• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Leftists caught framing Republicans with Tiki Torch Stunt

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Activist Christopher Rufo fuels GOP’s critical race theory fight - The Washington Post
Christopher Rufo said critical race theory, a decades-old academic framework that most people had never heard of, had “pervaded every institution in the federal government.”

“Critical race theory,” Rufo said, “has become, in essence, the default ideology of the federal bureaucracy and is now being weaponized against the American people.”
So it's a non-issue for riling up the base.

Over in New Jersey, the Democratic candidate for governor barely won, with a much smaller than expected margin.
  • Philip Murphy* Democrat 1,280,877 50.9%
  • Jack Ciattarelli Republican 1,218,262 48.4
  • Madelyn Hoffman Green 7,960 0.3
  • Gregg Mele Libertarian 7,402 0.3
  • Joanne Kuniansky Socialist Workers 3,765 0.1

But for mayor of Boston,
  • Winner Michelle Wu 91,239 64.2%
  • Annissa Essaibi George 50,879 35.8
MW was progressive, wanting a Green New Deal and rent control, while AEG was relatively moderate.
 

SimpleDon

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
3,303
Location
Atlanta, USA
Basic Beliefs
Social Justice
I am saying that the Lincoln Project was saying "But I was only joking". I'm not the one saying that, I'm saying the Lincoln Project is saying that.

The reason I say it is from the left is because the people involved, the actual boots on the ground activist people, the ones in the photograph, those people who have had their identities discovered by internet sleuths, the ones holding the tiki torches, are Democrats. I do find it curious that the Lincoln Project couldn't find any Republicans to get involved in their stunt. Whatever the involvement of the Lincoln Project (maybe they simply said "we have an idea does anyone volunteer for it") the actual people involved, the flesh and blood people, they are activists within the Democratic Party of Virginia.

Those people.

The ones in the photograph.

Not those not in the photograph.

The ones in the photograph.

Those people.

They're the ones I'm talking about.

The ones in the photograph.

You are asserting that the very very presence of the Democrats in the demonstration is proof that they planned the entire event, not the Lincoln project, which has publicly said that they planned it. Your assertion is wildly improbable.

If it turns out that two of the participants in the 1/6 riots were registered Democrats, which is certainly probable, are you going to assert that they planned the whole thing?

You further assert that it was intended to be a false flag event, that the Lincoln project intended the viewers of the demonstration to believe that the participants were white supremacists, members of the KKK, including the one black man. That a comedy sketch made the idea of a black man in the KKK so acceptable that everyone would believe it was a sincere effort at a false flag event and not just political theater. That once again, the Lincoln Project was lying when they said that was political theater, they wanted people to remember the "unite the right" Charlottesville deadly riot.

I have to vote with the posters who have said that these two assertions are nothing more than poorly thought-out justifications for a poorly thought-out thread.
 
Last edited:

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,420
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
I am saying that the Lincoln Project was saying "But I was only joking". I'm not the one saying that, I'm saying the Lincoln Project is saying that.

The reason I say it is from the left is because the people involved, the actual boots on the ground activist people, the ones in the photograph, those people who have had their identities discovered by internet sleuths, the ones holding the tiki torches, are Democrats. I do find it curious that the Lincoln Project couldn't find any Republicans to get involved in their stunt. Whatever the involvement of the Lincoln Project (maybe they simply said "we have an idea does anyone volunteer for it") the actual people involved, the flesh and blood people, they are activists within the Democratic Party of Virginia.

Those people.

The ones in the photograph.

Not those not in the photograph.

The ones in the photograph.

Those people.

They're the ones I'm talking about.

The ones in the photograph.

You are asserting that the very very presence of the Democrats in the demonstration is proof that they planned the entire event, not the Lincoln project, which has publicly said that they planned it. This assertion is widely improbable.

If it turns out that two of the participants in the 1/6 riots were registered Democrats, which is certainly probable, are you going to assert that they planned the whole thing?

