Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
28 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

Was just watching CNN, where they did a piece about propaganda on Iranian State TV, then segued to a “Who is Mamdani?” tease, with a clip of him aggressive and yelling. Unbelievable. 

 

 

 

Fox would never do that 

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, bolverk said:

The "be interesting" part of that is what @Bozo_Casanova has argued recently, stating that it's more important than the actual policies.

Well duh. If anything in the last 10 years has taught us that policy doesn’t mean shit. Average voters don’t give a shit about the facts or details of policies. Just fucking cater 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Well duh. If anything in the last 10 years has taught us that policy doesn’t mean shit. Average voters don’t give a shit about the facts or details of policies. Just fucking cater 

Kamala's for They/Them.

Posted
21 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Kamala's for They/Them.

Right. You still need a foil, an opponent, someone to hate, etc. So, you've got to be interesting to gain attention, and then you define yourself by identifying your enemy, and I think psychologically it's a lot easier for folks to hate the weak, disadvantaged, or different. So, what the GQP does is build up these groups as some supposed threat to the status quo and give permission to punch down and feel good about hating these groups.

The Dems have a more difficult challenge: empowering people to "punch up" against those who hold the advantage. While these opponents are widely distrusted (and occasionally hated), you've got to inspire folks to muster up the courage to actually stand up to the powerful, and I think most people aren't really comfortable with that. It requires putting yourself and what you have on the line. There's risk.

Hating the weak, and acting on that weak doesn't require shit, especially if a permission structure is in place that allows people to act on that bully impulse. And, as has been frequently stated, Trump has almost single-handedly permitted Americans to be their worst selves.

So, for us progressives, liberals, moderates, and even right-of-center, old-school conservatives (never Trumpers), it's going to take a singular personality who can draw eyes, grab attention, and encourage people to stand up to the powerful and fight back. And that person is going to be immediately recognized as a threat and labelled by the media as a radical revolutionary who could topple the social and economic order, which is going to make a lot of folks a bit uncomfortable.

But I am convinced that's what it's going to take. Fire up the folks to fight back.

Fuck the labels
Fuck the billionaires
Fuck the fascists
Fuck the fear
Fight

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 4
Posted

It’s insane to me that the Dems aren’t going all in on “fuck the billionaires.”

They all showed up to his inauguration. They all have bowed before their king. They gave Dems the ammo, and none of them realize that they are passing on a slam dunk.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

The "be interesting" part of that is what @Bozo_Casanova has argued recently, stating that it's more important than the actual policies.

Being interesting certainly helps, but that's not even strictly speaking necessary. Bernie isn't interesting but motivated a hell of a lot of people. The minimum is that you have to seem like you give a shit about something that other people want you to give a shit about. This isn't complicated, centrist Dem strategists just overcomplicate it because they need to do so to keep getting hired on campaigns that fail too often and underperform always.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Being interesting certainly helps, but that's not even strictly speaking necessary. Bernie isn't interesting but motivated a hell of a lot of people. The minimum is that you have to seem like you give a shit about something that other people want you to give a shit about. This isn't complicated, centrist Dem strategists just overcomplicate it because they need to do so to keep getting hired on campaigns that fail too often and underperform always.

Bernie is interesting, his ideas are interesting, and he puts his ideas out there with simplicity. That’s what makes him effective. He’s the opposite of democrats in that respect. 

25 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

It’s insane to me that the Dems aren’t going all in on “fuck the billionaires.”

They all showed up to his inauguration. They all have bowed before their king. They gave Dems the ammo, and none of them realize that they are passing on a slam dunk.

Why would they? They’re being billed as the party of elitist now and they are effectively letting that take root in the party instead of fighting back. Thats what the leadership of the party has created 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted
4 minutes ago, tokamak said:

One thing getting lost in this discourse is that Cuomo was just a shitty candidate. The guy resigned from his last job in disgrace. 

Is it getting lost or does it just not matter in the current political arena? I’ll lean the latter. 

Posted (edited)

Another thing I want to say about this race is I do not want to hear another god damned word, from ANYONE, about how taking a critical stance of Israel is too politically risky for a Democratic candidate to take.

I've been screaming about how this is bullshit since well before the Harris campaign and if a socialist Muslim that is uncompromisingly anti-Zionist can blow the doors off one of the most recognizable incumbent candidates in the country that's being backed by every billionaire in the state, in the most Jewish place on Earth besides Israel, I think I can confidently feel vindicated on that one.

Edited by Brian Fantana
grammar
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Is it getting lost or does it just not matter in the current political arena? I’ll lean the latter. 

Yep.  

I've gone from really thinking it's about policy to thinking that it's just about people that might have a smidgen of ethics. Policy is a distant tiebreaker from just supporting the candidate who inevitably is going to be less disgusting that the GOP offering.

If they are running against an (R) and they are a decent person, I don't care if they are socialists, sportos, motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies or dickheads.

