Dem Post Mortem

[thebeave]

Your ideal candidate isn't going to run. They're never going to run. You vote for whatever candidates are as close as possible.

Yes. I do.

Fucking grow up and stop blindly repeating social media aphorisms in place of reading what people have actually written before replying.

I know. Like, my first post in these threads is generally "I actually know how to vote in a generally election TYVM";

It's just that even though I do that, I still haven't alienated all the feelings that make me want to do otherwise, so I can understand why I didn't want to.

The fact is, our ideal candidates do run, they just aren't generally the ones "run" by the party, and that isn't the fault of the voters, that's the fault of a party where it is clear selection is less about what people want and more about what "the party" wants.

When the party will not compromise with the spoiler platforms, the party digs its own grave.

The reason they have spent the last decade trashing Newsom is because Newsom is the next Clinton or Pelosi and everyone fucking knows it. The voters do not want Newsom, though. The party does.

In fact, knowing the party is grooming Newsom to be a corporate figurehead candidate for high office is exactly why the Republicans have been making noise about him (and the reason I am inclined to think that people making SO much noise about him SO far in advance are PAID SHILLS, especially given their persistence and clear lack of other marketable skills).

They want to do to Newsom what was successful against Hillary: target their corporate figurehead before they even get a chance to be one, because there is a weak point there dripping with decades of whisperings of entitlement.

Not attacking Trump as he rose, despite the clear direction he was going was also one of those mistakes (there were no less than 4 pieces of media depicting Trump as running for president spread across decades, from Back to the Future, to The Simpsons).

As an aside, I'm not a fan of Newsome. He does seem a little too slick. But he's a fighter. He's fighting against Trump regarding Tariffs and ICE. He's fighting back more than any dem right now.

One of Newsom's and the state legislature's biggest problems is that their rage against Trump and Republicans causes them to "cut off their nose to spite their face" and do things that go against the best interest of the state and its residents. For example, the 2016 state-funded travel ban to states that have "anti-LGBTQ" laws in 2016, and its subsequent reversal a couple of years ago:

In scrapping its LGBTQ-related travel ban, California pivots to ‘hearts and minds’

In September, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom officially repealed California’s 2016 ban on state-funded travel to states with laws targeting LGBTQ+ people.

The idea behind the ban — which applied to bureaucrats, lawmakers, academics and even college athletes — was to use California’s economic heft to dissuade other states from enacting such laws. By that metric, it was an abysmal failure; in the past seven years, the number of states with objectionable laws increased from four to 26.

Being a fighter against bad laws is commendable, but there needs to be some reason and pragmatism behind it.

 

[Politesse]

Newsom is not, and never is, motivated by principle. He does whatever he thinks will be most popular at the moment, tending toward the superficial and flashy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your hidden premise here is that the only benefit of a degree is the monetary earnings it makes for its holder.

This is, of course, nonsense. A degree can benefit society, without being financially rewarding to the holder; And can benefit its holder in many non-financial ways.

If someone wants to pay on their own, fine. I'm talking about whether society should help.

And furthermore, plenty of people without degrees achieve financial success, so both sides of your formula are of dubious value.

Which is why I said average. And probably better to clip off the outliers.

The idea that everything can and should be measured in dollars is absurd, and your argument here is a particularly egregious example of that absurdity.

If nothing else, I benefit from having smart and well educated neighbours, even if they don't share a single dollar with me - and even if they don't have a spare dollar to share.

Dollars are fundamentally a measure of value.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your ideal candidate isn't going to run. They're never going to run. You vote for whatever candidates are as close as possible.

Yes. I do.

Fucking grow up and stop blindly repeating social media aphorisms in place of reading what people have actually written before replying.

I know. Like, my first post in these threads is generally "I actually know how to vote in a generally election TYVM";

It's just that even though I do that, I still haven't alienated all the feelings that make me want to do otherwise, so I can understand why I didn't want to.

The fact is, our ideal candidates do run, they just aren't generally the ones "run" by the party, and that isn't the fault of the voters, that's the fault of a party where it is clear selection is less about what people want and more about what "the party" wants.

The thing is no candidate is an exact match for what you want.

