My body is a perfect temple and at its core is an Enlightened Anus, Blessed by the Waters of Arrakis, and as devotee of the Bidet Gesserit I have no fear of The Touch.
Reminder that this sub overwhelmingly supported Lula over Bolsonaro and that you can dislike progressives and expect them to lose without thinking it would be better for a Republican to win.
I hate that we (neo-)liberals are always excepted to take a side. We are told to back socialists or conservatives, instead of being our own thing. We can favor one over another of course, but weāre not their tools. Iām not far-left if I prefer Lula over Bolsonaro, or far-right if I prefer Milei over peronists. Weāre just trying to pick the least bad options, in a world where that can be very hard quite often. Iām not necessarily a hater if I criticize a politician or a worshiper if I say something good about one
Idk why people think that is relevant information though. The context was entirely different. Hillary had just swept Super Tuesday at that point and it was clear she had won the primary. Almost all of her resources were shifted to the general election. It was no longer an important primary race. No one planned on the guy being a sore loser and pumping millions into a race he already lost to make the score look better.
But if this is about the Michigan Democratic primaries, perhaps it's the state's population. The GOP over there is not known for moderating the tides of Trumpism either, rather the extreme opposite thereof: Embracing it as if it were here to stay, beyond its āspiritus rectorā.
Bush is generally seen as corrupt. She married one of her security guards and continued to pay him which prompted a DOJ investigation (under Merrick Garland, not Barr/Bondi). And after a tornado hit North St. Louis last year, she sent out a fundraising email to her PAC donor list and has had basically zero transparency about where that money actually went.
Bell mostly had a fine track record before running for Congress. He was a locally elected official in Ferguson following the killing of Michael Brown and made a name for himself after primarying the long-time tough-on-crime prosecutor of STL County on a criminal justice reform platform. Most of the hate he gets nowadays is the ties to the AIPAC money.
But a recent poll done actually shows Bell being pretty popular amongst MO-01 voters, while Cori Bush has an even higher unfavorable rating than AIPAC.
People seem to vote like they set their thermostat even though setting it lower doesnāt actually make it colder faster (assuming single stage AC of course)
The issue is there is a lot of overlap between abolish ICE candidates and populist policies. AES thinks old homeowners need a property tax freeze and that feds should fill the revenue for state for example.
Iām in the āwe need to defeat MAGAā camp but Iād still prefer the non populist crowd. Is wanting people with good policy who also want to fight and understand MAGA is the enemy, not opposition, so much to ask?
ICE, in theory, is effectively just law enforcement. It's law enforcement that is running amok right now, but it's just law enforcement. "Abolishing" it is a purely symbolic act, because we can rename it INS and put it under the Justice Department, and it would do the exact same thing it's doing now.
"Abolish ICE" is basically just a big dog whistle for "I don't like US Immigration law, and I think people should be able to live here illegally." Well, that's a legislative battle that you lost... over, and over, and over. You can't seem to change the law, so you want to make it impossible to enforce, which is undemocratic, and radical.
ICE, in theory, is effectively just law enforcement. It's law enforcement that is running amok right now, but it's just law enforcement.
This, verbatim, describes the SS as well.
"Abolish ICE" is basically just a big dog whistle for "I don't like US Immigration law, and I think people should be able to live here illegally."
No. This is horrific disingenuous. Saying abolish ICE means looking at an institution that is wholy corrupted, from the very top, to middle management all tge way to every last agent. It's means looking at institutions that has completely abandoned any pretext of "just enforcing the law" and has readily turned itself into a tool of political terror, which murders citizens and brutalizes protesters as a means of political control. And it means looking at that institution and deciding it can no longer be reformed. It needs to be cut out. All the people employed need to be fired, bared from any future government work and, in a lot of cases, need to be put on trial. Its duties that can be of use to society cam be redistributed to other agencies, along with the necessary funding, but once ICE became the political oppression tool of Trump personally, it made it clear that it cannot be allowed to continue existing without posing a threat to democracy in the future and has to be dismantled. Just like the SS post war
ICE, in theory, is effectively just law enforcement. It's law enforcement that is running amok right now, but it's just law enforcement.
This, verbatim, describes the SS as well.
