Ellison named as "Deputy" Chair.

Poll result (18 votes) Right decision; Perez represents the party interests well (3 votes) Vote Squandered opportunity; Ellison would've served the party better (13 votes) Vote I'm with Debbie (2 votes) Vote

God help all the idiots who put their faith in the Democratic party

Silver lining is he probably can't be worse than DWS and Brazille. Still the dems manage to keep telling grassroots supporters to fuck off so that they can make it rain corporate $. Feels like a Washington Generals move.

In a generation of swine, the one-eyed pig is king.
-Hunter S. Thompson

-->

I knew that the optimal option would have been Perez as the Chair, and Keith as the deputy chair...

I can understand people wanting this race to be a re-litigation of Hillary vs. Sanders.... and yes...the Progressives have earned the right to lead the Democratic party...but Progressives must lead AS the "establishment" not against the establishment... The team of Perez and Ellison allows progressives to be the mainstream of the DNC....and that's how you win....which is the actual goal... the division cost America dearly in this last election...

and if Perez is the establishment....people should remember that it's not Hillary and Wasserman-Shultz establishment...... but coming from President Obama's team...

and the fact that President Obama and Eric Holder are leading a grassroots effort to challenge redistricting in various states... you have a pretty powerful line up now where a real progressive leader sits in a powerful position and a member of Obama's team leading with Obama and Holder make power moves....

... actually has.

Or the DNC as a whole, for that matter.

Maybe even twice.

________________________________________________
R.I.P. Soulgyal <3
SUPA NERD LLC.
Knowledge Meets Nature
Musica Negra
#13irteen

Maybe, but it seems odd to blame them for that.

Help me understand, since you have this figured out, cause I am sincerely stumped:

1. If they are conspiracy theories, then why has there not been any official refutation to the LEGITIMACY of the content in the Wiki Leaks e-mails?

2. If there was nothing of substance in them then why did DWS resign upon their release? Couldn't be cause it was bad optics, because Hillary doubled down and made her an honorary chair right after.

3. If nothing is in the e-mails then why didn't the DNC get out front of the narrative and dispell the accusations/revelations from the leaks?

4. If there is nothing in the e-mails THEN HOW DID RUSSIA INFLUENCE THE ELECTION? That only works if there were damning revelations in the documents, and the DNC took the position that these were somehow an attack on America because they were private, NOT because they were false.

5. Anybody ever say the documents were fabrications or edited?

No, the answer is no. They decided to shut up vs own up, because their whole message was how bad Trump was. Once their negatives were out there they lost the moral high ground. Staying out of the midwest and swing states for months didn't help either.

Sorry bro, I'll be an idiot, but yoo still actin stoopid.

Hopefully we can get on the same page by 2018 but Perez doesn't bode well for that happening.

End of the day, DNC wants corporate money and influence. Things are fine for them. Cool. But the DP is getting left behind.

________________________________________________
R.I.P. Soulgyal <3
SUPA NERD LLC.
Knowledge Meets Nature
Musica Negra
#13irteen

It's a lot easier for them to STILL yell down at folks, blame Bernie/Berners/Comey/Media/Russia, call anyone who dare point out the incompetence of the party "idiots" etc...

That stuff comes a lot more natural than any kind of critical thinking.

Strav or whatever his name is sure thinks he's the smartest guy in a thread, but I can't think of very many people who took more Ls. Dude is loud and wrong...and an a$$hole about it.

On one hand at least he didn't go into witness protection like Murph did, but on the other hand he hasn't seemed to learn a f*cking thing from what happened.

Hopefully his level of ignorance isn't too common among his overlords or we are all f*cked.


On topic, though...Ellison was never going to win this thing, unfortunately. At least he is Vice Chair and hopefully they listen to him when it comes to voter turnout strategies....

Me and Strav went at it all primary. I've personally witnessed his L's but it was never personal. He's not the only person that calculated incorrectly. I did too. I thought Hillary could/would still sneak it out, but *shrugs* we are where we are.

________________________________________________
R.I.P. Soulgyal <3
SUPA NERD LLC.
Knowledge Meets Nature
Musica Negra
#13irteen

and losing both houses in Congress...

