Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 03-30-2020, 04:15 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Yes, and I still advocate that (if by "more radical" you mean "more progressive"). That's a fact. It's your opinion that this is bad for some reason, and it's my opinion that this is a great thing. The disagreement is on this opinion, not any facts.
The difference between where you would like the Democratic party to be and where I would like the Democratic party to be is a matter of opinion. The notion that the Justice Party's tactics are the same as the Tea Party's tactics (insofar as they are pushing out moderates in favor of extremists) is not.

The notion that the Justice party is any better morally than the tea party is also a matter of opinion.

The notion that the Democratic party will win more elections with more progressive candidates than moderate candidates is also an opinion. in fact when you push out a liberal Democrat for a far left Democrat, you are not in fact moving the needle in favor of Democrats in any way. In fact all you may be doing is diverting resources to protect good liberal Democrats to install extremists.
  #152  
Old 03-30-2020, 04:16 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
That far left politics are just as bad as far right politics, purely because they're both equally distant from your notion of the political center in this country.
Where do I say that?
  #153  
Old 03-30-2020, 04:50 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
The notion that the Justice Party's tactics are the same as the Tea Party's tactics (insofar as they are pushing out moderates in favor of extremists) is not.
"Moderates" is opinion. "Extremists" is opinion. There may be similarities in tactics, but I fail to see why that is notable in any way at all. Who cares if they emulate some successful tactics from past groups? If it works, that's a good thing! If it doesn't, then it's bad.
  #154  
Old 03-30-2020, 04:50 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Where do I say that?
It's directly implied by your unsophisticated comparisons of the groups involved. People and issues aren't plotted on a single axis. Justice Democrats don't have a value of -1 and Tea Party +1.
  #155  
Old 03-31-2020, 01:48 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
"Moderates" is opinion. "Extremists" is opinion. There may be similarities in tactics, but I fail to see why that is notable in any way at all. Who cares if they emulate some successful tactics from past groups? If it works, that's a good thing! If it doesn't, then it's bad.
If you prefer to call them Mainstream and Progressives, that'[s fine but the fact of the matter is that they are doing it.
  #156  
Old 03-31-2020, 01:56 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It's directly implied by your unsophisticated comparisons of the groups involved. People and issues aren't plotted on a single axis. Justice Democrats don't have a value of -1 and Tea Party +1.
Justice Democrats are undermining the Democrats the same way that the tea party undermined the Republican party. We only have one functional political party right now because of the tea party and we will end up with ZERO functional political parties if the Justice party has its way. Bernies spectacularly crashing campaign is pretty good evidence that most Democrats (never mind most Americans) don't really think that highly of the Extremist agenda.

Fortunately the poster child for the Justice party (AOC) is stepping back from the edge of political idiocy. Hopefully she can lead the rest of her generation back too.
  #157  
Old 03-31-2020, 02:03 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
If you prefer to call them Mainstream and Progressives, that'[s fine but the fact of the matter is that they are doing it.
They're helping the Democratic party. That's my opinion. Your opinion differs. That's okay. There's no disagreement on any facts.
  #158  
Old 03-31-2020, 02:05 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Just as an example -- the Tea Party lost some races because of monumentally stupid decisions (that "I'm not a witch" candidate, for example). They ran idiots. I've seen nothing to suggest that AOC or any other Justice Democrat is advocating or pushing idiots to run for office, especially in competitive races. If they're emulating any part of the Tea Party, it's the effective stuff the TP did for their agenda, not the stuff they did that hurt their party.

Being run by smart people is an utterly massive difference from the Tea Party, which was/is largely run by idiots.
  #159  
Old 03-31-2020, 02:55 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Just as an example -- the Tea Party lost some races because of monumentally stupid decisions (that "I'm not a witch" candidate, for example). They ran idiots. I've seen nothing to suggest that AOC or any other Justice Democrat is advocating or pushing idiots to run for office, especially in competitive races. If they're emulating any part of the Tea Party, it's the effective stuff the TP did for their agenda, not the stuff they did that hurt their party.

