Even this analysis doesn’t capture the real problem.
Asserting that the DNC “fails to learn” implies that they have some goal they’re not meeting.
They don’t.
Their goal is to rake in as much corporate soft money as possible, and by that standard, this past election was a resounding success. And nothing else, including winning elections, matters to them.
So they’re not really “failing” at anything. In fact they’re succeeding nicely. It’s just that they’re succeeding at being corrupt, self-serving and deceitful.
Sure. Like anyone at all believes AOC or Bernie is going to flip to R.
After I replied to you I read the rest of the discussion and saw how absolutely willing you are to be a jerk about it, and how absolutely unwilling you were to consider any other point of view, so you actually needn’t have replied, and had I seen that first I would not have commented.
After I replied to you I read the rest of the discussion and saw how absolutely willing you are to be a jerk about it, and how absolutely unwilling you were to consider any other point of view
How was I being a jerk? By not repeating the echos in this echo chamber?
What point was I not willing to consider and how did you prove I didn’t consider it? Or did you not prove what I considered, and made up that lie because I’m not repeating echos in an echo chamber?
If you’re only willing to comment to people that will circle jerk with you then you should assess your bias.
Multiple progressives lost their primaries recently and blame AIPAC funding. Criticizing democrats for catering to donors. While losing to democrats because they catered to donors.
All while claiming they can win elections better than democrats.
Progressives will continue to lose until they give up their morals and descend into the muck of incompetence and greed like us fine fellows, and take the big money dick that is being offered. You’d be stupid to try any other way of winning.
You’re putting words in my mouth in order to change the subject to one you’re more comfortable with. In this case, the subject you’re more comfortable with is gloating that AIPAC bought you some pro-genocide primary challengers.
control of corporate donors and the media makes the DNC extremely strong
You seem to be a bad listener, because you got it backwards. The DNC doesn’t have control over corporate donors and the media, corporate donors and the media have control over the DNC. They’re not actually weak, their supposed incompetence is a choice. They’re not actually incapable of winning elections and passing good policy that helps the people, they’re unwilling. The interests of the Democratic leadership and the interests of the people are misaligned, and they only appear weak because they misrepresent their values and goals.
The only answer is mass movements. If you can’t beat them with money you have to beat them with numbers. We have to continue the slow process of building dual power from the bottom up by engaging in mutual aid and taking into our own hands what the Democrats refuse to.
Money is power in this country, but at its core it’s only an abstraction of labor power. Unions can win elections and even run their own social programs if only more people choose to fight. Existing unions need to radicalize and more radical unions need to form.
Even this analysis doesn’t capture the real problem.
Asserting that the DNC “fails to learn” implies that they have some goal they’re not meeting.
They don’t.
Their goal is to rake in as much corporate soft money as possible, and by that standard, this past election was a resounding success. And nothing else, including winning elections, matters to them.
So they’re not really “failing” at anything. In fact they’re succeeding nicely. It’s just that they’re succeeding at being corrupt, self-serving and deceitful.
If progressives know how to win elections better than the DNC then why don’t they just win enough elections to control the DNC?
Partly because of constant sabotage from within their own party.
https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
https://newrepublic.com/article/189500/pelosi-aoc-oversight-committee-democrats
Fetterman ran as progressive and ended up being republican after getting elected.
Sinema ran as progressive and ended up being republican after getting elected.
What you’re referring to isn’t sabotage, it’s democrats trying to vet candidates because progressives don’t.
Sure. Like anyone at all believes AOC or Bernie is going to flip to R.
After I replied to you I read the rest of the discussion and saw how absolutely willing you are to be a jerk about it, and how absolutely unwilling you were to consider any other point of view, so you actually needn’t have replied, and had I seen that first I would not have commented.
How was I being a jerk? By not repeating the echos in this echo chamber?
What point was I not willing to consider and how did you prove I didn’t consider it? Or did you not prove what I considered, and made up that lie because I’m not repeating echos in an echo chamber?
If you’re only willing to comment to people that will circle jerk with you then you should assess your bias.
This implies a fair primary process.
How did any progressives get elected if our primaries are unfair?
How do progressives win against the GOP when they don’t play fair?
They got elected despite the party’s interference.
The GOP doesn’t control national elections like the DNC/DCCC/DSCC controls primaries.
Multiple progressives lost their primaries recently and blame AIPAC funding. Criticizing democrats for catering to donors. While losing to democrats because they catered to donors.
All while claiming they can win elections better than democrats.
The GOP will also be catering to donors.
Yes, money is power and power is politics. What is your point exactly?
Progressives will continue to lose for this reason.
Clearly the solution is just to sell out as hard as possible since there’s no other way to win.
Progressives will continue to lose until they give up their morals and descend into the muck of incompetence and greed like us fine fellows, and take the big money dick that is being offered. You’d be stupid to try any other way of winning.
I am very smart.
I was talking about the way the party runs (or eschews) its primaries. You pivoted to international donors.
I’m talking about winning and losing primaries. You’re cherry picking examples.
This is what you initially responded to:
You’re putting words in my mouth in order to change the subject to one you’re more comfortable with. In this case, the subject you’re more comfortable with is gloating that AIPAC bought you some pro-genocide primary challengers.
According to leftists, control of corporate donors and the media makes the DNC extremely strong. But simultaneously, the DNC is extremely weak.
You seem to be a bad listener, because you got it backwards. The DNC doesn’t have control over corporate donors and the media, corporate donors and the media have control over the DNC. They’re not actually weak, their supposed incompetence is a choice. They’re not actually incapable of winning elections and passing good policy that helps the people, they’re unwilling. The interests of the Democratic leadership and the interests of the people are misaligned, and they only appear weak because they misrepresent their values and goals.
Ok, so if leftists can’t win a primary because they have no support from donors and media, then how are they supposed to win a general election?
The only answer is mass movements. If you can’t beat them with money you have to beat them with numbers. We have to continue the slow process of building dual power from the bottom up by engaging in mutual aid and taking into our own hands what the Democrats refuse to.
Money is power in this country, but at its core it’s only an abstraction of labor power. Unions can win elections and even run their own social programs if only more people choose to fight. Existing unions need to radicalize and more radical unions need to form.
If mass movements can win a general election then they can win a primary.
Conversely, if leftists aren’t yet winning primaries with mass movements, then they can’t yet win general elections.
What makes you think that I’d be interested in defending a claim I didn’t make?
What makes you think I wanted to know if you’re interested in defending a claim?