You further assert that it was intended to be a false flag event, that the Lincoln project intended the viewers of the demonstration to believe that the participants were white supremacists, members of the KKK, including the one black man. That a comedy sketch made the idea of a black man in the KKK so acceptable that everyone would believe it was a sincere effort at a false flag event and not just political theater. That once again, the Lincoln Project was lying when they said that was political theater, they wanted people to remember the "unite the right" Charlottesville deadly riot.

I have to vote with the posters who have said that these two assertions are nothing more than poorly thought-out justifications for a poorly thought-out thread.

A journalist at The Intercept talked to Democratic operatives and The Lincoln Project and went through documented evidence, i.e. emails etc, to get the scoop. What it comes down to is the following:
  • The Lincoln Project is made up of conservatives and a few Democrats who are very anti-Trump;
  • One of the Democrats therein and others within the Lincoln Project (conservatives) planned the event, not to frame the Republican--that is a massive lie by Republicans--but to out the Republican for not disavowing Trump's both sides argument and white supremacists in general. Evidence is shown of emails for plans of the event;
  • One of the news sources embedded with the Republican campaign was inside somewhere or under a tent or whatever...not in the INCLEMENT weather...and this reporter did not go up to the people to ask them questions in the rain. They made assumptions and incorrect inferences about why the people were there. Bad reporting;
  • Within a VERY short timespan, people who don't like the Republican guy...such as Democrats and others who were not part of the planning retweeted and added emojis or whatever to the reporter's bad reporting. One of a few persons was someone from the Democrat's campaign;
  • For people who take a series of individuals and lump them all together as "The Left," imagining them acting in unison and being all aware of a grand plan, this begins to look like a conspiracy. So, conservative Internet Researchers begin sleuthing and trying to find out who the demonstrators are. One guy names names as all the demonstrators were Democratic operatives. (This is where Jason gets his information). BUT, that was false. There likely were 1 or 2 Democrats there, but these were not the named people and possibly were just people looking for work or if it was non-pay, sure more than 1 or 2 could be Democrats, but there's false information out there of a conspiracy of operatives;
  • Next, in the ensuing chaos, someone at the Lincoln Project hearts or emojis one of the tweets about the demonstrators. This isn't the only retweet or emojification of the rapidly developing chaotic story, but it's one that conspiracy theorists latch onto. This person probably was enjoying the chaos and made a bad decision based on that;
  • The EXACT SAME DAY, not the next day, not a week later, later on THE SAME DAY, The Lincoln Project decides that the viral story has gotten out of control with multiple narratives going around, including false info by conservatives. So, later on (again THE SAME DAY) they issue a statement taking responsibility. No, they do not apologize. They say they will keep associating the Republican with the Unite the Right because of his refusal to disavow various persons and advocacy of the both sides argument;
  • The Republican ends up winning. The Democrat is labeled the "racially divisive" candidate.
 

SimpleDon

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
3,303
Location
Atlanta, USA
Basic Beliefs
Social Justice
Activist Christopher Rufo fuels GOP’s critical race theory fight - The Washington Post
Christopher Rufo said critical race theory, a decades-old academic framework that most people had never heard of, had “pervaded every institution in the federal government.”

“Critical race theory,” Rufo said, “has become, in essence, the default ideology of the federal bureaucracy and is now being weaponized against the American people.”
So it's a non-issue for riling up the base.
<<snip>>​

CRT is nothing more than the same conservative media tried to do with "woke" and "politically correct," to misrepresent the terms to avoid having to address their meaning. In the simplest terms, CRT is saying that our education system intentionally underplays the role of race and racism in American history, especially in the South. And that there is still a lot of racism in our legal system. That these two propositions are correct is so obvious there is no argument about them, leaving conservatives no choice but to misrepresent the term.

This is one area in which conservatives are not so willing to let parents have a say in what the schools teach, black parents complaining that the schools intentionally underplay the role of race and racism in our history and in our current reality.

 

SimpleDon

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
3,303
Location
Atlanta, USA
Basic Beliefs
Social Justice
I am saying that the Lincoln Project was saying "But I was only joking". I'm not the one saying that, I'm saying the Lincoln Project is saying that.