....isn't news that you need a new strategy and distance yourself from toxic HRC, what the hell would be?

<-Fear Ameer

>It's a lot easier for them to STILL yell down at folks, blame
>Bernie/Berners/Comey/Media/Russia,

All of these things contributed to the loss, along with the general advantage to the non-incumbent party after a two-term presidency, and also, yes, the fever dreams of idiots.

>call anyone who dare point
>out the incompetence of the party "idiots" etc...
>
>That stuff comes a lot more natural than any kind of critical
>thinking.

Have you ever taken the time to critically think through the question of why our party did not trust Bernie Sanders as its leader? Why didn't he win the primary? Was it that the poor guy was set upon by DNC staffers who never took him seriously? Or was some part of it that rank-and-file Democratic party voters never took him seriously? (And somehow people expected him to win among the general public.)

The only posts I've ever seen you make around here were haranguing me about how I just so clearly don't understand what the country wanted, how I just don't see the "incompetence" of the party, the poor decision that a large majority of Democratic party voters made. It's just so obvious to you that this other candidate, who even the progressive party couldn't support, could have solved all of our party's problems. And you accuse me of uncritical thinking.

cool....good luck with that winning strategy and logic

________________________________________________
R.I.P. Soulgyal <3
SUPA NERD LLC.
Knowledge Meets Nature
Musica Negra
#13irteen

That is precisely the danger of living in an online bubble.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

and somehow a few months of sincere socialism and meddling kids is what fucked up her electability.

because you can't peddle influence for money when you aren't in office

the lack of Clinton ethics made her toxic for many people in this country

the DNC was too pigheaded and stubborn to push her and her crony corporate ties aside for Bernie and they got what they deserved

<-Fear Ameer

The Clinton Years?

All of that was waiting for her to reconcile. Once 90s media spin didn't work because of "the internet" they ended up freefalling and trying to hold the ball and run out the clock because maybe Trump is bad enough, all while alienating the base they needed to win.

As bad as she was, she should have won, but she was even worse than that in the end.

________________________________________________
R.I.P. Soulgyal <3
SUPA NERD LLC.
Knowledge Meets Nature
Musica Negra
#13irteen

Why don't we start there.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>Why don't we start there.

You speak as if you know there aren't. I mean that is what you have been making your basis of assumption on this whole time, for the most important election in recent history.....

good to know how much research was actual done on the other side of the argument.

biggest "damning" takeaways from the e-mails in recent memory were:

- direct coordination between Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and super PAC BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER the primaries. This is illegal even under the loose Citizen's United, but they did it blatantly and systematically

- Bernie smearing, but won't spend much time on that. Clearly wanted the election to go one way vs another

- Discussion about blow back of optics from shutting down of polling places before election days where Bernie was the favorite; asking of who was on board to help contact state support for manipulating the precinct places

- Podesta saying that to appease the Bernie crowd during the platform negotiations to toss eliminating some of the private superdelegates to get us to feel like we got a victory, when really it didn't mean shit. Shit played out in real time

- MSNBC relationship with on-air pundits and DNC/Clinton Campaign to act as a wing of propaganda for scandal, electoral math, etc

- saying that they were going to be anti TPP until the election, and then switch back afterwards

And that is only the Hillary specific stuff. There is more DNC pay for play stuff that kinda mars Hillary, Obama, and the whole corporate lot.

It is what it is though. It's not like they are my party anyway. They can do what they want, together. Stronger even.

*edit* plus maybe you can answer: if nothing is damning in the e-mails, then how did Russia influence the election by allegedly releasing them? How do you sway an election by releasing meaningless e-mails and cake recipes, and cause the person to win by 3 million votes, but lose on electoral math?

________________________________________________
R.I.P. Soulgyal <3
SUPA NERD LLC.
Knowledge Meets Nature
Musica Negra
#13irteen

And the rest of the bullet points amount to the party wanting the party member to win over the non-party member. Duh.

In all those emails I didn't hear of anything actively trying to throw the contest in Clinton's favor.