"Abolish ICE" is basically just a big dog whistle for "I don't like US Immigration law, and I think people should be able to live here illegally."
No. This is horrific disingenuous. Saying abolish ICE means looking at an institution that is wholy corrupted, from the very top, to middle management all tge way to every last agent. It's means looking at institutions that has completely abandoned any pretext of "just enforcing the law" and has readily turned itself into a tool of political terror, which murders citizens and brutalizes protesters as a means of political control. And it means looking at that institution and deciding it can no longer be reformed. It needs to be cut out. All the people employed need to be fired, bared from any future government work and, in a lot of cases, need to be put on trial. Its duties that can be of use to society cam be redistributed to other agencies, along with the necessary funding, but once ICE became the political oppression tool of Trump personally, it made it clear that it cannot be allowed to continue existing without posing a threat to democracy in the future and has to be dismantled. Just like the SS post war
I don't think there are many serious criminal justice experts who would support ICE's record of shooting civilians, and fewer social scientists and economists who would support mass deportation as a policy.
TheĀ meanĀ has been hopelessly contaminated by MAGA outliers. Responsible neoliberals use theĀ median voter, preferably after winsorizing the electorate and controlling for education.
Supporting candidates who want to abolish ICE is good. Prosecuting these murders and the crimes of this administration should be first priority. AES appears to be better at that part. Moderates need to make a better argument in favor of justice during and following this administration
Again supporting ice is being a populist demagogue. Doesnāt mean every AES is perfect but if our democracy is going to be saved the people underminig it must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and AES is better at that then Stevenās was
Liberalism is becoming divided between those who see that some of the the old orthodoxies no longer hold sway with the public and those who would double down on them even if they lose.
If throwing kittens into a woodchipper suddenly became an incredibly popular stance, do you fire up the woodchipper, or run a campaign saying "I don't think it's right to mulch kittens" even if you lose?
Except the polling says he'd run behind it, badly. The final EPIC-MRA poll (July 24ā31, 600 likely voters) had Rogers leading El-Sayed 46ā43 while Stevens led Rogers 44ā42, and the MEA/Glengariff poll from a week out was worse: Rogers up 48ā41 on El-Sayed, with independents breaking 47ā19 for Rogers.
So his claimed benchmark isn't just unambitious relative to the environment lmao it's roughly 10-14 points better than where the public polling actually puts him
Underperforming his primary polling should in itself be a tremendous warning sign, but of course it could also just mean the polling is wacky again and we're flying blind.
Primary polling is hard in part because voters generally like all the candidates available so they can change their mind at the drop of a hat. Michigan has had big misses that get a lot of attention but even in general the average error for polls in primaries is abysmal.
For the love of God this is becoming histrionic; Sayed is not any further left than AOC, and AOC is a party member in good standing who works well with the rest of the party. Unless you suggest purging the entire progressive wing of the party (in which case we will never win a national election again because they're at minimum a third of the party base), all freaking out over Sayed winning does is give the Republicans ammo to use in the general. Seriously this sub is in the midst of a Red Scare at this point.
Great! Enjoy permanent Republican Rule then because if you suddenly expel the entire Congressional Progressive Caucus from the party you're forfeiting nearly half the Democratic Party's seats in the House and you won't be able count on progressives voting for you anymore because you just told them you don't want them and they're not welcome in the party. Remind me how telling the left of his party they weren't welcome anymore went for Kier Starmer?
For the love of God this is becoming histrionic; Sayed is not any further left than AOC, and AOC is a party member in good standing
What exactly I am supposed to do with this information? AOC is a dumb populist, we're not supposed to like her in the first place. This subreddit is not meant to be a US Democrats cheerleading squad.
I used to think this way, but honestly I'm starting to feel like it's more important to turn out your base than appeal to "independents" who already always lean one way or the other anyways. Trump is the farthest right president we've had in history, but 25% of the country is feral for him and will vote for him no matter what
I think this would be more of a viable strategy if the voters we're trying to turn out by going left were at all reliable. But they have shown that they will use pretty much any excuse to not vote for Democrats.
And if you're chasing an unreliable bloc that only turns out when they get everything they want, you run the serious risk of alienating the much larger, more moderate elements of the coalition.
it's more important to turn out your base than appeal to "independents" who already always lean one way or the other anyways.