The reason I say it is from the left is because the people involved, the actual boots on the ground activist people, the ones in the photograph, those people who have had their identities discovered by internet sleuths, the ones holding the tiki torches, are Democrats. I do find it curious that the Lincoln Project couldn't find any Republicans to get involved in their stunt. Whatever the involvement of the Lincoln Project (maybe they simply said "we have an idea does anyone volunteer for it") the actual people involved, the flesh and blood people, they are activists within the Democratic Party of Virginia.

Those people.

The ones in the photograph.

Not those not in the photograph.

The ones in the photograph.

Those people.

They're the ones I'm talking about.

The ones in the photograph.

You are asserting that the very very presence of the Democrats in the demonstration is proof that they planned the entire event, not the Lincoln project, which has publicly said that they planned it. This assertion is widely improbable.

If it turns out that two of the participants in the 1/6 riots were registered Democrats, which is certainly probable, are you going to assert that they planned the whole thing?

You further assert that it was intended to be a false flag event, that the Lincoln project intended the viewers of the demonstration to believe that the participants were white supremacists, members of the KKK, including the one black man. That a comedy sketch made the idea of a black man in the KKK so acceptable that everyone would believe it was a sincere effort at a false flag event and not just political theater. That once again, the Lincoln Project was lying when they said that was political theater, they wanted people to remember the "unite the right" Charlottesville deadly riot.

I have to vote with the posters who have said that these two assertions are nothing more than poorly thought-out justifications for a poorly thought-out thread.

A journalist at The Intercept talked to Democratic operatives and The Lincoln Project and went through documented evidence, i.e. emails etc, to get the scoop. What it comes down to is the following:
  • The Lincoln Project is made up of conservatives and a few Democrats who are very anti-Trump;
  • One of the Democrats therein and others within the Lincoln Project (conservatives) planned the event, not to frame the Republican--that is a massive lie by Republicans--but to out the Republican for not disavowing Trump's both sides argument and white supremacists in general. Evidence is shown of emails for plans of the event;
  • One of the news sources embedded with the Republican campaign was inside somewhere or under a tent or whatever...not in the INCLEMENT weather...and this reporter did not go up to the people to ask them questions in the rain. They made assumptions and incorrect inferences about why the people were there. Bad reporting;
  • Within a VERY short timespan, people who don't like the Republican guy...such as Democrats and others who were not part of the planning retweeted and added emojis or whatever to the reporter's bad reporting. One of a few persons was someone from the Democrat's campaign;
  • For people who take a series of individuals and lump them all together as "The Left," imagining them acting in unison and being all aware of a grand plan, this begins to look like a conspiracy. So, conservative Internet Researchers begin sleuthing and trying to find out who the demonstrators are. One guy names names as all the demonstrators were Democratic operatives. (This is where Jason gets his information). BUT, that was false. There likely were 1 or 2 Democrats there, but these were not the named people and possibly were just people looking for work or if it was non-pay, sure more than 1 or 2 could be Democrats, but there's false information out there of a conspiracy of operatives;
  • Next, in the ensuing chaos, someone at the Lincoln Project hearts or emojis one of the tweets about the demonstrators. This isn't the only retweet or emojification of the rapidly developing chaotic story, but it's one that conspiracy theorists latch onto. This person probably was enjoying the chaos and made a bad decision based on that;
  • The EXACT SAME DAY, not the next day, not a week later, later on THE SAME DAY, The Lincoln Project decides that the viral story has gotten out of control with multiple narratives going around, including false info by conservatives. So, later on (again THE SAME DAY) they issue a statement taking responsibility. No, they do not apologize. They say they will keep associating the Republican with the Unite the Right because of his refusal to disavow various persons and advocacy of the both sides argument;
  • The Republican ends up winning. The Democrat is labeled the "racially divisive" candidate.