>>Why don't we start there.
>
>You speak as if you know there aren't. I mean that is what you
>have been making your basis of assumption on this whole time,
>for the most important election in recent history.....
>
>good to know how much research was actual done on the other
>side of the argument.
>
>biggest "damning" takeaways from the e-mails in recent memory
>were:
>
>- direct coordination between Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and
>super PAC BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER the primaries. This is
>illegal even under the loose Citizen's United, but they did it
>blatantly and systematically
>
>- Bernie smearing, but won't spend much time on that. Clearly
>wanted the election to go one way vs another
>
>- Discussion about blow back of optics from shutting down of
>polling places before election days where Bernie was the
>favorite; asking of who was on board to help contact state
>support for manipulating the precinct places
>
>- Podesta saying that to appease the Bernie crowd during the
>platform negotiations to toss eliminating some of the private
>superdelegates to get us to feel like we got a victory, when
>really it didn't mean shit. Shit played out in real time
>
>- MSNBC relationship with on-air pundits and DNC/Clinton
>Campaign to act as a wing of propaganda for scandal, electoral
>math, etc
>
>- saying that they were going to be anti TPP until the
>election, and then switch back afterwards
>
>And that is only the Hillary specific stuff. There is more DNC
>pay for play stuff that kinda mars Hillary, Obama, and the
>whole corporate lot.
>
>It is what it is though. It's not like they are my party
>anyway. They can do what they want, together. Stronger even.
>
>*edit* plus maybe you can answer: if nothing is damning in the
>e-mails, then how did Russia influence the election by
>allegedly releasing them? How do you sway an election by
>releasing meaningless e-mails and cake recipes, and cause the
>person to win by 3 million votes, but lose on electoral math?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

seriously, sit down shut up and and raise your hand if you have a question and don't speak until you are called upon

gotdamn losing ass losers trying to tell people what's what.

type a niggas to get the shit beat out of them at the ball court and be on the sideline trying to coach.

man...

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

>1. If they are conspiracy theories, then why has there not
>been any official refutation to the LEGITIMACY of the content
>in the Wiki Leaks e-mails?

Probably because the leaked emails are generally accurate. The problem is that it's a scandal with no meat, and it always was. I've been waiting all along for someone to point out a single shred of evidence in these emails that the DNC ever acted explicitly in favor of Hillary or against Bernie. And nobody's come up with it. Your attempted list in post 34 is hilariously vague. It looks like something from a Facebook post.

It's just an article of faith among Sanders supporters (and Trump supporters, coincidentally) that these emails show the kind of slimy collusion that "everybody knows" the Clintons get up to. An article of faith with zero evidentiary support. It's an echo-chamber scandal, and one that the press was happy to amplify (not with stories about "here is evidence of collusion", but with "'some say' these emails show collusion").

>2. If there was nothing of substance in them then why did DWS
>resign upon their release?

Um, because you forced her to? Duh. Do you remember the convention?

>Couldn't be cause it was bad
>optics, because Hillary doubled down and made her an honorary
>chair right after.

So it's "doubling down" to give an unpaid ceremonial position in the general election campaign to a major figure within the party, AFTER the primary was over?

>3. If nothing is in the e-mails then why didn't the DNC get
>out front of the narrative and dispell the
>accusations/revelations from the leaks?

Because there were no accusations or revelations! All the story ever was was "Wikileaks is releasing a new trove of emails today. Some say there may be evidence of wrongdoing somewhere in this trove." And then nobody finds any such evidence, and then a week later, it's the same story again.

>4. If there is nothing in the e-mails THEN HOW DID RUSSIA
>INFLUENCE THE ELECTION? That only works if there were damning
>revelations in the documents, and the DNC took the position
>that these were somehow an attack on America because they were
>private, NOT because they were false.

They weren't false. But again, there were no revelations of wrongdoing. The way this scandal played in the press, no revelations were needed. Were you paying any attention back in the campaign?

>5. Anybody ever say the documents were fabrications or
>edited?
>
>No, the answer is no. They decided to shut up vs own up,
>because their whole message was how bad Trump was. Once their
>negatives were out there they lost the moral high ground.

See, this matters. These "negatives" were invented in the fevered minds of the Sanders bubble. To whatever extent we "lost a moral high ground", it was a self-inflicted wound, because supposed progressives revived and amplified old and ridiculous tropes that were literally manufactured by right-wing pundits 25 years ago with the express purpose of killing everything that eventually ended up on the Sanders agenda.