Being run by smart people is an utterly massive difference from the Tea Party, which was/is largely run by idiots.
What he is saying is an absolute fact, shown easily by imagining a Venn Diagram. If all Democrats are at 0, the further out you get from center, you have less Democrats (and public opinion) and what he said was the further you get away from center (or installing a more extreme version in lieu of a seat you already had (as a moderate version), you lose potential votes who would otherwise vote D.

And the only similarities with the Tea Party is that exact scenario, except the Tea Party folks didn't push out any moderate Republicans to gain the seats. (That last part I can't say is a fact as I don't know all of them)

That isn't an opinion, it is undisputable fact.
  #160  
Old 03-31-2020, 03:06 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,097
Your imagined Venn diagram is an indisputable fact. That's what you just said.
  #161  
Old 03-31-2020, 03:25 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
What he is saying is an absolute fact, shown easily by imagining a Venn Diagram. If all Democrats are at 0, the further out you get from center, you have less Democrats (and public opinion) and what he said was the further you get away from center (or installing a more extreme version in lieu of a seat you already had (as a moderate version), you lose potential votes who would otherwise vote D.

And the only similarities with the Tea Party is that exact scenario, except the Tea Party folks didn't push out any moderate Republicans to gain the seats. (That last part I can't say is a fact as I don't know all of them)

That isn't an opinion, it is undisputable fact.
Politics isn't nearly this simple. This is your opinion, but it's not a fact.

And IIRC, the tea party did in fact push out numerous Republicans -- whether or not they're "moderate" will depend on who's asking.
  #162  
Old 04-01-2020, 08:51 AM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 45,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Where do I say that?
Itís been the consistent theme of everything youíve written in this thread. Hereís you saying it again a few hours after you asked this:

Quote:
Justice Democrats are undermining the Democrats the same way that the tea party undermined the Republican party. We only have one functional political party right now because of the tea party and we will end up with ZERO functional political parties if the Justice party has its way. Bernies spectacularly crashing campaign is pretty good evidence that most Democrats (never mind most Americans) don't really think that highly of the Extremist agenda.

Fortunately the poster child for the Justice party (AOC) is stepping back from the edge of political idiocy. Hopefully she can lead the rest of her generation back too.
  #163  
Old 04-01-2020, 08:55 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Also, the Tea Party was much more a symptom of awfulness within the GOP than a cause. Lots of Republicans are awful and stupid, and thus the Tea Party happened. If it hadn't been the Tea Party, then those most-awful and stupidest among the Republicans would have made the party more awful and more stupid in some other way. Louie Gohmert and Steve King were around for years before the Tea Party started.
  #164  
Old 04-01-2020, 04:07 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Just as an example -- the Tea Party lost some races because of monumentally stupid decisions (that "I'm not a witch" candidate, for example). They ran idiots. I've seen nothing to suggest that AOC or any other Justice Democrat is advocating or pushing idiots to run for office, especially in competitive races. If they're emulating any part of the Tea Party, it's the effective stuff the TP did for their agenda, not the stuff they did that hurt their party.
Whether or not they hurt the Republican party is also a matter of opinion based on your definition of opinion. Plenty of folks prefer this batshit crazy version of the Republican party. What they did (and what the Justice Democrats want to do) is turn the party into a more extreme version of itself.

AOC is apparently edging towards sanity, the Justice Democrats not so much.

Quote:
Being run by smart people is an utterly massive difference from the Tea Party, which was/is largely run by idiots.
So all the Justice Democrat successes were the result of smart people being smart and all the tea party success was just dumb luck?

That sounds like opinion, unfounded opinion.
  #165  
Old 04-01-2020, 04:08 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Whether or not they hurt the Republican party is also a matter of opinion based on your definition of opinion. Plenty of folks prefer this batshit crazy version of the Republican party. What they did (and what the Justice Democrats want to do) is turn the party into a more extreme version of itself.