Edited by The Original Greaser Bob
Posted
Another thing I want to say about this race is I do not want to hear another god damned word, from ANYONE, about how taking a critical stance of Israel is too politically risky for a Democratic candidate to take.
I've been screaming about how this is bullshit since well before the Harris campaign and if a socialist Muslim that is uncompromisingly anti-Zionist can blow the doors off one of the most recognizable incumbent candidates in the country that's being backed by every billionaire in the state, in the most Jewish place on Earth besides Israel, I think I can confidently feel vindicated on that one.

See, this is a perfect example of the incorrect conclusions that will be drawn from this race.

The correct conclusion is “you ran an establishment candidate SO UNPOPULAR that a socialist, Muslim, anti-Israeli candidate won in the most Jewish place in the country” not “a socialist, Muslim, anti-Israeli candidate won because of his stance on Israel.”

And I know you are smart enough to know that NYC politics is in no way replicable throughout most of the rest of the country.
Posted
2 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

The correct conclusion is “you ran an establishment candidate SO UNPOPULAR that a socialist, Muslim, anti-Israeli candidate won in the most Jewish place in the country” not “a socialist, Muslim, anti-Israeli candidate won because of his stance on Israel.”

This is not, like, AT ALL what I said. In fact, that's such a bad interpretation of what I was saying it almost seems deliberate if I didn't know any better.

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Another thing I want to say about this race is I do not want to hear another god damned word, from ANYONE, about how taking a critical stance of Israel is too politically risky for a Democratic candidate to take.

I've been screaming about how this is bullshit since well before the Harris campaign and if a socialist Muslim that is uncompromisingly anti-Zionist can blow the doors off one of the most recognizable incumbent candidates in the country that's being backed by every billionaire in the state, in the most Jewish place on Earth besides Israel, I think I can confidently feel vindicated on that one.

You've said some of the most inane shit on the underlying issue in the last couple of days, but yeah, there shouldn't be any bar to anyone being critical of any side of this issue.

Edited by The Original Greaser Bob
Posted

He won because he ran a grassroots campaign that addressed his potential constituents' direct economic concerns and issues that actually affect their daily lives.

My point was that his uncompromisingly anti-Zionist position, which we are often led to believe is political kryptonite, certainly didn't cost him any meaningful votes in the most Jewish place on Earth not named Israel. It was less commentary on Israel and commentary that someone who is uncompromisingly for "The Groups" that liberals find so frightening can certainly win and win big even if the big money is behind their opponent.

And he isn't the only example of this, Andy Beshear is another great example of a progressive, uncompromisingly pro-LGBTQ Democrat who is a wildly popular (he has like a 70% approval rating currently) governor of a deep red, Southern state right now.

Posted
This is not, like, AT ALL what I said. In fact, that's such a bad interpretation of what I was saying it almost seems deliberate if I didn't know any better.

Whoa dude. You made a post about the political implications of a stance of Israel, and I was simply trying to point out that drawing any definitive conclusions about that would be misguided.

I’m sure folks tried to write essays about how Democrats could replicate Doug Jones performance in 2018, but sometimes the simplest answer is “run against a Roy Moore.”

Mamdani capitalized and tailored his message to appeal to a voting base that is amenable to his pitch, but the main reason he won is that Andrew fucking Cuomo was the main competition. Don’t nominate Roy Moores.
Posted
It was less commentary on Israel and commentary that someone who is uncompromisingly for "The Groups" that liberals find so frightening can certainly win and win big even if the big money is behind their opponent.
And he isn't the only example of this, Andy Beshear is another great example of a progressive, uncompromisingly pro-LGBTQ Democrat who is a wildly popular (he has like a 70% approval rating currently) governor of a deep red, Southern state right now.

To be clear, I 100000% agree with all of this. Your initial post was Israel-specific, so that’s what I commented on. But yes, most of the Democratic party’s core beliefs are insanely popular with the masses but messaged horribly and allowed to be largely defined by the opposition.
But it is also important to acknowledge that Beshear and Mamdani are very, VERY different politicians and assuming that any specific messaging that worked for Mamdani is replicable nationwide is a dangerous conclusion.
Posted

Policies.  Lol

Unless your policy is hating other shit, GTFO.  Actually standing up for something is a loser in this country as far as national elections.  

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
13 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Help me understand why poor people vote against their own interest IMG_1984.thumb.jpeg.2baf4489c4fcfd52e9b8183eadb0857e.jpeg

 

I feel comfortable saying this as someone who came from a long line of poor people. A lot of poor people are poor because they are fucking idiots

 

11 hours ago, Skipper said:

This is the biggest gift Dems could possibly give R's heading into midterms with an unpopular president. In NYC of all places. Cue the fear porn about far left muslim socialists taking over the D party and it will be effective.   The left on this board can cheer this kind of stuff on all you want but it kills you with the average American that may not like Trump but will never get behind socialism and pronouns. Tidal wave of momentum is laughable.

but obviously you don’t have to be poor to be stupid 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I feel comfortable saying this as someone who came from a long line of poor people. A lot of poor people are poor because they are fucking idiots

 

but obviously you don’t have to be poor to be stupid 

Forgot to post about this earlier but apparently the under 50k group includes every pensioner that voted as well, which would see the data a fair amount I think.



×
×
  • Create New...