Democratic (Party) Direction

Sure.

Simon, I don't know where you live, but in an Alabama or Missouri or North Dakota, being a progressive's wet dream of a candidate/member of congress isn't going to get you anywhere but second place.

as we know from all those times progressives earned party backing and ran there and lost, I'm sure

As someone who was born in Alabama and lived there my first 24 years of life, and has continued to bounce around the southeast, I am telling you that dog won't hunt.

rmdemeyes

I look forward to that voting record percentage bounding on down then.

To put it this way, my dearly beloved parents could not bring themselves to vote for Doug Jones because he's pro choice and, instead, voted for Roy Moore because they were willing to take the gamble he'd immediately be kicked out of the senate. That was a huge gamble, and it resulted in me not talking to them for several weeks afterwards. Roe v Wade is settled law every place besides the bible belt, where people still think you're in allegiance with Satan if you're pro choice.

Doug Jones would've been smeared by any Republican running who hadn't sexually assaulted multiple teenagers.

So, like, don't look this gift horse in the mouth.

vvv

Sorry, I get that it's personal, I just recoil against these narratives of change as being strictly incremental.

I am very interested in this nearby race:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/a-conservative-democrat-in-illinois-feels-the-ire-of-a-restive-liberal-base/2018/02/23/ea501eb6-18e8-11e8-8b08-027a6ccb38eb_story.html

You've got a Dem Rep. in an overwhelmingly Dem district who is nonetheless being primaried hard from the left. This is the district with the literal Nazi GOP candidate, so it seems like a pretty safe seat. At the same time, this is a Dem who votes with the GOP often, and in particular is anti abortion. So the question is, will a Dem Rep in an all but guaranteed Dem district be voted out for being too conservative?

I just recoil against these narratives of change as being strictly incremental.

The future is big. There's room for both incrementalism and rapid revolution.

guys, stop feeding the troll

re: Lipinski, I hope he gets destroyed, and I assume he will. Long overdue.

oooh after 15 years of ILXing I finally earned the t-word

fwiw I hope you're right

I’ve only recently noticed you developing Fred B levels of interest in US electoral politics, might account for the delay.

I reject that comparison, even foreigners interested in US electoral politics would know how unusual it is for a senator from Alabama to only vote with a Republican president 55% of the time. Jones has a 538 Trump +- score of -33, the 7th lowest in the senate. Simon is just trolling.

obamadirtfromshoulder.gif

support incremental progress, get incremental votes

yeah idg the excitement over a guy who mostly votes with the enemy, and I also don't see a reason folks won't just change brands as soon as there's a non pedo repub to vote for. unless of course he marked a substantive change at some point later on...

I also don't see a reason folks won't just change brands as soon as there's a non pedo repub to vote for.


Yeah, I agree with this. He’s going to be gone in the next election. He might as well vote like a democrat while he’s there imo, but I guess the strategy will be to try to become a new manchin/mccaskill. Good luck with that.

The really close healthcare vote (with life and death stakes for all the people calling and protesting for weeks) wasn’t that long ago. If it that happened much longer ago I could see the “but Jones isn’t progressive enough” position as it would be harder to imagine these minority party holding the line situations. Jones in that seat would have made McCain’s fluke vote unnecessary.

yeah idg the excitement over a guy who mostly votes with the enemy

you don’t have a womb or receive Medicaid either iirc

https://wtop.com/national/2018/02/california-democratic-party-isnt-endorsing-sen-feinstein/

also about time

Yeah, I agree with this. He’s going to be gone in the next election.

He's got until 2020 to establish some kind of record that may make him palatable back home while still being in good graces with the national party. It's kind of fascinating to see what happens, imo.

good on Cali Dems.

don't they do that to feinstein every time?

Apparently not.

you don’t have a womb or receive Medicaid either iirc

aaaand that's two

any Oklahomans in the house

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/43644-could-a-berniecrat-running-on-marijuana-reform-become-the-first-black-woman-governor

If I had to guess, Stacey Abrams will win the job in GA before Connie Johnson would in OK, but I'd be ecstatic about both.