Four years ago we gleefully watched as fucking Bobby Jindal accused his compatriots of becoming the "stupid party." But this time, they fell in line, and we did not. Fucking religious conservatives voted in droves for fucking Donald Trump, because they cared more about winning than about how they "felt" about their candidate. Meanwhile a large segment of our party suddenly decided that fucking Barack Obama was a neocon.

no one suddenly decided he was a neocon. he could have been more progressive, but those were criticisms that were out there since '08 and are also irrelevant to this discussion. because he would have likely won again.

i agree that many of the criticisms of hillary were unfair and often sexist, but they weren't *all* unfair and sexist. and the vast majority of *us* who thought hillary wasn't the best direction for the party still voted for her.

there's a difference between the whiners that never vote or always vote third party and the people out there who sincerely thought the dems could do better than their 2010-2014 electoral record, and tried to warn the rest of the party about 2016.


(also, no one voted for trump in *droves* and what republicans are doing now by getting in line isn't admirable partisan gamesmanship. it's still stupid.)

>>1. If they are conspiracy theories, then why has there not
>>been any official refutation to the LEGITIMACY of the
>content
>>in the Wiki Leaks e-mails?
>
>Probably because the leaked emails are generally accurate. The
>problem is that it's a scandal with no meat, and it always
>was. I've been waiting all along for someone to point out a
>single shred of evidence in these emails that the DNC ever
>acted explicitly in favor of Hillary or against Bernie. And
>nobody's come up with it. Your attempted list in post 34 is
>hilariously vague. It looks like something from a Facebook
>post.
>
>It's just an article of faith among Sanders supporters (and
>Trump supporters, coincidentally) that these emails show the
>kind of slimy collusion that "everybody knows" the Clintons
>get up to. An article of faith with zero evidentiary support.
>It's an echo-chamber scandal, and one that the press was happy
>to amplify (not with stories about "here is evidence of
>collusion", but with "'some say' these emails show
>collusion").

So a scandal with no meat lost her the election? She lost support because she was neutral in DAPL, weak on TPP (and got caught by Trump of all people in a lie), thought $15 an hour was excessive, and alienated the enthusiastic wing of her base that relied on facts. The e-mails only substantiated those claims. The e-mails didn't cause millions of people to defect from the Democratic Party. They did that work all on their own by trying to be more reasonable with republicans and moderates. Bernie supporters voting for Stein didn't cost her election. Conservatives and moderates who went for Johnson or stayed home did.

>>2. If there was nothing of substance in them then why did
>DWS
>>resign upon their release?
>
>Um, because you forced her to? Duh. Do you remember the
>convention?

I forced her?! LMAO it was only a scandal for 10 minutes before she had stepped down and was IMMEDIATELY appointed by Hillary.

>>Couldn't be cause it was bad
>>optics, because Hillary doubled down and made her an
>honorary
>>chair right after.
>
>So it's "doubling down" to give an unpaid ceremonial position
>in the general election campaign to a major figure within the
>party, AFTER the primary was over?

Yes, IF it is considered bad optics to be associated with her (hence the stepping down) then YES you double down on that by taking that toxic figure and reattaching their negative to your campaign.

>>3. If nothing is in the e-mails then why didn't the DNC get
>>out front of the narrative and dispell the
>>accusations/revelations from the leaks?
>
>Because there were no accusations or revelations! All the
>story ever was was "Wikileaks is releasing a new trove of
>emails today. Some say there may be evidence of wrongdoing
>somewhere in this trove." And then nobody finds any such
>evidence, and then a week later, it's the same story again.

See my reply above. DNC/HILL/PACs defintely illegally coordinated before, during, and after the primary. How about start there.

>>4. If there is nothing in the e-mails THEN HOW DID RUSSIA
>>INFLUENCE THE ELECTION? That only works if there were
>damning
>>revelations in the documents, and the DNC took the position
>>that these were somehow an attack on America because they
>were
>>private, NOT because they were false.
>
>They weren't false. But again, there were no revelations of
>wrongdoing. The way this scandal played in the press, no
>revelations were needed. Were you paying any attention back in
>the campaign?

