• New Registration

    To become a member of JackpineRadicals please see post: https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/join-jackpine-radicals/

Home Main Forums General Discussion Non-Corporate Dems Winning and Attempts to Marginalize Meaning.

  • Xyzse (4479 posts)
    Donor

    Non-Corporate Dems Winning and Attempts to Marginalize Meaning.

    There has been quite a few wins lately from the non-Establishment branch of the Democratic Party.  This is a very positive development that certain corpo-fascists seek to marginalize.  They tend to cite the following points:

    • The percentage of wins is low and below 50% (32%).
    • The Non-Establishment Democrat that won, USED to work for some other Establishment Democrat like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc.,.
    • The Group that Supported them JD, OR or whatever, didn’t show that they helped by either Monetary or on-the-Ground Support.

    I have to apologize, but I find those three points DUmb as hell as they are purposefully missing the point to try to take away from the hard-fought battles of these disparate groups branching out from the Establishment Wing of the Democratic Party.

    From the looks of things, nothing annoys them more than someone who can point out their hypocrisy and faults, since people just don’t want to be wrong.  I would like to address them for now.

    The percentage of wins is low and below 50% (32%)

    • One merely needs to look at past elections to see the dismal results of Democratic losses during Obama’s tenure, where they frankly lost thousands of seats previously held by Democrats on all levels.  This involves State and Local governments.  These were under their reign.
    • They are still bleeding in terms of support and in positive public opinion.  Which goes to show that they are going the wrong direction, and instead are trying to double down on failed methods.
    • 32% on fledgling groups is actually high.
    • By not having corporate sponsors, they are already running far below the establishment candidate who has a huge cash advantage.
    •  They also have to deal with less name recognition.

    The Non-Establishment Democrat that won, USED to work for some other Establishment Democrat like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc.,.

    • Most that are running and endorsed by Brand New Congress, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution and others have been working in the political fields for years.  Obviously they would have worked for someone else.
    • The difference is that they are NOT taking Corporate PAC money, and that really is the MAIN point of it all.  They are not yet Bought.
    • It is good to have some prior political work experience.
    • Pay attention to the issues and what these candidates are fighting for.  That is the difference.  Especially in regards to action.
    • Clinton Delegate?  So what?  Isn’t the point moving forward, and running on one’s own terms?
    • The problem is not with the people of the Democratic Party, it is the Party Insiders and leaders that have been the issue.  Those that say they are for something and have actions that are diametrically opposed to what they say they stand for.

    The Group that Supported them JD, OR or whatever, didn’t show that they helped by either Monetary or on-the-Ground Support.

    • What Justice Democrats and other groups of this sort provide, is exposure.
    • These groups have a set of standards that candidates need to meet to be endorsed.  This is the most important part of it.
    • Because a candidate is endorsed by these groups, they are then seen by voters such as myself who then donate or support them personally.  Why would I go to the group when I can go directly to a candidate and donate to their campaign itself?
    • These groups don’t have much money either, and they have a limited operating expense which is being used to organize the sites, plan events, newsletters and others.

    Basically, what is not understood, is that by having these candidates being endorsed by these groups, it provides a seal of approval in regards to the issues.

    Issues are what matter, and the fact that they don’t take money from Corporate Special Interests is HUGE!  People look at that, and even with limited monetary support, there are ways to promote oneself by cheaper means through the various social platforms that are around.

    They still think it is just about the money.  That’s why they keep losing.  Look at Nancy Pelosi, whose only claim to being the Democratic House Leader is that she is the one who brings in the most money.

    That 32% win of these groups, is done through a huge monetary disadvantage, and name recognition.  That they slam people for saying people don’t even know them had they not won, obviously have not been paying attention.  They are getting their name out there by many means, and many who help volunteer in the ground game started from these self-same groups that they seek to dismiss.

    In the end, it really is about the issues.  Democrats need to pay more attention to that, rather than names, groups and identities.

    It’s a shame that it could not be quantified as much, but that’s why 538’s analysis falls short at this time.