Too many words and too much nuance for Jason and the conservatives who commented on the thread. Short and sweet and hit them hard when dealing with these people.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I'll check on the issue of whether VA and NJ govs are from the opposite party of the President.
Year Pres, VA gov, NJ gov -- VA flip, NJ flip:
  • 2020 D R D -- X _
  • 2016 R D D -- X X
  • 2012 D D R -- _ X
  • 2008 D R D -- X _
  • 2004 R D D -- X X
  • 2000 R D D -- X X
  • 1996 D R R -- X X
  • 1992 D R R -- X X
  • 1988 R D D -- X X
  • 1984 R D R -- X _
  • 1980 R D R -- X _
So while GY's win is typical, PM's win was not. In fact, PM was the first NJ D gov to win a second term since Brendan Byrne (1974-1982).
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I decided to look at the state legislatures.

The Virginia House of Delegates is elected in each odd year (2n+1), and the VA Senate each year 4n+3. The VA Senate has a 21-19 Democratic majority, so the VA Gov't is now 2 R 1 D.

The New Jersey General Assembly is elected in each odd year, and the NJ Senate is elected in a 2-4-4 cycle, with elections in years 10n+1, 10n+3, and 10n+7, to fit in with redistricting.

Partisan control in the two states' legislatures is much more steady.
  • VA Senate: 1900-1996: D, 1996-2008: R, 2008-2012: D, 2012-2020: R, 2020-2024: D
  • VA House: 1900-1998: D, 1998-2000: tie, 2000-2020: R, 2020-2022: D, 2022-2024: R
  • NJ Senate: 1992-2002: R, 2002-2004: tie, 2004-2024: D
  • NJ Assembly: 1992-2000: R, 2000-2024: D
 

Trausti

Contributor
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,113
Location
Northwest
Basic Beliefs
Atheist Norse
article-9845-1.jpg

Tiki Torch-Wielding Democrats Condemning Election Of Black Lt. Governor Starting To Wonder If They’re On Wrong Side Of History
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,273
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
28,059
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
28,059
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist

TomC

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
3,078
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,420
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
9,069
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,110
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
The reason I say it is from the left is because the people involved, the actual boots on the ground activist people, the ones in the photograph, those people who have had their identities discovered by internet sleuths, the ones holding the tiki torches, are Democrats. I do find it curious that the Lincoln Project couldn't find any Republicans to get involved in their stunt.
Why do keep repeating this nonsense?

2 of the 5 are Democrats. That leaves the majority(3), who are not Democrats. Then, there's the organization that did it. The Lincoln Project is hardly leftists.

You just keep repeating this demonstrably fake news. It's like you're trying to convince yourself of something.

The fact that not all participants are positively identified does not mean "oh gee that proves they are Republicans". The minority individual who is "proof this was not meant to portray actual Youngkin supporters" is not yet identified for example.

Yet we have seen, from not only the recall election in California, but also the Lt. Governor election in Virginia, that "What Supremacism" is a very open and tolerant group, that will accept people of any race as long as they oppose Democrats. Fascinating.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
3,078
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
The fact that not all participants are positively identified does not mean "oh gee that proves they are Republicans". The minority individual who is "proof this was not meant to portray actual Youngkin supporters" is not yet identified for example.
The bottom line remains.
The group that did this aren't leftists. And nobody has contradicted their message, that Youngkin is supported by folks who are white supremacist.

Youngkin appears to be an extremist opposed by centrists with various political associations.
Tom
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,420
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
So to be clear the claim is no longer that they are all (every single one of them) Leftists (a claim taken from conservative Internet "researchers" now debunked) deliberately trying to frame the Republican's campaign, but instead now simply that TomC can't not not prove some of them were Republicans.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Why White Voters With Racist Views Often Still Support Black Republicans | FiveThirtyEight
... Conservatives were quick to counter claims that Youngkin’s win represented the effectiveness of stoking racial fears with results from Virginia’s down-ballot election for lieutenant governor — a contest where the Republican candidate, Winsome Sears, made history by becoming the first Black woman elected to statewide office in Virginia. ...