So revelations of nothing got her negative press? I WAS watching back then. Pretty sure had a negative haymaker on a daily basis while the MSM treated Wikileaks like an ugly sidepiece.

>>5. Anybody ever say the documents were fabrications or
>>edited?
>>
>>No, the answer is no. They decided to shut up vs own up,
>>because their whole message was how bad Trump was. Once
>their
>>negatives were out there they lost the moral high ground.
>
>See, this matters. These "negatives" were invented in the
>fevered minds of the Sanders bubble. To whatever extent we
>"lost a moral high ground", it was a self-inflicted wound,
>because supposed progressives revived and amplified old and
>ridiculous tropes that were literally manufactured by
>right-wing pundits 25 years ago with the express purpose of
>killing everything that eventually ended up on the Sanders
>agenda.

Invented? The leaks are literally their own words out of their mouths. All they had to do was own up to it, but they got caught, likely from an internal leak, NOT Russians. The more they rude this tired narrative the worst they look. I didn't need WL to bot vote for her. Those Berners you are talking about told you in the primary they weren't voting for her. WL were just cilantro but the entree was getting smashed regardless.

>Four years ago we gleefully watched as fucking Bobby Jindal
>accused his compatriots of becoming the "stupid party." But
>this time, they fell in line, and we did not. Fucking
>religious conservatives voted in droves for fucking Donald
>Trump, because they cared more about winning than about how
>they "felt" about their candidate. Meanwhile a large segment
>of our party suddenly decided that fucking Barack Obama was a
>neocon.

And plenty of intelligent people like yourselves ignored the math from your terrible candidate that has been polling even with TRUMP since before the primaries, but it was "too early", and saw her historically lose ANOTHER leas, and disappear for 2 months when she could have been disputing these nothing e-mails. Instead she got scared, because she knew she had no answers and didn't want to get caught in a bad answer; tried to run out the clock, and the tortoise got caught by the hair (c)

You want it to be one way, but it's the other way

________________________________________________
R.I.P. Soulgyal <3
SUPA NERD LLC.
Knowledge Meets Nature
Musica Negra
#13irteen

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/835610917568200705

Congratulations to Thomas Perez, who has just been named Chairman of the DNC. I could not be happier for him, or for the Republican Party!

_______________________________________

it's funny but it ain't Trump funny

plus it's 2pm

an actual 3 legged chair would still be ten steps up from DWS

now if they could only replace Pelosi

Corporate lobbyists and a racist anti-Muslim smear campaign won.

don't seem to win lots of elections.



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

You know Keith is currently in office, right? So, like, he won his election.

And not in a "look how many votes she got in LA County!"...but I mean, he's actually in office.

Crazy, huh?

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Because conservative Dems have an entire party's machinery on their side. Unfortunately for the rest of us, that means every significant body of power is controlled by Republicans.

but whenever anyone else loses, it's ONLY their fault.

it's convenient.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Have lost on every playing field - and *badly*.

It's probably time we try a different strategy as opposed to continuing to reward those who have been wrong and on the losing team with leadership appointments.

-->

except to what you have to do to win.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

stop forcefeeding corporate backed candidates and start moving to a more populist platform. Let voters actually have a say in how the party is run.

That's something that would actually resonate with voters vs. branding yourself as republican light and basically backing some mildly socially progressive shit, while economically fucking over large swaths of the country.

In a generation of swine, the one-eyed pig is king.
-Hunter S. Thompson

according to y'all, it's a winning strategy.

do that.



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

In a generation of swine, the one-eyed pig is king.
-Hunter S. Thompson

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

.
.

Wake up, Pray! Go to work, Pray! Go home, Pray! Love, Pray! Eat, Pray! Live, Pray!

Yeah, 'Bannon'

But remember a black man has to have a *perfect* record, and Ellison did NOT have one.

I never got that.

and if Bannon said that, FUCK HIM. he's the real anti-Semite.

Seems like the DNC is either so shook or so complicit, that in a lot of cases they do the repbulican's dirty work for them.

In a generation of swine, the one-eyed pig is king.
-Hunter S. Thompson

one way.

=======================================
Coolin...