    Pastiche, graycat, Pam and 23 othersSatan, kath, snot, Enthusiast, HomerRamone, Two way street, Scott Crowder, ccinamon, Marym625, Ohio Barbarian, Peace Patriot, ThomPaine, PADemD, eridani, Admiral Loinpresser, twenty, OCMI, Go Vols, disillusioned73, Dragon Turtle, mick063, nevereVereven, Hobbit709 like this

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

▼ Hide Reply Index
36 replies
  • 2 months ago #1
  • 2 months ago #17
    • nevereVereven (5808 posts)
      Donor

      1. Recommended!

      Trump is a fool who may yet blunder us into war; the Dems and the Deep State cabal would give us war by design.

                                     
      • Xyzse (4479 posts)
        Donor

        2. Thanks!

        Certain folk get too caught up on groups, personalities and identities that they forget it is issues that matter.

        I like Bernie, but he is not the be-all-end-all for me.  Certain folk can’t get out of their hate for him to look at what he’s promoting.

        For example, Tucker Carlson went after Amazon/Bezos for the treatment of their workers, and how workers need Government Financial Support, since they are not paid enough, making them a burden to Tax Payers.  They went after Bernie on this, because he had a similar position on it, even if it was not completely the same.

        A Broken Clock like Carlson can be right at least twice a day, and if a position on the issues is right, wouldn’t that be worth supporting?

        When their Establishment Candidates act in a way that is diametrically opposed to their so called core principles and by-laws which they have on their website, it is worth calling out.

        I find certain folk Democrats to be increasingly Pro-Interventionist War, Pro-Intelligence Agencies, Pro-Corporations, and Pro-Authoritarianism, that I don’t really think they have a moral, ethical or belief system any more except the “D”.

        Which sounds so bad since it looks like these folks got F’ed by the Rep. Ds.

        Whoops, did I just say that?

        In the end, they really do need to stick with actual issues and positions that help out the whole, and try to get out of that group classification that forces people to compete while everyone is hurting.

    • Admiral Loinpresser (239 posts)

      3. Is the 32% a 538 figure?

      I just saw a video where Cenk claimed Justice Democrats is batting around five hundred. That stat doesn’t obviate the 32% figure necessarily, but it seems like the stats are moving in the happy direction. Also, I don’t necessarily trust 538 stats when it comes to politics. They are biased and reality averse in many instances. One fact I don’t see discussed very often is that the dollars spent per vote is much more efficient for progressive candidates than neoliberals. I don’t know how much AOC spent per vote, but I would guess it was at least 10 times more efficient than Crowley’s expenditures. Btw… excellent post!!

      The RussiaGate narrative is unmitigated bullshit. The 2016 election was stolen by Kris Kobach via Operation CrossCheck. See Greg Palast for details.
      • Xyzse (4479 posts)
        Donor

        4. That was a figure provided by certain folk from different area.

        As for 538, I don’t trust them either, as they tend to ignore quite a few factors as well, which reeks of as you said, agenda.

        Which is why I mentioned that money does not equal votes, and their idea of using it as an indication of success is a disgusting fallacy.

      • Ohio Barbarian (12709 posts)
        Moderator

        20. I think it's a Politico, The Hill, or maybe Guardian figure. Don't remember,

        except they were trying to make it sound like a 32% success rate for a political movement that didn’t even exist two years ago is somehow an indication of failure. Anybody who knows anything about political history in countries with some form of representative government knows this is a significant development.

        I believe the favorite MSM term used to be “sea change.”

        No man ought to stay poor so another man can get rich. --Newton Knight
    • disillusioned73 (818 posts)
      Donor

      5. I thoroughly enjoyed this

      thank you..

      The criticisms (or spin) are coordinated and coded if you know how to read between the lines.. they’re definitely better at it then right wing talking point nonsense.. but my spidey sense has become quite acute at spotting both sides of this gambit..