But supporting a Black candidate hardly precludes voters from harboring racist beliefs and motivations. Republicans are increasingly more likely than Democrats to hold prejudiced views of minorities, so Black Republicans like Sears often draw especially strong support from white Americans with otherwise anti-Black views simply because they draw most of their support from Republican voters.

A clear example of this was in the 2016 Republican presidential primary, when Ben Carson made a bid to become the GOP’s first African American presidential nominee. Support for Carson was positively correlated with the belief that Black Americans have too much influence on U.S. politics, according to data from Washington University in St. Louis’s American Panel Survey (TAPS) in late 2015 ...
Support both in likability and in vote share. It's hard to see what they like about BC, since he isn't some Jesse Lee Peterson type.

Much of that relationship is likely partisanship, like voting for a Republican because he's a Republican (in fairness, a lot of Democrats vote for Democrats because he/she is a Democrat). So a good test would be BC vs. other Republicans.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You can see a similar pattern in the January 2016 American National Election Studies Pilot Study. Carson received more favorable evaluations among the sizable minority (40 percent) of overtly prejudiced whites who agreed with the racist stereotype that “most African Americans are more violent than most whites.”
Such people prefer BC over Jeb Bush, even though JB is a Republican.
The contrast between how prejudiced whites rated Carson and Obama is rather revealing, as well. The sharp negative relationship between support for Obama and the endorsement of anti-Black stereotypes is consistent with several studies showing that prejudice was an unusually strong predictor of opposition to Obama from the 2008 election through the end of his presidency. These patterns also fit well with other political science research showing that racially prejudiced whites tend to be more opposed to Black Democrats than to white Democrats.

... Given the racialized nature of the two-party system in the United States, most Black political candidates are Democrats who embrace liberal positions on issues of race and justice.

...
Put another way: Racially prejudiced white voters are not opposed to Black candidates simply because they are Black, but because they believe that most Black candidates will fight for “those people” and not “people like us.”

Black Republicans, on the other hand, are perceived differently by racially prejudiced white Americans. Their embrace of the Republican Party and its conservative ideology help assure racially prejudiced whites that, unlike Black Democrats, they are not in the business of carrying water for their own racial group. Instead, they are viewed as distinct from other Black elites.

...
This argument is buttressed by more recent scholarship in political science, which has found that Black candidates who embrace a “bootstrap” ideology — an ideology that focuses on individual versus structural explanations of inequality — are more positively evaluated by racially prejudiced whites relative to their white competitors.

... LaFleur Stephens-Dougan, a professor of political science at Princeton University, similarly shows in her book “Race to the Bottom” that racially resentful whites respond well to Black candidates who take stances against the expected positions of their racial group — a phenomenon she calls “racial distancing.”
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
inally, voting for Black Republicans may also be especially appealing to racially prejudiced whites because it assuages concerns of being seen as racist by enabling them to say, in essence, “I can’t be racist! I voted for a Black candidate!” Psychologists call this “moral credentialing,” and there’s even some evidence that voters who expressed support for Obama shortly after the 2008 election felt more justified in favoring white Americans over Black Americans. Electing a Black Republican like Sears, who railed against critical race theory during the run-up to the election and supports voting restrictions that adversely affect racial minorities, is similarly used as a symbolic shield by the entire party from inevitable charges of championing racist policies. As we mentioned earlier, conservative media outlets and politicians are already weaponizing her victory against anyone who would dare suggest so.
So Ms. Sears told a lot of white people what they want to hear.
Sears’s conservative politics don’t threaten the racial hierarchy, and her candidacy provides cover for a party that’s often antagonistic to racial minorities. For racially prejudiced whites, the real question is what is there not to love about Black politicians like Sears?
 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,110
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
The fact that not all participants are positively identified does not mean "oh gee that proves they are Republicans". The minority individual who is "proof this was not meant to portray actual Youngkin supporters" is not yet identified for example.
The bottom line remains.
The group that did this aren't leftists. And nobody has contradicted their message, that Youngkin is supported by folks who are white supremacist.

Youngkin appears to be an extremist opposed by centrists with various political associations.