How?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

so clearly, not progressive enough.

the politics don't matter.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

He and Ellison aren't that far off if I'm not mistaken.

People are more concerned about the symbolism. That Perez represents the old guard. More of the same old same old

_______________________________________

if it's largely symbolic then how come the Obeezy-HRC squad pushed so hard to get him in there? Especially if it's being sold as 'hey, Perez is just as progressive as Ellison anyway...'

So if it's mostly symbolic, and if they are largely the same, then why couldn't the establishment wing throw the progressive wing a bone? Why all the pushback?

We know why, but fuck, they can't even bother tell consistent or logical lies. Then got the nerve to call for unity.

In a generation of swine, the one-eyed pig is king.
-Hunter S. Thompson

he didn't even get the VP nod, but this is the man with who you all placed your faith? (c)

An Obama Secretary of Labor who is pro TPP, profracking, and vague about raising the minimum wage; a man who said out his mouth the election was rigged against Sanders, then had to dial it back when donors called and he changed his tune? HE the leader?

yeah, that guy will do. 2018 is doomed already.

________________________________________________
R.I.P. Soulgyal <3
SUPA NERD LLC.
Knowledge Meets Nature
Musica Negra
#13irteen

I'm pro TPP (with caveats)
Pro responsible fracking
his position on minimum wage was clear
And I think he misspoke about the election being rigged and he arrived at the responsible position.

Besides his track record far outstripes Keith Ellison and has none of the baggage.

He will be fine for the party.


>he didn't even get the VP nod, but this is the man with who
>you all placed your faith? (c)
>
>An Obama Secretary of Labor who is pro TPP, profracking, and
>vague about raising the minimum wage; a man who said out his
>mouth the election was rigged against Sanders, then had to
>dial it back when donors called and he changed his tune? HE
>the leader?
>
>yeah, that guy will do. 2018 is doomed already.
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Regardless what is responsible fracking and why?


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

like he was literally the worst one up there....even worse than the old white guy who fell asleep on stage

this ain't winning democrats any new friends and costing them current ones

=======================================
Coolin...

Then they need to put pressure on Bernie Sanders to JOIN THE FUCKING PARTY.

This is what I don't get. People who are dyed-in-the-wool Berniacs who don't understand that the biggest stumbling point for their boy is the fact that he's literally not a member of the party he's trying to influence.

Now, that might not sound like much, but there are people within the party who have literally worked themselves from the ground up to build up their credentials, earn their stripes, and have some sway in the direction of where the Dems should go (you might call them the "establishment" but really, they're also activists).

Those folks see Sanders as an opportunist and interloper and his endorsement of a candidate is a scarlet letter that they hold against them.

So when Sanders supporters get mad at the party for not bending to his will, they need to ask themselves why Sanders won't just join the party and do the work that needs to be done from within.

Like the old saying goes, we need to have all the people inside the tent pissing out, not one person outside the tent pissing in.



my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

voters are saying that the party needs to be more progressive and more populist.

Democrats, message seems to be pretty consistently 'nah we're good', and in doing so, lost to fucking Trump- not to mention all of the fucking house seats, senate seats and governors over the last decade. It's not like the Dems have a winning formula. They stay losing, but want to keep doing the same thing.

In a generation of swine, the one-eyed pig is king.
-Hunter S. Thompson

It's hard to take the progressive wing seriously about their commitment to change the party when they're lead, even symbolically, by someone who refuses to get in the tent.

If Bernie were to declare himself a Democrat, it would likely be a sign to the party that he's committed to its goals and to progressives that it's time to work within the coalition.

Otherwise, progressives are in a weird position of having one foot in and one foot out of the party and that means no real leverage anywhere.

Progressives keep acting as if the party can't function without them and, if they keep up with the petulance, their wish will come true and they'll push the party right to fill the hole in the coalition they'll leave behind.



my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

I mean, I think we probably agree to an extent. If progressives want to have a voice the best most viable option seems to be to take over the Democratic Party.

Its weird how you paint it as progressives playing chicken and being petulant though. You could level the exact same accusations at the corporate wing of the party and you wouldn't be wrong.