AOC is apparently edging towards sanity, the Justice Democrats not so much.



So all the Justice Democrat successes were the result of smart people being smart and all the tea party success was just dumb luck?

That sounds like opinion, unfounded opinion.
Yes! Our disagreement is entirely one of opinion.
  #166  
Old 04-01-2020, 04:09 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
It’s been the consistent theme of everything you’ve written in this thread. Here’s you saying it again a few hours after you asked this:
The Justice democrats can lead to a disfunctional party and still not be anywhere close to being as bad as the tea party.

Just because they both meet the standard of stupid and shitty doesn't mean they are equally stupid and shitty.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 04-01-2020 at 04:10 PM.
  #167  
Old 04-01-2020, 04:11 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Also, the Tea Party was much more a symptom of awfulness within the GOP than a cause. Lots of Republicans are awful and stupid, and thus the Tea Party happened. If it hadn't been the Tea Party, then those most-awful and stupidest among the Republicans would have made the party more awful and more stupid in some other way. Louie Gohmert and Steve King were around for years before the Tea Party started.
And of course there is no awfulness in the Democratic party?

Every instance of awfulness in the Democratic party is an aberration and every instance of awfulness in the Republican party is representative?
  #168  
Old 04-01-2020, 04:12 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
And of course there is no awfulness in the Democratic party?
I have not asserted this.

Quote:
Every instance of awfulness in the Democratic party is an aberration and every instance of awfulness in the Republican party is representative?
Nor have I asserted this.
  #169  
Old 04-01-2020, 04:13 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Yes! Our disagreement is entirely one of opinion.
Not entirely.

But at this point you have already conceded that the justice democrats are the tea party of the left except their agenda is more palatable to you than the tea party was so all that is left is our difference in opinion about whether pushing the Democratic party to where the Justice Democrats would like to take them is a good idea.

You like them and i think they're batshit crazy.
  #170  
Old 04-01-2020, 04:19 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Not entirely.

But at this point you have already conceded that the justice democrats are the tea party of the left
No I haven't -- I don't believe they're any more "the tea party of the left" than the yellow dogs, blue dogs, progressives, or any other group. Some overlap in some political tactics is indicative of nothing more than that nothing in politics is really new -- all of this has been done before, in some form of other. Political groups often use similar tactics. This is not at all notable or significant.
  #171  
Old 04-04-2020, 12:44 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
No I haven't -- I don't believe they're any more "the tea party of the left" than the yellow dogs, blue dogs, progressives, or any other group. Some overlap in some political tactics is indicative of nothing more than that nothing in politics is really new -- all of this has been done before, in some form of other. Political groups often use similar tactics. This is not at all notable or significant.
None of those others advocated primarying incumbent Democrats (diverting resources that could be better spent elsewhere to fight off an insurgency of left wing lunatics).

The Justice Democrats are not trying to nudge the Democratic party. They are trying to hijack it. They basically admit as much with their "we're a party within a party" schtick.
  #172  
Old 04-04-2020, 12:46 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
They are trying to hijack it.
What a joke! They haven't cost the party a single seat. Come back to me when they've actually done something bad, rather than the good they've done by challenging shitty Democrats in safe blue seats (and beating at least one -- Lipinski).

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 04-04-2020 at 12:51 PM.
  #173  
Old 04-05-2020, 06:49 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
What a joke! They haven't cost the party a single seat. Come back to me when they've actually done something bad, rather than the good they've done by challenging shitty Democrats in safe blue seats (and beating at least one -- Lipinski).
Why was Crowley a "shitty" Democrat?

I mean AOC was a Justice Democrat candidate, right?

Or does that not count because you say it doesn't?

You are basically saying that the party now has to spend resources defending Democrats in safe blue seats or see them replaced with Justice Democrats. Ask Pelosi how much of a fucking pain in the ass they were as she fought a two front was against Trump on the right and the Justice Democrats on the left.