Hook, line, sinker.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
3,078
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
The fact that not all participants are positively identified does not mean "oh gee that proves they are Republicans". The minority individual who is "proof this was not meant to portray actual Youngkin supporters" is not yet identified for example.
The bottom line remains.
The group that did this aren't leftists. And nobody has contradicted their message, that Youngkin is supported by folks who are white supremacist.

Youngkin appears to be an extremist opposed by centrists with various political associations.

Hook, line, sinker.
If you think I'm wrong in some way, please explain.

Let's start with the first word of the OP title. What makes you think the people in the pic are leftists?
Tom
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
In New Jersey, R Gov candidate Jack Ciattarelli conceded defeat without claiming that the Democrats were guilty of massive election fraud.
Ciattarelli concedes N.J. governor’s race but says he’ll run again in 4 years - nj.com
Ciattarelli concedes in New Jersey governor's race, vows to run again in 2025 - POLITICO

This truck driver just defeated New Jersey’s most powerful lawmaker - POLITICO - "Ed Durr’s stunning defeat of state Senate President Steve Sweeney delivers a severe blow to Democrats in the Garden State — and to their most effective political machine."
In a week filled with surprises beyond the razor-thin New Jersey governor’s race, the election in South Jersey’s 3rd Legislative District was the biggest shocker of all — and one with massive implications for the future of New Jersey politics. Sweeney, who’s led the state’s upper legislative chamber for 12 years, was talked up in Democratic circles as a likely 2025 candidate for governor. He had amassed significant power in Trenton, shrewdly cutting deals with former Republican Gov. Chris Christie and frequently standing in the way of Gov. Phil Murphy’s agenda.

...
Durr, who considers himself a “constitutional conservative,” said he also sensed a backlash to the influence wielded by South Jersey Democrats, whose cohesion under power broker George Norcross had made them virtually unbeatable — until now.

“Just the constant nepotism, corruption, ‘if you take care of me, I’ll take care of you deals,’” Durr said. “You don’t have evidence, you can’t get anyone arrested or prove anything, but there’s always ‘when there’s smoke there’s fire’ kind of statements.”

Durr’s grassroots win and regular guy appeal brought him to the attention of national conservative figures, who celebrated him on social media. “Hahaha no way,” tweeted Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw.

But New Jersey’s progressive activists were also celebrating after years of clashes with Sweeney and his patron, Norcross, whose deal-making skills kept the Senate president in power so long. Norcross frequently teamed up with Christie, most notably on paring back public worker benefits.

He has tried to torpedo almost every important piece of legislation going back over 10 years,” said Sue Altman, executive director of the New Jersey Working Families Alliance. “The regime in South Jersey has been a complete conservation, trickle-down economics, bad-on-most-issues regime.”
So a right-wing Democrat was defeated by a Republican.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
AOC says Dem Election Day losses result of running 'fully 100% super moderated campaign' | Fox News
"Plus, on the election front. I actually think we have good news as well. I know that Virginia was a huge bummer. And honestly, if anything, I think that the results show the limits of trying to run a fully 100% super moderated campaign that does not excite speak to or energize a progressive base. And frankly, we weren't even really invited to contribute on that race," Ocasio-Cortez said in an Instagram story Wednesday evening, which has since been shared on other social media platforms.
John Gage on Twitter: ".@AOC finds a silver lining in Virginia election losses. “I think that the results show the limits of trying to run a fully 100% super moderated campaign” (link)" / Twitter
then
John Gage on Twitter: ".@AOC then blames moderate Democrats for losing in part because they enabled “race-baiting” by the right. (link)" / Twitter
Should we be worried about the midterms next year with Democrats losing in Virginia?

I think that we should be worried if nothing changes

(This of course is not the only thing but it's a big thing! Historically moderate Dems have believed that the best way to respond to race- baiting by the right is to say little/nothing. We see how that demoralizes the base you're supposed to protect and turn out while also ceding white swing voters to the right w/ inadequate responses or silence.)
John Gage on Twitter: ".@AOC then claims “I’m not trying to start beef with people.” (link)" / Twitter
Will Progressives go on TV to rebut the "progressives made us lose Virginia"?

