Democratic (Party) Direction

lol, xp and not “do”

I appreciate the news aggregator aspect of ILX as well (and I'm sure I'm guilty of that behavior), but yeah, it's better when you have some kind of take other than "get a load of these clowns."

I’ve avoided all the politics threads for my own well-being for months, but the one thing I’ve decided is that the top-down approach isn’t going to work and it’s back to the streets if we’re going to build the left wing of the party from the ground-up

I’ve been very encouraged by some of the very-local voices that have come out of the recent era, and even more disappointed with some of the mainstays in my city(/county/state)

I think the thing that sticks with me is that, while you may protest and yell at politicians on the right in office, it’s still your duty to hold those you vote for to account as well, and that’s something the majority of the population really needs incentivized to do

just some thoughts not necessarily related to the current DNC convention moment, just observations from the ground over this endless summer

As a poster whose tone can often be described as "sneering" and someone who posts a lot of links, Tweets, images, etc., I had no problem with the tone or the content of sic's posts.

it’s back to the streets if we’re going to build the left wing of the party from the ground-up

Agreed. Running for city council > running some no-hoper (meaning a Green Party or similar candidate, not meaning Bernie - I hate him, but he did have a legit shot) for president.

re: top-down vs streets

i think it's both. if it's ever going to get better, it's going to involve both

they're symbiotic

It would be great to get more people with experience in activism into elected office.

I’d settle for someone who had a set of actual bullet-pointed principles, some of which couldn’t be compromised on, and then stuck to them

I guess that’s what sunk George Bush re: “no new taxes” but, hey, live by your words, die by your words

your behavior, as a mod and a poster, has been chronically abusive

I'd guess rushomancy was thinking of saying things like, instead of "btw you're racking up some FPs while you're agitated, might wanna chill out or take a break," h.e.g "everyone hates you and I know because I'm a mod"

It's also reasonable to estimate that periodic nigh-libelous attacks on other posters carry more social weight if they come from a poster who also separately happens to be a mod.

“nigh-libelous” oh OK

Just because I happen to clean up after poster errors and try to remove egregious posts when they get pointed out and approve new users that aren’t obvious spammers doesn’t mean I no longer get to hold the opinion that you are a supercilious pedantic twat and express my irritation on that point from time to time.

That’s enough of me engaging on this bullshit, you can have the last word if you like.

I am a mod on two other boards. 98% of the job is housekeeping and the residue is refereeing antagonisms that seem to arise out of pure irritability. I don't agree that anyone being a mod on ilx grants their opinions one scintilla of greater "social weight" in my mind. It's just another opinion and carries its own inherent weight, no more, no less.

El Tomboto is just as susceptible to irritability as other ilxors, maybe more so, but he is subject to FPs, just like anyone else. Address his words, plz. His modding is irrelevant to the issue of whether he is unacceptably abusive toward other ilxors.

ok, fp'd him, thanks, aimless

that's the ticket!

“nigh-libelous” oh OK

Shouting at ILX in general that they're stupid because they believe anything a poster types or says IRL about their life, when you can perceive that the poster has been engaged in a long-term campaign of fantasy in order to extort sympathy, and that neither the poster nor people who have offered them sympathy deserve any respect, is more the sort of thing I'm referring to.

I don’t think tombo has abused his mod authority (lol) aside from the silby incident but it is a bit weird to have a mod who seemingly exists entirely to vent seething inchoate rage at other posters who don’t share his worldview.

can we replace tombot as mod with sic? thanks in advance

it is a bit weird to have a mod who seemingly exists entirely to vent seething inchoate rage at other posters who don’t share his worldview

I don't see why mods should have less freedom of expression than any other poster.

I didn’t say he shouldn’t? I said it was weird. I think it’s weird in general to be that angry about nothing, obviously.

definitely don't let unperson be a mod. thanks in advance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shermanesque_statement

Can someone remind me what the donation bundler was that was looking at the tightest state races with low fundraising? I forget what it was called. It might've been Swing Left but I went there and couldn't find the page there, that named directly 8 or so competitive candidates.

you might be thinking of https://www.futurenow.org/givesmart/

ty that's it!

^ yeah. that org has their eye on state legislative races that will affect redistricting in 2021. the kochs worked that angle hard in 2010 and came up big for conservatives.

I've never donated to any political races before, but this year feels particularly awful. So good job, 2020.

Buttigieg also included a photo of himself as a kid dressed up as Spock for Halloween.

File this under "things that will remind most of ILX why they hate Buttigieg but remind me why I like Buttigieg"

I don't think that's at all a good indicator of why people hate him.

yeah I think for me it’s the dopey nonsensical platitudes and then stuff like this:

Mostly Deutsche Bank, a McKinsey client. It takes like 15 seconds of research to find this out. https://t.co/t4yBaN3PO0

— Corkus Bucksuth (@CorkusBucksuth) September 29, 2020

This slide from @DavidShor hits the nail on the head of why direct messaging against Trump (@ProjectLincoln ads, etc.) is ineffective in swing states.