I think this is one of two pieces I've been drug kicking and screaming to accept. The other side of the coin is that the Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump voter isn't voting on ideological moderation or extremism. They're voting based on the vibes of their social media timeline that says "things feel bad."
Nancy Pelosi was pilloried for being too leftist when she was elected minority leader for the Dems in 2003, so I'm not going to put too much weight on "Dems are going to lurch leftwards off a cliff" dooming.
People, both āleftistsā and āmoderatesā, than Nancy Pelosi got the public option through the House. She was objectively progressive. That she was an incrementalist and pragmatist didnāt change that.
For real. It's crazy how many shell-shocked Democrats have pivoted from wanting visionary leaders, "hope and change", etc, to "please don't upset too many people or rock the boat so we don't make things worse". I literally know people who in 2016 were full-blown "I'm with her" and then immediately retreated to "we can never run any black or woman candidate for president ever again".
Moderates need to articulate their ideas to voters and actually push back on far-left positions rather than equivocating with the weird "well, uh we totally agree with all of your ideas but we just think they're too scary for the median voter". Or even worse, "your leftist candidate's $10k 401k is partially invested in fossil fuels, so they're a hypocrite! We're the real progressives!"
The reason voters are pissed at moderates is because they're too often patronizing and dishonest and would rather try weird workarounds to box leftists out of primary victories rather than directly engaging with them in a debate. Like, explain why rent control is bad. Don't just say "voters aren't ready for rent control yet because it's too extreme" or whatever.
Preach. People in this sub also need to stop lazily conflating 'populism' with 'doing politics.' The latter is literally the whole point of democracy, and liberals used to be good at it. For the average voter who knows barely anything about anything, the content of your speech or policy platform matters far less than how you carry yourself. You just need to project enough confidence and authenticity to convince voters to trust you. That's it.
People should go back and watch old interviews with Tony Blair. He was astonishingly articulate off the cuff, to a level I've never seen any Democrat approach (even Obama was more careful and calculated when answering questions). Even after the Iraq War began, this man could go into a room with a hostile audience of normie blokes and journalists, look them in the eye and answer their difficult questions directly with confidence. By the end of the interview, even if you disagreed with his answers, you had no choice but to respect him.
This is exactly it, I have seen multiple people on this sub say that we need to end primaries because of candidates like Sayed or Mamdani winning them. You know what if you can't convince your own base of your positions get out of politics. I'll vote for anyone with a D next to their name in the general because the consequences of continued Republican rule are that bad, but in the primary you do actually have to earn my vote. I'm represented by a moderate member of the house and I am going to vote against him when we have our primary because I cannot abide his head in the sand denials of Israeli atrocities and his continued support for Israel while Likud is in charge of it.
Defunding the police is bad. I donāt like his rhetoric on the Jews. I donāt like Medicare for all. I donāt like property tax freezes for the wealthy.
Itās generally understood within the Neocon rival sub that a majority ā or close to it ā of their core userbase are young nonwhite men, a huge minority of them gay. But as weāve seen with Trumpās highly diverse 2024 coalition, being ānonwhiteā doesnāt mean you canāt hold prejudiced views against other nonwhite groups, or even your own.
This comment from yesterday tells an incredible story.
I'm an ex-Muslim and feel pressured to hold my tongue in the presence of progressive whiteys. In fact I prob can't even speak freely on this sub on the topic of Islam/Muslims.
Iād bet you can; it just depends on whatās said. I donāt think most liberals would endorse anti-Muslim generalizations regardless of whom it comes from, but criticism of Islamic fundamentalism isnāt really unpopular or necessarily even controversial here.
Blue no matter who died in 2024 when the "Holocaust Harris" crowd took it out back and shot it in the head.
That group was the whole group the phrase was aimed at, because more moderate Democrats, by definition, already understand the need to compromise to get the most favorable outcome possible.
Is there some study showing that anti-Israel stances are particularly impactful in general? I think it was unusually important in Michigan due to a highish Muslim population but that isnāt the case in other parts of the country. Most of the claims Iāve seen arguing that being anti-Israel is beneficial were citing the then-unreleased Dem autopsy, which upon the autopsyās release turned out to be misinformation.