You don't have to cost Democrats a single seat to be hijackers. We will see how the Justice Democrats crowd behave during the general election. Lets see if they're Democrats or just socialist parasites trying to hijack the Democrats.
  #174  
Old 04-05-2020, 07:06 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Why was Crowley a "shitty" Democrat?



I mean AOC was a Justice Democrat candidate, right?
Okay, shitty Democrats plus an upgrade on an okay Democrat. An improvement there - certainly no harm to the party. The party is stronger with AOC then without her.



Quote:
You are basically saying that the party now has to spend resources defending Democrats in safe blue seats or see them replaced with Justice Democrats. Ask Pelosi how much of a fucking pain in the ass they were as she fought a two front was against Trump on the right and the Justice Democrats on the left.



You don't have to cost Democrats a single seat to be hijackers. We will see how the Justice Democrats crowd behave during the general election. Lets see if they're Democrats or just socialist parasites trying to hijack the Democrats.
They haven't done any of these scary things you're worried about. No seats have been lost.

This is just baseless fear. You've offered nothing but your opinion that you don't like AOC and her allies. That's fine, but it's just your opinion.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #175  
Old 04-06-2020, 12:38 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Okay, shitty Democrats plus an upgrade on an okay Democrat. An improvement there - certainly no harm to the party. The party is stronger with AOC then without her.
At this point yes, we are better off with her than without her. She has backed off from the most destructive elements of the Justice Democrat platform (primarying mainstream democrats to install left wingers) and sure there is plenty of room for left wingers, some districts are famous for electing radical lefties on a regular basis.

Quote:
They haven't done any of these scary things you're worried about. No seats have been lost.
Forcing primary battles are part of the Justice Democrat platform. Seats don't have to be lost to hurt the Democratic party. If you for resources to be spent fighting a war against the left as well as the right, then it is bad for Democrats.

Quote:
This is just baseless fear. You've offered nothing but your opinion that you don't like AOC and her allies. That's fine, but it's just your opinion.
No it's not just opinion, it is the Justice democrat platform.

I no longer object to AOC. She seems to be maturing quickly enough to be taken seriously. I don't agree with her on everything but I probably agree with her more than I agree with most Republicans.
  #176  
Old 04-06-2020, 03:16 AM
Derleth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
* Benito Mussolini defined his invention "fascism" as corporate control of government.
You don't have a single idea what Mussolini meant by "corporations" in that context.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/corporatism.htm

Quote:
The basic idea of corporatism is that the society and economy of a country should be organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement.
  #177  
Old 04-06-2020, 04:51 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
At this point yes, we are better off with her than without her. She has backed off from the most destructive elements of the Justice Democrat platform (primarying mainstream democrats to install left wingers) and sure there is plenty of room for left wingers, some districts are famous for electing radical lefties on a regular basis.







Forcing primary battles are part of the Justice Democrat platform. Seats don't have to be lost to hurt the Democratic party. If you for resources to be spent fighting a war against the left as well as the right, then it is bad for Democrats.







No it's not just opinion, it is the Justice democrat platform.



I no longer object to AOC. She seems to be maturing quickly enough to be taken seriously. I don't agree with her on everything but I probably agree with her more than I agree with most Republicans.
Your hypothesis is that the Justice Democrats will hurt the party by diverting resources. But that's just a hypothesis. Maybe they'll find better fundraisers, like AOC, who blow away the dull Democrats they replace. Maybe the enthusiasm they inspire will result in better turnout. We don't know. But all you've offered is a hypothesis, and I don't buy it.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #178  
Old 04-06-2020, 10:47 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Your hypothesis is that the Justice Democrats will hurt the party by diverting resources. But that's just a hypothesis. Maybe they'll find better fundraisers, like AOC, who blow away the dull Democrats they replace.
Now who is hypothesizing? You dismiss the 90% event in favor of the 10% event.