In a generation of swine, the one-eyed pig is king.
-Hunter S. Thompson

And while it's easy to malign the "corporate" wing of the party, Democrats forget that de-industrialization took out a huge chunk of their financial support and that Citizens United means that money is a weapon they need to stay in the fight.

It's not as easy as saying, "We progressives want X, Y, and Z and won't compromise!". That's not how it works.

If progressives want to influence the party, they need to bring one of two commodities; bodies or money. Right now, all they've got is talk. Until there's a progressive governor elected or there's some kind of progressive fundraising boom, there's no action to back up the rhetoric.

That's what folks are failing to see. Virtue isn't a commodity.


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

>>Progressives keep acting as if the party can't function without them

=======================================
Coolin...

That's what folk fail to see. Progressives are loud, but they aren't effective in pushing policy.

Why?

Because the majority of Americans (and Democrats) aren't progressive.

Black folks go along for the ride, but they're far more conservative than the rest of the party. Same for Hispanics and a lotta blue collar Dems.

The Democrats could marginalize progressives and try to harvest Trump voters if they wanted.


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

that hasn't been too successful over the last decade.

In a generation of swine, the one-eyed pig is king.
-Hunter S. Thompson

And, had Obama been a white man, might have carried them for the next 20 years.

Again, I challenge progressives to elect one governor or raise some money and then make demands.


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

His smooth ass voice, Black ass wife and playing like he was progressive is what got him elected twice.

Voting for a Black man named Obama is progressive as fuck.

Voting for Hillary is not.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

the democratic party keeps pushing progressive candidates to the side in favor of corporate money. Then the corporate candidates support their benefactors largely at the expense of voters, and as such they've been hemorrhaging house seats, senate seats and governorships. So just riding with the money isn't winning seats either. It's been a losing proposition.

I don't see what you're proposing that would turn the tide.

In a generation of swine, the one-eyed pig is king.
-Hunter S. Thompson

Wtf have you been watching for the last 8 years? Dems kept getting their ass handed to them while trying to reach across the aisle.

Dems aren't winning and we just saw Trump beat Hillary. This was the biggest fuck up in the history of elections. Dems had a chance to be progressive AND win and they chose to go to the center and lose.

I swear, y'all some losing ass losers who keep trying to tell folk how to win. Blacks aren't so conservative they won't vote Dem BUT progressives are damn sure progressive enough to not vote for a shitty Dem and I don't blame them.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

It was, essentially, a trick play. She still had a bigger popular vote win and Dems have received more votes for them in congressional races while not gaining seats because of gerrymandering.

So I don't believe this whole "losing streak" talk when the numbers are there. The issue is the mechanics that the Republicans put in place to guarantee their majorities.


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

A career politician, with a recognizable brand name, experience as First Lady, Congressional, and State Department experience lost to a reality TV star who has NO government, military or legal experience.

Republicans control 69 of 99 state legislative chambers. They hold 33 governorships.

In a country that is younger, more diverse, and more liberal than it's EVER been.

That is an epic, epic CATASTROPHE. And that might be underselling it.

And by this I mean, without those 5% dems no longer have even the popular vote.

The reason dems hate third parties is because they know they can move enough votes to turn the tide.

Sure the majority of the party (and even greater amongst elected officials) is centrist, but let's not pretend the dems don't need progressives.

As for what those in the party who are progressive should be doing, pretty much everything they can to be about the change until the party decidedly changes or refuses to.

What shouldn't happen is for those in power to feel like they cannot be challenged. They really have to be willing to start being the change they profess to be when it's convenient but dial back on because they are so sure their centrist knows better about how the system works.


█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

Shut down the borders and close trade are the populist positions.


Populism is at odds with progressive positions.


>voters are saying that the party needs to be more progressive
>and more populist.
>
>Democrats, message seems to be pretty consistently 'nah we're
>good', and in doing so, lost to fucking Trump- not to mention
>all of the fucking house seats, senate seats and governors
>over the last decade. It's not like the Dems have a winning
>formula. They stay losing, but want to keep doing the same
>thing.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Trump's brand of populism isn't the only brand of populism that exists.

In a generation of swine, the one-eyed pig is king.
-Hunter S. Thompson

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

=======================================
Coolin...