Bruenig on Medicare Extra

As someone who was born in Alabama and lived there my first 24 years of life, and has continued to bounce around the southeast, I am telling you that dog won't hunt.

― Johnny Fever

i lived in indiana for ten years and kentucky for ten years, and while i can't speak to alabama, as concerns indiana and kentucky i say go for the progressive's wet dream.

sorry about your parents. i've had to declare relatives dead to me myself.

There aren't anyone up for election in Kentucky, and Indiana already has a Democrat incumbent. Really, if progressive candidates can win every where, why not show it in Wyoming or Mississippi? Everyone would be absolutely ecstatic.

rmdemeyes

― Planck Blather (darraghmac), Saturday, February 24, 2018 11:34 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is v good

fred this this isn't about ELECTORAL STRATEGY, this is about somebody (one of many, many people) whose parents have gone deranged. i don't know about you but i love my parents, they raised me, and you know seeing your parents voter for pederasts because "abortion" is fairly painful. worse still is that if "abortion" was ever, as an issue, separable from white identity politics, it isn't now; the two statements basically need to be interpreted as synonymous.

insofar as an argument for progressivism can be made here, my argument would be that in age of identity politics (on both sides), little things like "policy" no longer matter, or at least no longer matter as much as personal charisma, because the persuadable electorate are not knowledgable and do not make their decisions on such a basis. in 2016 part of clinton's appeal to voters like me was that her command of logistics in "GOTV" efforts more than counterbalanced her stunning lack of personal likability. i think it's time to test an alternate hypothesis, and given the rapidly degenerating nature of the american state i think it is urgent to test that hypothesis as quickly and widely as possible.

i suspect, at this point, that the people who are arguing against progressive candidates, or who are arguing for the "strategic" deployment of them as if they were some sort of limited resource, are doing so because they do not actually support progressive politics (though in your case, i don't believe this - i think you're just a cloudcuckoolander who believes that elections can be won or lost on a purely theoretical basis).

I must admit, I don't get what you're writing at all. I argue for running progressive candidates in Wyoming and Mississippi, don't you agree?

But why would progressive candidates be more likely to have personal charisma?

I mean isn't this just an argument to forget about ideology and just support candidates you think have that "spark"?

All I care about is depriving republicans (or any party to their right, if that is even imaginable) of their wins. I will support whatever candidate, centrist, communist, whatever, that I think can defeat them and push back fascism

i suspect, at this point, that the people who are arguing against progressive candidates, or who are arguing for the "strategic" deployment of them as if they were some sort of limited resource, are doing so because they do not actually support progressive politics

That's not the case for me. I'd love to push the US as far left as it can go before it breaks. But I also understand that there's a deep deep DEEP tribalism at play and sometimes the best you can do is get a pro choice senator in Alabama.

I mean isn't this just an argument to forget about ideology and just support candidates you think have that "spark"?

― Guayaquil (eephus!)

yes! if the primary is between a deeply charismatic and likeable centrist and a deeply unlikeable "progressive", and the general is going to be even remotely competitive, the centrist is the best choice. alternately, the argument is that no matter how politically knowledgable or skilled you are, if people don't like you, don't fuckin' run. find somebody people like and convince them to run instead. puppet them if you have to.

how often do deeply unlikeable progressives get anywhere in politics

They're likable enough.

generally speaking, they're the ones who HAVE to be exceptionally charismatic or likeable (or at least have a certain folksy je ne sais quoi) to get anywhere in the first place

"unlikable" and "get anywhere" both in the eye of the beholder but i can think of progressives who to my mind fulfill both conditions one of whom is in charge of a major uk party even

Idk how you can watch the video of Corbyn putting the (horrible) UK media on notice and not like him but as you say, eye of the beholder

I find HRC likeable as a personality tbh.

Likeable or not, not a progressive. (Not gonna let myself get pulled into relitigating that one.)

It was a response to this, not a suggestion of a likeable progressive:

in 2016 part of clinton's appeal to voters like me was that her command of logistics in "GOTV" efforts more than counterbalanced her stunning lack of personal likability.