Sure there might be another AOC waiting in the wings but any future AOC type would be cannibalizing AOC's fundraising if they had really good fundraising. Her fundraising is as much a result of Trump's repugnance as it is her appeal.

Quote:
Maybe the enthusiasm they inspire will result in better turnout. We don't know. But all you've offered is a hypothesis, and I don't buy it.
You don't have to buy it. Facts don't stop being facts because you choose not to believe them.

The Justice Democrats platform includes ousting mainstream Democrats in districts where a more progressive Democrat can be nominated with their help. That means that moderates have to rally around other mainstream Democrats to prevent the party from being hijacked by wingnuts.
  #179  
Old 04-06-2020, 11:05 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Now who is hypothesizing? You dismiss the 90% event in favor of the 10% event.
I make no prediction. I like AOC and her allies, and hope they continue to do well in the party. I hope the party becomes more like them. You disagree. But you've failed to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, and for some reason you're having trouble accepting that this is just a disagreement in our opinion of these politicians.

Quote:
You don't have to buy it. Facts don't stop being facts because you choose not to believe them.
You haven't offered a single fact that conflicts with my support for AOC and her allies.

Quote:
The Justice Democrats platform includes ousting mainstream Democrats in districts where a more progressive Democrat can be nominated with their help. That means that moderates have to rally around other mainstream Democrats to prevent the party from being hijacked by wingnuts.
The second sentence doesn't follow the first -- "wingnuts" is certainly not a factual assertion. That's your opinion, and you've failed to convince that it's anything more than just an opinion.
  #180  
Old 04-07-2020, 10:03 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I make no prediction. I like AOC and her allies, and hope they continue to do well in the party. I hope the party becomes more like them. You disagree. But you've failed to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, and for some reason you're having trouble accepting that this is just a disagreement in our opinion of these politicians.
We can disagree about politicians. We should not disagree about facts.

FACT: The Justice Democrats targetted a very progressive/liberal congressman only to replace him with an even MORE liberal congressman.

FACT The Justice Democrats intend to keep doing this, except now the Mainstream Democrats have to take them seriously and this will cause resources to be diverted to protect those seats from the socialist insurgents.

FACT: This will not lead to deep blue seats being turned red but the diversion of resources as the mainstream democrats fight a war on two fronts will hamper their ability to fund battles in swing districts.

If there is an actual bad politician somewhere then sure go ahead and primary him or her. We should be doing that already. But when you primary a good Democrat like Joe Crowley and then crow about it, that says something about you.

Quote:
You haven't offered a single fact that conflicts with my support for AOC and her allies.
I've been saying the above three things for a while now. You seem to think that facts are only opinions if those facts are inconvenient.

Quote:
The second sentence doesn't follow the first -- "wingnuts" is certainly not a factual assertion. That's your opinion, and you've failed to convince that it's anything more than just an opinion.
Yes it does if the mainstream Democrats don't want their party to be hijacked by wingnuts (wingnuts is my characterization, called them socialists if you like).
  #181  
Old 04-07-2020, 10:14 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
We can disagree about politicians. We should not disagree about facts.

FACT: The Justice Democrats targetted a very progressive/liberal congressman only to replace him with an even MORE liberal congressman.
That's not a fact. I don't agree that Crowley was "very progressive".

Quote:
FACT The Justice Democrats intend to keep doing this, except now the Mainstream Democrats have to take them seriously and this will cause resources to be diverted to protect those seats from the socialist insurgents.
You haven't presented any evidence that "resources" are being diverted, or will be diverted, or that fundraising will be worse, or whatever. This is a hypothesis.

Quote:
FACT: This will not lead to deep blue seats being turned red but the diversion of resources as the mainstream democrats fight a war on two fronts will hamper their ability to fund battles in swing districts.
This is another hypothesis and not factual in the least.

Hypotheses are not facts.