When the party will not compromise with the spoiler platforms, the party digs its own grave.

If they do cooperate they lose in the general.

The reason they have spent the last decade trashing Newsom is because Newsom is the next Clinton or Pelosi and everyone fucking knows it. The voters do not want Newsom, though. The party does.

In fact, knowing the party is grooming Newsom to be a corporate figurehead candidate for high office is exactly why the Republicans have been making noise about him (and the reason I am inclined to think that people making SO much noise about him SO far in advance are PAID SHILLS, especially given their persistence and clear lack of other marketable skills).

Agreed. They demonize anyone they consider a serious contender.

Not attacking Trump as he rose, despite the clear direction he was going was also one of those mistakes (there were no less than 4 pieces of media depicting Trump as running for president spread across decades, from Back to the Future, to The Simpsons).

Yeah, he should have been attacked an awful lot more than he was. But an awful lot of people like his brand of evil.

 

[Swammerdami]

Let me preface this post with a gentle reminder:
Let us please cut down on the hyperbole. It just adds confusion.

The above snippet comes from the post you quoted, but you snipped this. And it appears that, if you read it at all, you took it as a challenge!

The point YOU are missing is that many or most Republican voters are Deplorables. Only patient gentle souls can hope to enlighten them, and most of us here at IIDB are running out of patience.

You also snipped away the above. Snipping is a good way to erect straw-men that it is easier to argue against, innit?

I'm not saying your perspective is wrong, Politesse. I'm just explaining why intelligent good-thinking people voting against Gore inspires sadness and anger in a way that stupid right-wingers voting for a stupid right-wing candidate does not.

... And I also do not buy the argument that in a swing state every single person who voted for Bush is an irredeemably evil Deplorable Republican who never ever would have considered voting for someone else....

WHO is arguing that EVERY single person who voted for Bush is an irredeemably EVIL Deplorable Republican who NEVER EVER would have considered voting for someone else?

WHO? Don't be bashful now; is this what you think I said?

Should I counter with "I don't buy the argument that EVERY single person who wonders if devotion to the most extreme facets of modern progressiveness helps elects right-wingers is an EVIL brainless racist scumbag who deserves the fascist government that left-wingers' lack of perspective help to elect"?

The following quote baffles me indeed. Can anyone elucidate WTF Politesse is talking about?

There was really only one issue what election that drove a wedge down the middle of the DNC. Shall we start posting dead baby pictures as a reminder of what we did to the rest of the world that decade?

Since the paragraph concerns Nader, I suppose "that decade" is the 1990's. Can anyone enlighten me? Was ending the Bosnian War such a bad thing? Clinton's attacks on Iraq were trifles compared with the operations in Iraq after Nader helped elect Bush and Cheney.

Surely Politesse isn't referring to the Massacre at Benghazi where the evil bloodthirsty witch Hillary Clinton shrilly cackled in glee while murdering hundreds of American diplomats with her bare hands -- that happened in 2012. If Hyperbole is what it takes to get through to Politesse, I'll give it a whirl!

Do you truly believe that the bloodshed Nader opposed was such a good thing that anyone whose conscience did not allow them to directly support the Clintons is a bad person?

I don't think having dumb politics makes someone a bad person. AFAICT that is the position that Jarhyn and you are taking.

 

[Jarhyn]

The thing is no candidate is an exact match for what you want.

No, but there are many candidates who have been MUCH closer, and they are quite popular as politicians... Just not popular with "The Party".

If they do cooperate they lose in the general.

No, they don't. Obama ran on that and became the first black president, however a lot of that is more about messaging and message, and corporate Dems have also been trash at that, too.

And I can't stress hard enough that this is a "tinkerbell effect", caused exactly by folks like you repeating the belief. If you say you don't believe in that fairy, it dies. That's how that works.

Agreed. They demonize anyone they consider a serious contender.

By pointing, often, to clear flaws in their character and purpose.

But an awful lot of people like his brand of evil.

Principally because he presents an image of strength when he does it. I repeat, people will support a forceful bowel movement over a tepid corpse, even though both are rot.

The fact is that they groomed someone as an entertainer, on a stage where people participated in "performative strong man drama".