Dem messages that actually move votes: talking about education & majoritarian economic policies. pic.twitter.com/Kecb0tCKLt

— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) October 7, 2020

fortunately for them i don't believe the lincoln project actually has an interest in trump losing the election

the want him to lose while minimizing damage to the policy goals of the pre-trump republican party, which i guess explains their focus.

That's optimistic I think they just want that cheddar

I think they see him as long term damaging to the policy goals of the pre-trump part in a win the battle/lose the war sort of way.

xp yup, and running a campaign of “republicans for centrism” is a tactic to get some sweet lobbyist cash when they market themselves as right-wingers who have a foot in the door with a new Biden regime

Bernie drops a 7 minute "you'd better fucking get out there and vote for Joe Biden" video, I laugh at all the never-Bernies who insisted he was going to sulk on the sidelines and not support the nominee.

BTW my current feeling is that Biden is obviously ahead, Bernie probably would be too, but the candidate I actually liked by far the most, Elizabeth Warren, probably wouldn't be, and it makes me sad (about Democratic Party Direction among other things)

why?

Either Sanders or Warren would be making a much better case for their election, on top of the "anyone but Trump" campaign that Trump is aggressively running on Biden's behalf. The combination should balance out individual voter antipathy towards either.

Responses to that Bernie video are fucking depressing, telling myself those are mostly bots

Impressive to see so many people in the replies who still don’t comprehend the existence of the Electoral College.

why?

I think she doesn't have the "I'm an extremely normal old white guy who will run things competently and who will allow you to go back to not thinking about politics" thing that is very strong for Biden with suburban voters (and maybe older voters, too, though I think with that population it's just as much Trump's no-longer-concealable contempt for the idea that their lives are worth anything.) And she doesn't have Sanders's ability to super-activate young voters and "both parties are bad" voters (which includes left voters but also a much bigger group of "political correctness is bad and corporations are too powerful and there should be term limits" type voters, who broke big for Trump in 2016.) What does Warren have? She has what Clinton had, basically. Maybe a little more thanks to suburban Trump fatigue. I guess she'd maybe be ahead. But not by much. Who are the people who really see her as the answer? Middle-aged white people with advanced degrees, and there just aren't that many of us.

who still don’t comprehend the existence of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is definitely the controlling factor in who wins the job, and winning the job is the whole point. However, entering the job as the recipient of a popular vote landslide gives you more leverage than narrowly squeaking in just because you won Wyoming, Alaska, the Dakotas and Utah. Politicians notice such things and play their hands according to the prevailing winds.

That's an enormous amount of bullshit. Dubya and Trump lost the popular vote and yet here we are. Obama had the largest popular vote margin since the '80s and yet here we are.

In any case, failure to give Biden the proper mandate (lol) would not be the same as the performative "if you don't vote for Biden, you're voting for Trump."

I agree, the idea that a popular mandate has an actual bearing on governance and law making is mostly a fantasy.

don't remember the GOP granting Obama or Bill Clinton any leverage

Republicans always claim mandate even if the numbers say ‘squeaker’. Democrats never claim mandate even in landslide conditions.

Real mandates come with coat tails. Obama was not the beneficiary of a landslide election, even with the financial crisis fast gaining speed in October, 2008. A real landslide brings both chambers of Congress with it and enough new faces who are beholden to you that you can push through your agenda. Clinton was a minority president in 1992, with Ross Perot splitting the vote.

Reagan chose to pretend he had a mandate in 1980, but he did most of his damage (like Trump) through executive action or by playing the media skillfully to win public support for horrible policies, like deregulation and union busting. His real power was his speaking ability.

Biden seems destined to have no coat tails. Trump may be able to generate a 'negative coat tail' effect, but that is a long shot. I'd be ecstatic with simply retaking the Senate by 51-49, with Harris as the tie-breaker in reserve.

So, outside of swing states, it doesn't actually matter if you vote for Biden (or Democrat X) because landslides don't actually grant the leverage you referred to earlier, having one-party control of Congress in alignment does. (Obama '08 had Congress IIRC.)

Thus "not voting for Biden" is not actually "a vote for Trump" as the people who pretend the EC doesn't exist every four years claim.

Thus "not voting for Biden" is not actually "a vote for Trump"

The people you are dismissing as wrong are not entirely wrong, but mathematically speaking, the value of one vote not cast against you is not "one vote", but a ratio, based on the number of votes cast and the number of potential voters. The larger the number of non-votes, the less value each non-vote has to the outcome.