Quote:
If there is an actual bad politician somewhere then sure go ahead and primary him or her. We should be doing that already. But when you primary a good Democrat like Joe Crowley and then crow about it, that says something about you.
Yes -- it says I prefer really good Democrats like AOC to meh Democrats like Crowley. This is my opinion, and I understand yours is different. But your opinion is not fact, and your hypotheses and predictions are not facts.
  #182  
Old 04-07-2020, 11:40 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That's not a fact. I don't agree that Crowley was "very progressive".



You haven't presented any evidence that "resources" are being diverted, or will be diverted, or that fundraising will be worse, or whatever. This is a hypothesis.



This is another hypothesis and not factual in the least.

Hypotheses are not facts.



Yes -- it says I prefer really good Democrats like AOC to meh Democrats like Crowley. This is my opinion, and I understand yours is different. But your opinion is not fact, and your hypotheses and predictions are not facts.
iiandyii, have you ever had a debate in good faith that you didn't turn into "it depends on how you define is, is"?

BY all accounts he was a progressive liberal politician. He was replaced by an even MORE progressive liberal politician. Now whether one or the other is better IS an opinion, the above claim of Crowley being very/pretty/more than middle progressive can be objectively verified. So since Crowley wasn't "very" progressive in your eyes. Define very.


Or don't actually, I am not going down these same rabbit holes with you wanting to redefine terms to use as you see fit.
  #183  
Old 04-07-2020, 11:47 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
iiandyii, have you ever had a debate in good faith that you didn't turn into "it depends on how you define is, is"?

BY all accounts he was a progressive liberal politician. He was replaced by an even MORE progressive liberal politician. Now whether one or the other is better IS an opinion, the above claim of Crowley being very/pretty/more than middle progressive can be objectively verified. So since Crowley wasn't "very" progressive in your eyes. Define very.

Or don't actually, I am not going down these same rabbit holes with you wanting to redefine terms to use as you see fit.
That's such a minuscule part of this disagreement that I'm happy to concede it. That part really doesn't matter, unless anyone is arguing that young progressives MUST NOT EVER challenge progressive Democrats, even in very blue districts. If that's what someone's arguing, then that's an utterly ridiculous argument that I wholly reject. Primaries in blue districts are wonderful chances to see which Democrat can demonstrate the best skill and ability in getting progressives excited to vote for them.

I hold that AOC is very talented, and maybe extraordinary talented, and the party is hugely lucky that she's a an elected Democrat. Certainly far luckier to have her than some random milquetoast old white guy progressive with little or no ambitions beyond staying a House Rep for the rest of his life.

But if you just want to take shots at me, I recommend you start a Pit thread.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 04-07-2020 at 11:47 AM.
  #184  
Old 04-07-2020, 11:50 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Another couple of great reason for young progressives to challenge older progressives in blue districts:

1. Because politicians shouldn't get to sit on their hands and never be challenged. This is a way to separate the cream -- challenge Democrats, and if they can't rise to the challenge of beating an unfunded unknown, kick them to the curb.

2. Because all else being equal, having a young progressive in an office is better than an old progressive, since that young progressive has a lot more chance to rise further -- in other words, this maintains a stronger bench for the party.

Young progressives should absolutely be encouraged to run for office against older progressives in blue districts. There is no downside.

EDIT: I'll also note that I have no problem with a primary challenge against AOC. If the challenger is better than AOC, then she'll win. If she's not, she'll lose. We'll see, and either way we have the candidate who performed better.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 04-07-2020 at 11:51 AM.
  #185  
Old 04-08-2020, 08:11 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That's such a minuscule part of this disagreement that I'm happy to concede it. That part really doesn't matter, unless anyone is arguing that young progressives MUST NOT EVER challenge progressive Democrats, even in very blue districts. If that's what someone's arguing, then that's an utterly ridiculous argument that I wholly reject. Primaries in blue districts are wonderful chances to see which Democrat can demonstrate the best skill and ability in getting progressives excited to vote for them.