Millions of people voted for Trump specifically because he produced that image of strength.

Do you really want to double down on the idea that transmitting images of strength can't win elections?

Be strong in the way Democrats show strength: through strength of principles.

 

[bilby]

Newsom is not, and never is, motivated by principle. He does whatever he thinks will be most popular at the moment, tending toward the superficial and flashy.

Successful politicians are not, and never are, motivated by principle. They do whatever they think will be most popular at the moment, tending toward the superficial and flashy.

This is an inevitable and unavoidable result of a flawed democracy that has a fwo party system consequent to a 'First Past the Post' voting methodology, and that concentrates executive powers in a single individual at each level of government (whether a Mayor, a Governor, or a President).

Effective democracies, run by people who care more about the citizens than about themselves, require systems in which a wide range of parties have at least some voice, and ideally have regular 'Hung Parliaments' that force the larger parties into compromise; And give the bare minimum of personal power to any one individual, so that showboaters and blowhards are not encouraged to run as a means to fame and self-importance.

The US system is a case of "Never buy version 1.0 of anything". It is modelled on, and successfully apes, European monarchies. It's design tends towards producing kings and aristocrats, because it was thought when it was designed that this was the only effective way to run a country; And it tries to do this in a way that allows the citizens to overthrow those rulers without actually resorting to civil war.

It was a stunning and brilliant breakthrough in its time. But it's in dire need of an upgrade.

 

[Politesse]

AFAICT that is the position that Jarhyn and you are taking.

Incorrect.

 

[ZiprHead]

Biden was tone deaf on immigration

The Biden administration took office amid heightened debate in some circles over the merits and tactics of deportations, yet it is on track to carry out as many removals and returns as the Trump administration did. The 1.1 million deportations since the beginning of fiscal year (FY) 2021 through February 2024 (the most recent data available) are on pace to match the 1.5 million deportations carried out during the four years President Donald Trump was in office. These deportations are in addition to the 3 million expulsions of migrants crossing the border irregularly that occurred under the pandemic-era Title 42 order between March 2020 and May 2023—the vast majority of which occurred under the Biden administration. Combining deportations with expulsions and other actions to block migrants without permission to enter the United States, the Biden administration’s nearly 4.4 million repatriations are already more than any single presidential term since the George W. Bush administration (5 million in its second term).

Comparing the Biden and Trump Deportation Records

The Biden administration is on pace to carry out as many deportations as the Trump administration, although an overwhelming number have come in the form of voluntary returns at the border, rather than removals of unauthorized immigrants from the U.S. interior. This shift has echoes of earlier...

www.migrationpolicy.org

 

[ZiprHead]

Biden campaigned on that he was creatine jobs at a fast pace.

While reporting was saying increasing numbers of working people were complaining they can nor make ends meet.

Polls and pundits showed that knowing who Trump was they voted for Trump because they thought he would make the economy better for them.

In t\he news polls show people favor republicans for strong leadership.

Trump lied to them and you're defending the MAGAts that believed his stupid lies.

 

[Swammerdami]

AFAICT that is the position that Jarhyn and you are taking.

Incorrect.

Politesse has no problem quoting large quote trees just to add a word of alleged wisdom.
But here he/she not only eviscerates enough of my quote to make the antecedent of "that" unknown, but offers no explanation of why "that" is allegedly "Incorrect."

I'm aware of no explanation for this performance except for his/her desire to insult me, to ensure I know I am being insulting, but not to break any rules. Sure, a click might lead me to the antecedent of "that" but what would be the point? Politesse's insults are too wrong-headed and simple-minded to care about.

@Everyone -- Does Politesse have some fetish for insulting me, Swammerdami? Or is he/she like this with others of you?

 

[Politesse]

AFAICT that is the position that Jarhyn and you are taking.

Incorrect.

Politesse has no problem quoting large quote trees just to add a word of alleged wisdom.
But here he/she not only eviscerates enough of my quote to make the antecedent of "that" unknown, but offers no explanation of why "that" is allegedly "Incorrect."

I'm aware of no explanation for this performance except for his/her desire to insult me, to ensure I know I am being insulting, but not to break any rules. Sure, a click might lead me to the antecedent of "that" but what would be the point? Politesse's insults are too wrong-headed and simple-minded to care about.