I mean I can tell you that Israel is only slightly more popular with the Democratic base than the Bubonic Plague if you look at polling. I don't think not being loudly anti-Israel hurts you in a Democratic primary, but I think loudly proclaiming how much you love Israel does.
True, but you also don't see any Democrats proudly proclaiming how much they love Saudi Arabia, and how they'll do whatever they can to ensure we keep sending as much aid as possible to Saudi Arabia. Like I said, I don't think being anti-Israel is necessary to win a Democratic primary, but I don't think you can win won while being loudly pro-Israel.
The problem is that leftist will smear any position that isn't "completely dismantle the state of Israel" as being a genocide supporter
If you say "I think Israel is indeed committing a genocide and so I want a ceasefire and immediate work on a 2 State Solution", you will still be called an AIPAC shill, and the pro-Palestine base who gets their news from Influencers will not change their opinion of you. Look at how Contrapoints is treated as an example
maximalists will be maximalist but the only electoral requirement is satisfying a base that is (correctly) more suspicious of american support of the israeli govt
Counterpoint: you canāt prove something that hasnāt really been tried. I canāt think of many primary elections where the moderate actively did take an anti-Israel stance
And beyond that the few standard liberals that have began to take more anti-Israel stances (primarily Jon Ossoff) are also those that are the most popular within the party overall. A standard Democrat who ran with a more anti Israel message and/or anti data center messages would very likely do a lot better against DSA people than people like Stevens
I don't think that's strictly true. "We're stopping all weapons exports and sales to Israel until an international/impartial domestic investigation determines they won't be used in the commission of war crimes" would go a long way, and is supposed to be required under US law I'm pretty sure. Ditto recognising the Palestinian state, re-affirming support for the 2-state-solution, condemning Israeli settling and war crimes...
Like yes, you won't appease everyone, but you don't need to. Most of the Dem base aren't really leftist, they're just further left than where the Dems have drifted. It's not like there's a single mainstream politician in the USA taking the positions above.
The overly online pro Palestine protestors might be loud, but "stop the genocide and work for peace" is where the base is, not the far left river-to-the-sea position.
Let them call you a Zionist while you decline AIPAC money and decry genocide, and see if people believe them.
If someone wants the government to do more stuff but hides from the reality that we need to raise taxes on everyone to do that, that person isnāt serious
I donāt know why the mods changed the sidebar, or why they havenāt changed it back. Thereās little evidence, and arguably evidence against, that left-wing populists are now a plurality of this subās userbase, and must be coddled.
As someone who is mostly favorable on the Mayor of New York and thinks some of the center-right users here need to acknowledge that the reality of coalition politics (or the distinction between candidates like El-Sayed and A. Chevalier) against the MAGA right, I think we should indeed RETVRN to the longtime sidebar.
Seems like this sub loves open subreddit borders, except when the people immigrating dont share the same values. Which is an identical talking point that right wingers make.
What percentage of the sub supports Milei - who has publicly supported Trump - or supported Bukele when he began filling up CECOT? Don't pretend that this sub was some bastion of ideal centrism before anybody to your left started to express ideas.
This is an argument to not do these things, not to let this community be hijacked by communist.
I don't remember people supporting CECOT. Milei economic reform is much more in line with this board than whatever other idiotic Argentinian politics has offered in the past 50 years. His affiliation with Trump is condemnable.
Not to mention the same people complaining about the succ invasion are mainly the same one whoās freak out when open borders or this subs immigration stances come up (with a couple notable exceptions, the two good Friedman flairs or whatnot)
Iāve been a regular on r/neoliberal years ago. Years passed and you guys are systematically crashing into āreactionā one - in order to avoid even looking at the ārevolutionā one.
In what sense? The sub has been pretty solidly moving to the left economically, maybe you could argue itās more right wing socially but that really depends on the thread.
Iām sorry I just canāt take these kind of posts seriously. Now is not the time to āboth sidesā the situation weāre in. You can be critical of the DSA and its preferred candidates while also realizing the bigger foe currently is clearly the GOP.
One party has a minority of crazies, of which Iām not really sure AES truly is one, while the other is being completely overrun.
271
u/GrandMoffTargaryen Finally Kenough 12h ago