      "Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats." - Bernie Sanders
      • Xyzse (4479 posts)
        Donor

        6. Yes, they are better at wording, but not presentation.

        It is interesting how they are failing so bad right now though.  Since they are getting called out from many directions with their hypocrisy.

        That their so called “Resistance” means nothing when they authorize and add to the defense spending budget, for someone they call an unhinged wannabe dictator, and fast-track Trump judicial appointees when they say they are for civil/social liberties just to get to their vacations earlier.

        One needs to only look at the prime example of Obama to see how they would fight for something they actually want to pass.  He didn’t do shit for much except the TPP.  There, you can see him out in full force trying to campaign for something that people don’t even want, and bullying other politicians to just go along.

        Just goes to show how little credibility they have.

        • disillusioned73 (818 posts)
          Donor

          9. That TPP stuff was stunning..

          especially considering that it was ongoing during the 2016 primary.. I am sure he got calls from the Clinton camp saying WTF!?!

          It goes to show, they still think ppl are not paying attention.. things have changed – the days of doing your dirt under the radar are gone..

          "Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats." - Bernie Sanders
          • Xyzse (4479 posts)
            Donor

            11. Which is great really.

            You’re right about that, he was running his mouth on and on about that issue, while Hillary was trying to run away from it.

            If they want someone to blame, there’s that right there.

        • Ohio Barbarian (12709 posts)
          Moderator

          21. I distinctly remember that because Mrs. Barbarian pointed out that when Obama

          really, really wanted something, he pushed for it even when it was obvious that the public was overwhelmingly against it. He lost both times when she said that, with trying to get authorization of force to militarily intervene in Syria and with the TPP.

          Obama believers all praised his brilliance at not trying to get things through a Republican Congress that he knew would fail, and deprecated anyone who accused him of progressive betrayal for not even proposing something like union card check legislation. The term “fucking retard” is remembered.

          But when Obama really wanted something, be it his Blackberry, the Health Insurance Corporation Enrichment Act(sometimes inaccurately called the ACA), the TPP, or a chance to bomb the shit out of someone, he went at it full-boar, man.

          No man ought to stay poor so another man can get rich. --Newton Knight
          • Xyzse (4479 posts)
            Donor

            27. Absolutely.

            Which makes their excuses sound hollow.

            It just goes to show that he will go balls to the wall for everything that you mention on your last paragraph.

            We could have used even just a fraction of that, for card check, DAPL, and so much more.

          • Populist Prole (1193 posts)
            Donor

            28. The "tell" when he wanted something was anger

            It was in contrast to his polished, buttoned down, articulate coolness. Whenever there was pushback against the TPP, he losses that coolness and reacted with anger…visceral anger. Mr Cool Detachment was passionate about the TPP.

            Hell, if he had directed even a fraction of that anger/passion toward the republicans in bully-pulpit fashion, the whole 3-dimensional chess meme might actually have had merit.

            • Ohio Barbarian (12709 posts)
              Moderator

              31. That's so true. I remember him addressing the nation trying to get his war in

              Syria, and he was soooo passionate about it. I wish I could have seen his face when even the Republican Congress turned him down under intense public pressure. The Congressional email account shut down, as I recall.

              No man ought to stay poor so another man can get rich. --Newton Knight
    • ThomPaine (6845 posts)
      Moderator

      7. Also it should be taken into consideration that the Progressive

      winners where fighting the big money of the Party Corporatists.

      To any corporatists that might be reading this:  “You can’t be for the People if you’re for Corporations.  The Dem Establishment and the Repub Establishment are not the same, but they both work for Goldman-Sachs.”

      • Xyzse (4479 posts)
        Donor

        8. Exactly, and I agree.

        Which is why I am slightly concerned with Gillum as he took in money from Soros and Steyer in quick succession totaling more than half a mil.

        Just slightly mind you, since he seemed to have sidled up to such company.  Hopefully this does not indicate a softening on his stance on the issues.  He’s still lightyears better than his opponent.