I'm open to it but it's such a 🤡 argument and I'm not trying to beef with people over silly arguments right now when we need to hold the caucus together to pass Build Back Better

One thing about politics that | wish people understood more but often don't want to accept is that a lot of decisions aren't always about ideology or even money but about ego. It's like middle school sometimes. People will straight up kill legislation because their ego got hurt or they have some weird beef going back 20 years with somebody or some program. Is it terrible? Yes. Egotistical? Also yes. But swear it happens all the time. We don't like to accept that because it's irrational and frustrating to organize around but it's true. Many members will vote EMOTIONALLY from time to time, even the ones that project very analytical identities.

It's not always a character thing either, sometimes a time crunch with little information can do that. So I do pick my battles because sometimes winning a news cycle is not as important as winning universal pre-k
I agree that it is a silly argument, but I think that it needs to be publicly rebutted. Otherwise, there will be no visible counterarguments to it.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
A.O.C. on Why Democrats’ ‘Talking Points Are Not Enough’ - The New York Times
Your party is trying to project political victory at this moment — and pulling out all the stops to do so. You’re sounding the alarm.

Before the Virginia elections, it was very clear that our help and our participation was not wanted or asked for, which is fine. I’m not here to tell people how to run their races. But at the same time, to consider the members here that have some of the tightest relationships to our political base as just a uniform liability — and not something that can be selectively deployed, or consulted, or anything — I think it’s just sad. I think it was a mistake.

And we saw a big youth turnout collapse. Not a single person asked me to send an email, not even to my own list. And then they turn around and say, “It’s their fault.” When I think it was communicated quite expressly that we were unwelcome to pitch in.

The idea that we just accept a collapse in youth turnout — and essentially turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy — in times when races are decided by such narrow margin points: I think it’s ill advised.
She also said that a big problem with Democrats is that they often don't deliver on the promises that they had made to their base -- and their base then becomes reluctant to vote for Democrats. As she put it, the Democrats have essentially squandered a governing trifecta.

She also said that progressives were unwelcome in that race.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
28,059
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
A.O.C. on Why Democrats’ ‘Talking Points Are Not Enough’ - The New York Times
Your party is trying to project political victory at this moment — and pulling out all the stops to do so. You’re sounding the alarm.

Before the Virginia elections, it was very clear that our help and our participation was not wanted or asked for, which is fine. I’m not here to tell people how to run their races. But at the same time, to consider the members here that have some of the tightest relationships to our political base as just a uniform liability — and not something that can be selectively deployed, or consulted, or anything — I think it’s just sad. I think it was a mistake.

And we saw a big youth turnout collapse. Not a single person asked me to send an email, not even to my own list. And then they turn around and say, “It’s their fault.” When I think it was communicated quite expressly that we were unwelcome to pitch in.

The idea that we just accept a collapse in youth turnout — and essentially turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy — in times when races are decided by such narrow margin points: I think it’s ill advised.
She also said that a big problem with Democrats is that they often don't deliver on the promises that they had made to their base -- and their base then becomes reluctant to vote for Democrats. As she put it, the Democrats have essentially squandered a governing trifecta.

She also said that progressives were unwelcome in that race.
The dems want their votes but when they "compromise" it's the liberal's priorities that are the first to be abandoned.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,123
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Among the progressives who celebrated NJ State Senator SS's loss was Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks.

CORRUPT State Senate Wants To KEEP Money In Politics - YouTube - "Corrupt New Jersey State Senator Stephen Sweeney recently lost an election to Edward Durr, a New Jersey truck driver who only spent a couple thousand dollars on a campaign ad to take down NJ Senate President Sweeney, who had almost unlimited resources at his disposal. Cenk Uygur discusses on The Young Turks. Watch LIVE weekdays 6-8 pm ET."

Will the right-wingers now say "Truck drivers good, bartenders bad"?
 
Top Bottom