@Everyone -- Does Politesse have some fetish for insulting me, Swammerdami? Or is he/she like this with others of you?

I did not insult you. You insisted that I and Jarhyn must believe that "dumb politics makes someone a bad person", and I corrected you. I do not think that. What more needs to be explained? That is not my belief.

The rest of the post does not concern me, only the part where you incorrectly speculated about (and hyperbolized, quite ironically) my beliefs. No, being willing to correct things I see as wrong does not mean I think everyone who I think has dumb politics is a "bad person". You may believe in a universe populated by "good people" and "bad people", but I do not. Nor do I agree that it is "insulting you" to disagree with your attempt to attack my character. "Wrong-headed and simple minded" are examples of personal insults. "Incorrect" is not.

 

[Jarhyn]

And now even more of what I mean:

Currently the DNC is going balls to the walls to get Cuomo elected in NYC over Zohran.

They are literally pushing the boundaries of the spending limit to boost corporate Democrats over progressives.

I also saw another article posted today detailing that 2/3 of the Democrat party is active in calling for a leadership change.

But let's sit and wait now to see all the corporate shills and Nazi sympathizers tell us why we need to sit tight with corrupt Cuomo and why we he is "electable".

Between this and seats on committees being handed to corpses with all the vigor of a particularly spicy *slime mold*, it's clear why it happens, except I suppose to those with all the vigor of said slime mold.

As long as you parrot the statements whispered by Republicans that progressives are unelectable, you will be the reason for this and I will criticize you rightly for it, for being the anus out of which the DNC has collectively shit out their spines.

 

[Politesse]

As long as you parrot the statements whispered by Republicans that progressives are unelectable, you will be the reason for this and I will criticize you rightly for it, for being the anus out of which the DNC has collectively shit out their spines.

Oh, Jarhyn. Such a way with words.

 

[Harry Bosch]

And now even more of what I mean:

Currently the DNC is going balls to the walls to get Cuomo elected in NYC over Zohran.

They are literally pushing the boundaries of the spending limit to boost corporate Democrats over progressives.

I also saw another article posted today detailing that 2/3 of the Democrat party is active in calling for a leadership change.

But let's sit and wait now to see all the corporate shills and Nazi sympathizers tell us why we need to sit tight with corrupt Cuomo and why we he is "electable".

Between this and seats on committees being handed to corpses with all the vigor of a particularly spicy *slime mold*, it's clear why it happens, except I suppose to those with all the vigor of said slime mold.

As long as you parrot the statements whispered by Republicans that progressives are unelectable, you will be the reason for this and I will criticize you rightly for it, for being the anus out of which the DNC has collectively shit out their spines.

Why do you keep claiming that moderates are Nazi? Channeling Barbos??! I disagree with some of Zohran ideas. How does that make me a Nazi?

 

[Jarhyn]

And now even more of what I mean:

Currently the DNC is going balls to the walls to get Cuomo elected in NYC over Zohran.

They are literally pushing the boundaries of the spending limit to boost corporate Democrats over progressives.

I also saw another article posted today detailing that 2/3 of the Democrat party is active in calling for a leadership change.

But let's sit and wait now to see all the corporate shills and Nazi sympathizers tell us why we need to sit tight with corrupt Cuomo and why we he is "electable".

Between this and seats on committees being handed to corpses with all the vigor of a particularly spicy *slime mold*, it's clear why it happens, except I suppose to those with all the vigor of said slime mold.

As long as you parrot the statements whispered by Republicans that progressives are unelectable, you will be the reason for this and I will criticize you rightly for it, for being the anus out of which the DNC has collectively shit out their spines.

Why do you keep claiming that moderates are Nazi? Channeling Barbos??! I disagree with some of Zohran ideas. How does that make me a Nazi?

So, then you support Cuomo, I take it, over Zohran.

Over the voices of 2/3rds of the party, you support the party leadership.

It's minority rule plain and simple, and it's hypocritical to support it among the Democrats while attacking it among the Republicans. Just be better and quit supporting the Cuomos.