    • Peace Patriot (4812 posts)
      Donor

      10. I find the biggee is that sex or race got the Left win, not economic justice.

      Heard this on National Republican Radio just yesterday.

      • Xyzse (4479 posts)
        Donor

        12. Yeah, they are really trying to push that Identity Politics thing still.

        It’s insane really.

        If that were really the case, they would be endorsing Nixon instead of Cuomo the Sex Abuser Apologist, and other progressives.  Where they are still trying to push Crowley as well.

        They can’t get their stories straight, and here we’re like, “Issues, Positions and no Corporate PAC money”.

         

        • disillusioned73 (818 posts)
          Donor

          13. It is funny to watch..

          the sheer simplicity must drive them bonkers!!

          ““Issues, Positions and no Corporate PAC money”.”

          "Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats." - Bernie Sanders
          • Xyzse (4479 posts)
            Donor

            15. Which is why they try to bring up everything else instead of that.

            Get some credibility in at least those three things, and you gain my support.

      • Eleanors38 (1209 posts)
        Donor

        14. Heh. PBS analyzed the FLA Dem primary win by discussing..

        the losing Dem’s attacking each other allowing the Tally Mayor to win, and how the winner might be plagued by some on going scandal in city hall (which was supposed to explain the Party Inc’s reluctance to back him).

        Not once was the influence of Bernie Sanders mentioned.

        Not once was the influence of malcontenence among Dem voters mentioned.

        Even Fox and at least ABC national news ran videos of Bernie with the mayor and conceded the possibility that another force was at play than that of the standard Beltway mumblings of center-right/DLC commentators.

      • Ohio Barbarian (12709 posts)
        Moderator

        22. Ain't that the sad and sorry truth? Heard it on NPR, read it on Beltway

        political sites, and probably would have seen it on TV except for the fact that it’s late summer and we’re out a lot. Of course, Mummy, er, Madame Speaker Pelosi started it off after a bartender from the Bronx blew away one of her favorite henchman in the Democratic primary. She went on about ethnic and other ID politics issues that were “unique” to that district, and therefore politically unimportant.

        Oops.

        They are paid not to get it.

        No man ought to stay poor so another man can get rich. --Newton Knight
    • Ohio Barbarian (12709 posts)
      Moderator

      16. The Sheep Look Up. Or, if you're not familiar with John Brunner, The Sleepers

      have awakened. This is the conclusion to which your astute factual analysis leads. To my knowledge, voter turnout in all of the primary elections where a new progressive defeated an established Democrat was up by just a few percentage points.

      And that is a truly beautiful thing. It means that a nonviolent political revolution is actually possible. Not likely, maybe, but possible. That gladdens my heart.

      Great post. Recommended for the Daily Radical.

      No man ought to stay poor so another man can get rich. --Newton Knight
      • Xyzse (4479 posts)
        Donor

        23. Thank you.

        It’s interesting how certain wins are being minimized. Completely ignoring that people are looking for those that will actually act rather than just talk down on them.

        Which is why this 2018 General Election, I will be voting for a mix of Democrats and Independents of various stripes.

        Ben Jealous for Governor
        Green Candidates for Both Congress and Senate Seats, since I can’t vote for Ben Cardin at all, and I have huge misgivings against David Trone.  I’ll look him up a bit more, but the chances of me voting for that guy is slim.
        Then, I’ll check to see on every one else.  If they decided to have reservations against Ben Jealous like Isiah Leggett, I am going to vote for the 3rd Party Candidate immediately, as that is a disqualifier.  Too many went for the current governor Larry Hogan who cut taxes on rich while cutting funding on education.

        Unforgivable.

        • Ohio Barbarian (12709 posts)
          Moderator

          30. I'm the same way. In Ohio, I have a choice between a Republican, an Obama-

          endorsed(also Warren-endorsed, but no matter) Vichy Dem, so I will vote for the Green. IF Richard Cordray says he’ll reinstate the Ohio estate tax, the repeal of which is crippling the municipalities it used to fund, I might vote for him. For US Senate, there’s only a write-in Green, and while Sherrod Brown has pissed me off plenty of times, he’s not as bad as a Clinton and the Republican, unlike the attorney general and former US Senator running for governor, really is batshit crazy. He actually introduced legislation in the House to allow Congresscritters to be on lobbying firms’ payrolls.