I hold that AOC is very talented, and maybe extraordinary talented, and the party is hugely lucky that she's a an elected Democrat. Certainly far luckier to have her than some random milquetoast old white guy progressive with little or no ambitions beyond staying a House Rep for the rest of his life.

But if you just want to take shots at me, I recommend you start a Pit thread.
I don't have a problem one with selecting the cream of the crop, but primarying an encumbent from your own party costs resources you wouldn't otherwise spend (which you said was an opinion and disagreed with)

THAT was my statement of fact.
  #186  
Old 04-08-2020, 08:15 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I don't have a problem one with selecting the cream of the crop, but primarying an encumbent from your own party costs resources you wouldn't otherwise spend (which you said was an opinion and disagreed with)

THAT was my statement of fact.
The opinion is that it necessarily costs more resources than it might lead to being created. A talented primary candidate might raise MORE money than the incumbent would have been able to. It's a fact that some resources are likely to be expended, but it's an opinion that this necessarily takes something away from the party's efforts -- it might lead to MORE resources for the party.

Thus any disagreement is still about opinion, not fact.
  #187  
Old 04-08-2020, 11:01 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That's not a fact. I don't agree that Crowley was "very progressive".



You haven't presented any evidence that "resources" are being diverted, or will be diverted, or that fundraising will be worse, or whatever. This is a hypothesis.



This is another hypothesis and not factual in the least.

Hypotheses are not facts.
Wait. So you think it's just a theory of mine that defending a safe incumbent from a primary challenger will take resources? That doesn't seem like a reasonable statement.

This may have been the case in the past when incumbents could simply ignore these sort of primary challengers but now have to start taking the challenge seriously because of the lessons we learned from AOC's election.

Quote:
Yes -- it says I prefer really good Democrats like AOC to meh Democrats like Crowley. This is my opinion, and I understand yours is different. But your opinion is not fact, and your hypotheses and predictions are not facts.
It's not some wild ass guess that forcing an incumbent in a safe seat is going to expend resources. Calling it a hypothesis implies that this has never really been tested before. It's not like noone has ever tried to primary someone before, we know it consumes resources. Resources that could be used elsewhere.
  #188  
Old 04-08-2020, 11:03 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That's such a minuscule part of this disagreement that I'm happy to concede it. That part really doesn't matter, unless anyone is arguing that young progressives MUST NOT EVER challenge progressive Democrats, even in very blue districts. If that's what someone's arguing, then that's an utterly ridiculous argument that I wholly reject. Primaries in blue districts are wonderful chances to see which Democrat can demonstrate the best skill and ability in getting progressives excited to vote for them.
It's not never but there are very few circumstances where I think primarying an incumbent in a safe seat is a good idea:

Where large portions of the party want the incumbent to resign for some reason or another.

Where the views of the incumbent has grown sufficiently apart from the views of the constituency that they no longer approximate one another.

This holds true whether it is a socialist democrat trying to primary a liberal or it is a moderate democrat trying to primary a liberal. It does NOTHING to see which fringe politicians has the best chops because their appeal does not extend much beyond a few districts. For every far left vote you gain with these socialists

Quote:
I hold that AOC is very talented, and maybe extraordinary talented, and the party is hugely lucky that she's a an elected Democrat. Certainly far luckier to have her than some random milquetoast old white guy progressive with little or no ambitions beyond staying a House Rep for the rest of his life.

But if you just want to take shots at me, I recommend you start a Pit thread.
So far all she has accomplished is mostly to draw ridicule and ire. But you may be right and she may be able to accomplish something meaningful if she can stop throwing grenades at her teammates.

She's there now and she has backed away from some of her more destructive positions so I don't think she needs to be removed. Lets give her a chance and see if she is able to fulfill the potential you see in her.
  #189  
Old 04-08-2020, 11:20 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Wait. So you think it's just a theory of mine that defending a safe incumbent from a primary challenger will take resources? That doesn't seem like a reasonable statement.