Better options exist. They only fail because the Democrat leadership (not the party, the leadership) supports this against the better judgement of their constituency.

 

[Jarhyn]

As long as you parrot the statements whispered by Republicans that progressives are unelectable, you will be the reason for this and I will criticize you rightly for it, for being the anus out of which the DNC has collectively shit out their spines.

Oh, Jarhyn. Such a way with words.

I mean, this all comes from the fact that Democrats persistently elect weak, selfish leadership because this is the only way to protect the existing weak, selfish leadership, and this weakness is the consistent cause for Dems shitting the bed.

Comparing them to a weak sphincter muscle that allows unwanted leakage into politics is.. well it's kind of on-the-nose TBH.

 

[Derec]

And now even more of what I mean:
Currently the DNC is going balls to the walls to get Cuomo elected in NYC over Zohran.

For a good reason! This anti-Israel (at the very least!) socialist is the last thing NYC needs as a leader. He'd be BdB on steroids.
His ideas like rent freezes and government grocery stores - funded by massive tax hikes - would be a disaster.
While Cuomo is far from perfect, he is far better than the alternative, given that he and Mamdani are front-runners in the polls.

They are literally pushing the boundaries of the spending limit to boost corporate Democrats over progressives.

What spending limits are you talking about?

I also saw another article posted today detailing that 2/3 of the Democrat party is active in calling for a leadership change.

National leadership? Sure. I think they are calcified. That does not mean that ⅔ are calling for a leftward change in the positions or priorities of the Party.

But let's sit and wait now to see all the corporate shills and Nazi sympathizers

So people who disagree with you and back a more moderate Democrat for office are "Nazi sympathizers"? Really now?

I know only one actual Nazi sympathizer active in the Democratic Party right now:
Ex-AOC chief of staff going after the most powerful woman in Congress

tell us why we need to sit tight with corrupt Cuomo and why we he is "electable".

Why are you calling him "corrupt"? [citation needed]
He has made some bad decisions while governor, and he has been accused (but it wasn't proven) of some sexual harassment, but I have not heard anything about accusations of corruption.
And Cuomo is most certainly electable, as he has already shown he can be elected as governor.

As long as you parrot the statements whispered by Republicans that progressives are unelectable, you will be the reason for this and I will criticize you rightly for it, for being the anus out of which the DNC has collectively shit out their spines.

I do think Mamdani would be electable as mayor of NYC, since it's a strongly Democratic city, although I do think Eric Adams would give him a run for his money in the general election.
That does not mean that he or those like him would be electable statewide, much less nationwide.

The fact that he might get elected mayor is all the more reason to oppose him now. His policies would be disastrous for the City.

 

[Derec]

So, then you support Cuomo, I take it, over Zohran.

Over the voices of 2/3rds of the party, you support the party leadership.

If ⅔ of the Democrats in NYC really supported "Young Cardamom" over Cuomo (what would be his rapper name, I wonder? Old Oregano?) you'd expect Zohran to crush Andrew in the primaries. But he is not doing that. So, your ⅔ is just a phantasy.

It's minority rule plain and simple, and it's hypocritical to support it among the Democrats while attacking it among the Republicans. Just be better and quit supporting the Cuomos.

People are free to support whichever candidate they choose. Even if a ⅔ majority really supported Mamdani, Harry would still be free to support whomever he wants. He is also free to express why he does not support your chosen candidate and his policies.

Better options exist. They only fail because the Democrat leadership (not the party, the leadership) supports this against the better judgement of their constituency.

It's a crowded field, and several people could win in theory, but realistically it has become a de-facto two horse race.

While there may be better options than Cuomo, Mamdani certainly isn't one of them.

 

[Jarhyn]

I disagree with some of Zohran ideas.

Also, which ones?

Please elaborate.

Also, please elaborate on whether you disagree with them because you think they are politically too "difficult", because that difficulty is being created by your belief in the difficulty, if so.

It's amazing that people seem not to realize that accepting certain beliefs makes them become true, and rejecting them sufficiently makes them false.

If such an idea is "true" and you do not want it to be, the answer is to resist it.

If you do not resist such an idea, *the conclusion is that you actually like it*.