          That was so corrupt even Paul Ryan wouldn’t go for it, so I’ll help Senator Hangover crush this fool.

          My Congresscritter’s Marcia Fudge, who doesn’t even have an opponent. Down ballot is a mixed bag, including a property tax increase to help defray the costs of the city and county bribing Amazon to build a workhouse here, so I’ll be joining the anti-tax folks on that one.

          I wish Ben Jealous the best. I’m sure he’d be a great improvement for the people of Maryland.

          No man ought to stay poor so another man can get rich. --Newton Knight
          • Xyzse (4479 posts)
            Donor

            32. Hopefully he does. I feel lucky that I can even vote FOR someone this time…

            Your game plan is sound, and I think you have paid more attention than I have for the ones I am dealing with.

            I know that I come down hard on many Democrats, but in the end, there is a possibility that I would vote for them.  All I really ask for is them not to act in a way so bad that the results are indistinguishable from a Republican in most policies other than civil/social liberties.

            Maybe, that is too high a bar, but that is my current standard.

    • Marym625 (30742 posts)
      Founder

      17. On The Daily Radical

      Thank you!

      Take Action #StopFCC https://www.battleforthenet.com/breaktheinternet/ "Once the decision was made to go into Iraq as an invader and occupier,  it’s like our nation lost its conscience. And it has not yet gotten that conscience back." Madfloridian  
      • Xyzse (4479 posts)
        Donor

        24. Thanks!

        • Marym625 (30742 posts)
          Founder

          36. Thank YOU!!

          Take Action #StopFCC https://www.battleforthenet.com/breaktheinternet/ "Once the decision was made to go into Iraq as an invader and occupier,  it’s like our nation lost its conscience. And it has not yet gotten that conscience back." Madfloridian  
    • Captain Arizona (206 posts)

      18. 32% so we get them all by 2022 not bad at all!

      we still have a few primaries to go!

      • Xyzse (4479 posts)
        Donor

        25. It's a decent trend.

        I’m actually quite shocked it is that high.

    • PennLawyer (2866 posts)
      Donor

      19. MSM id's winners as Democrats; losers as progressives

      Couldn’t fit it all into the title line.  What I have noticed is that when a progressive Democrat wins an election,  he/she is referred to only as a Democrat, but if they lose, THEN  he/she is referred to as a Progressive.

      • Xyzse (4479 posts)
        Donor

        26. Exactly. I have been noticing that too.

        Then they just go off saying, it’s just a primary between democrats.

        Which is right, but just sounds utterly idiotic when they say it, since it is a Democratic Primary after all, by definition the candidates are Democrats.

        I’ll just keep saying: Issues, Positions and No Corporate PAC Money…

         

      • Satan (4642 posts)
        Donor

        33. Take the Delaware primary for example

        Corporate media headlines said “Carper defeats progressive”. Why didn’t they say “Sickening corporate right wing tool defeats Democratic opponent, thanks to corporate money”? (and probably Diebold machine fuckery, but we know the media whores would never mention that)

        I didn't refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton because any goddamned Russian told me to. I refused to vote for her because she is a warmongering, election stealing, Goldman Sachs fellating, Republican WHORE. No offense to sex workers.
    • Enthusiast (15880 posts)
      Donor

      29. Kicked and Recommended to the fucking Max!

      "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson
      • Xyzse (4479 posts)
        Donor

        34. You know, this is the 4th time I am posting a thank you to you.

        Each and every time I posted that, it just seems to have disappeared.

        • Enthusiast (15880 posts)
          Donor

          35. Thank you, Xyzse.

          I have had the same thing happen on numerous occasions. Sometimes I just give up.

          "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson