I love the persons that claim to not be ideologues while trying to dictate what is acceptable to their ideological organization. Sure, you disagree about goals and methods, but at least be honest, Sanders isn’t demanding Teahadist loyalty oaths, but he and many other persons do want less Center-Right politics.
Though shit, I CAN empathize with some aspects of the Tea Party that aren’t astroturfed: we’re all sick of patronizing goodoldboyism from our leaders.
You can’t have a two party system AND avoid having those annoying lefties infiltrating your nice centrist party.
How dare they have the utter gall to ask that their national leadership to represent their interests. That’s not how freedom or democracy works!
There’s a very long green between being pragmatically less than 100% ideologically pure and having no ideals whatsoever.
I won’t pretend to like all of his positions, and DWS has carried on the wrong traditions, but his fifty state strategy did help get more Democrats elected. To me, the biggest fault of the DNC was to abandon that strategy, since there are many places where people would be more than happy to vote for the Democratic candidate for the House, but they don’t even bother to recruit a candidate.
It’s not that different from tactics in games, where needling your opponent in supposedly safe areas drains resources that they cannot bring into play elsewhere, and sometimes you do score an upset.
So yeah, I wouldn’t mind having a DNC chair that held positions I do not have, as long as he or she does the one job the DNC chair has, and that is win elections.
Every brick of that corporate wall must come down, but this is an important one!
If she was able to get us actual progressives in congress, would we be this angry?
That’s not what Bernie said. He said that he was supporting Tim Canova because he felt he had common ground and proposals with Tim.
Heck, she hasn’t even done all that well getting any sort of Democrat elected. I have no problem putting her in to the wicker man if it will improve chances of not only winning the presidency, but also of flipping congress.
Is the title missing an “s” after “donor” or an “e” after “tim”?
Not quickly, but DLC = Democratic Leadership Council.
The DLC is an organization made up of “new democrats” who follow, or purport to follow the the triangulation politics of Bill Clinton. In contrast, the DNC is the governing body of the Democratic party-- elected by democrats for the purpose of organizing the coalition towards electoral victory.
In other words, if you’re a progressive you can argue that the DLC is irrelevant, and should be marginalized. But you’d want to control the DNC. (And if you want to keep control, you’d best win majorities.)
I don’t see anything sketchy about supporting a candidate that you agree with. Or criticizing one you disagree with.
But what if you are doing it for your own reasons?!? (cue ominous music)
But what if that candidate unobjectively endorses your challenger? Then it’s totallynotfairsies to support their challenger, because of reasons.
Well yeah, I mean, if someone supports your challenger, that’s probably because of good reasons, but if you then support theirs it’s obviously just payback. #NoPunchBacks
God, this election is just the smuggest. I need a cryo-nap until it’s over, waking only once to file my ballot.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