This may have been the case in the past when incumbents could simply ignore these sort of primary challengers but now have to start taking the challenge seriously because of the lessons we learned from AOC's election.
Maybe it will cost resources in the immediate sense, but it's not factual that it will necessarily cost the party resources overall -- the new candidate may be a better fundraiser, or get more energetic support, or whatever. So it's an opinion that this necessarily costs the party resources, taking everything into account. Sometimes it might, but sometimes it might result in more resources (like in AOC's case -- she's a far better fundraiser than Crowley).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
It's not never but there are very few circumstances where I think primarying an incumbent in a safe seat is a good idea:

Where large portions of the party want the incumbent to resign for some reason or another.

Where the views of the incumbent has grown sufficiently apart from the views of the constituency that they no longer approximate one another.

This holds true whether it is a socialist democrat trying to primary a liberal or it is a moderate democrat trying to primary a liberal. It does NOTHING to see which fringe politicians has the best chops because their appeal does not extend much beyond a few districts. For every far left vote you gain with these socialists
I strongly disagree. I think primaries in safe districts are a great thing and should happen pretty much every time -- let's see who the most talented and skilled candidate is. I want to build a strong bench for the party -- more Obamas and AOCs, and fewer go-nowheres like Crowley.

Quote:
So far all she has accomplished is mostly to draw ridicule and ire.
And raise tons of money and excitement, both of which matter, now and in the future.
  #190  
Old 04-09-2020, 04:13 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Maybe it will cost resources in the immediate sense, but it's not factual that it will necessarily cost the party resources overall -- the new candidate may be a better fundraiser, or get more energetic support, or whatever. So it's an opinion that this necessarily costs the party resources, taking everything into account. Sometimes it might, but sometimes it might result in more resources (like in AOC's case -- she's a far better fundraiser than Crowley).
A new candidate may also be a worse fundraiser or get less energetic support, or whatever. It's really stretching to say that having primary battles MIGHT leave the party stronger because the winner MIGHT be a better fundraiser than the old one. But we know primary battles cost money.

Quote:
I strongly disagree. I think primaries in safe districts are a great thing and should happen pretty much every time -- let's see who the most talented and skilled candidate is. I want to build a strong bench for the party -- more Obamas and AOCs, and fewer go-nowheres like Crowley.
So you think we would be better off if congressmen with 2 year terms more time and money defending their seats?

Well, I suppose in the case of AOC, I guess it may force her to either conform to the views of her constituency (which looks different from her donor base) or to lose her seat.

Quote:
And raise tons of money and excitement, both of which matter, now and in the future.
And she decided not to pay dues to the DCCC.

I hope she doesn't expect any support from the team if she is not a team player.

She has created both positive and negative attention. I think the jury is still out on whether AOC is good for the party or not. I think it is likely that she will be good for the party based on her recent drift towards solidarity with the rest of the party.
  #191  
Old 04-09-2020, 05:07 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
every instance of awfulness in the Republican party is representative?
Maybe not, but every Representative in the Republican party is an instance of awfulness.
  #192  
Old 04-09-2020, 05:16 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The opinion is that it necessarily costs more resources than it might lead to being created. A talented primary candidate might raise MORE money than the incumbent would have been able to. It's a fact that some resources are likely to be expended, but it's an opinion that this necessarily takes something away from the party's efforts -- it might lead to MORE resources for the party.

Thus any disagreement is still about opinion, not fact.
And lowering taxes might raise revenue by inspiring economic growth.
  #193  
Old 04-09-2020, 05:43 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
So you think we would be better off if congressmen with 2 year terms more time and money defending their seats?
In safe districts? Absolutely. Why not? They need the exercise. Sitting comfortably with no challenge doesn't help the party. I want to build a bench of young, ambitious, and talented Democrats, not old, comfortable, lazy ones.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017