazar.

Does she have a national DSA endorsement or just NY DSA? I know the former has a rule about only endorsing candidates they think have at least a fighting chance of winning.

The virality is just a nice way to get money to come in, Crowley raises a ridiculous amount and it's hard to compete otherwise.

Lol, that sounds like something Moser would say as well. Look how well she did.

Fred, you don't know what you're talking about

Evergreen posts

25K views on yr youtube ad is ok - i would not call it viral

RIP Liberal Contrarianism

This is long, but worth reading.