Keeping focused is not the same as posturing, this requires a show of strength not weakness. Anger gets shit done, however, wielded incorrectly it becomes a weakness rather than a strength.
There's a huge difference between that and being politically suicidal. Not all Justice Dems can weather that storm, and this is a time for building not tanking attacks from the establishment which will destroy their organisation. Trying to warn you is being an ally who doesn't want you to lose needlessly. Politics is more than about making martyrs, this isn't an actual war, it's politics. You need more victories like Cabán, not crippling attacks from leadership.
It was a substantive post until this bit.
It's a fact that the reason the field was empty that year was due to Hillary's clearing the primaries. The only rival competing against her with the slightest competition was Bernie. Chafee, Lessig, O'Malley, and Webb sure weren't a threat to her, or Bernie. '16 was not a tough, crowded field like in '20 is.
It can, true. You'd be surprised by how many think it is, however, you're obviously not in that group. It's pointing out three weaknesses the JD's have against the establishment. They're the underdog in this fight for the party's soul.
Those questions are all important factors in the future of both the JD's and how they want to save the country. If they don't consider these a priority why are they running for? They need all of this solved to get their agenda through congress. Why wouldn't this not be a big problem for the Justice Democrats to solve? It's not a positive sign.
Before Bernie the left was a shell of itself. After '16 the people from his campaigns split off and made numerous political organisations which are relevant today, like the Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress. He's the Left's leader in all but name, the only person who nears him in popularity and influence on the left is AOC. It's a fact because he's 77 years old and the movement is nowhere near ready to take over the Dems yet, the movement hast proven it can do this any time soon. It being a complex subject is not a sign that what I said was untrue.
Fair enough. It's about how they're doing it, not the goal. The Justice Dems have, to date, lost the majority of their races and only got 7 member elected. They've had a terrible time
That paragraph was about the common ground I held with this election and the left. The point was that those tactics were vintage political moves, showing not everything the establishment does is bad to win elections. She wasn't going out of her way to piss every non leftists there, which many on the left view as the only tactic worth doing to win. They're not known for that type of politicking, they're known for fiery rebels who will fight to the death - not compromising behind the scenes. They built their reputation on the former.
I'm more malleable about my political opinions than many here, actually. That was not my intention. Not every poster here wants a conversation like that, sadly, but I'm open to doing that when given the opportunity. I haven't had a thorough argument like this in months. Honestly, it's refreshing to engage like this for once. Here's where we differ, just because someone has good intentions is not always a sign they know what they're talking about or to be given the benefit of a doubt. I've got burnt by that too many times here to take that on face value alone. The problem with letting your guard down in a forum like this is that posters will walk all over you in an argument. Facts, history, objectivity, count for nothing here when you don't stand up for yourself. Again, been burnt too often in the past by this. And I don't know you very well too boot.
I'm always open for discussion, all you need to do is ask.
I'll try to work on that, those are things I try to put in my arguments. Because in OT that's not how it works a lot of the time, it's the wild west and there are many bad actors who will use underhanded tactics to "win" an argument. Common ground, critical thinking and constructive criticism are more often than not likely to get many posters angry with you than a genuine conversation.
Thank you for your insightful response.
This is all true, but it doesn't invalidate my post.
The problem is who's going to take over when they're out of the running? The Left is not a movement with multiple heads of equal popularity or influence the last few years. They do that because they fail to realise it's not that simple under the surface of US politics. While they are weak, that's true, it's not solely because they choose to be - much of that is due to how the system is structured and they need make deals with devil's to survive and thrive - or they become politically irrelevant.
Nope, that's not the whole story why the establishment have conflicts with the left. You're coming at this as though the left has only bene kind and generous in their encounters with the establishment when that's not true. They have many great goals to achieve and that the establishment needs to fix within itself - too often this is greeted with distain, anger, edginess and spite. Many of this down to the fact that the status quo/establishment exists as though the very concept of this must be obliterated on principle alone. And doing everything up to 11. Some JD's are worse than others, but naturally this is going to piss the leadership off and they will launch reprisals when pushed too far and the JDs pushed them too far too early. They came to kick ass and take names and they woke the dragon, despite everyone warning them not to do that and when it arrived rather than realise hey, those establishment nerds might be onto something and thanks fo the heads up it's met with anger and confusion that the obvious happened and the evil establishment had it out for them all along. *glances at Cenk Uygur* You don't try to burn the house down then act like the universe won't fight back. That's not only political suicidal, it's delusional.
Then there's the bureaucracy side, the reason the JD's aren't getting away with everything is because they have 7 members and less influence there than in twitter, despite being on Pelosi's good side. They don't control the party, and they aren't equal to the GOP in political might in congress + POTUS. The establishment does make compromises with the JD, except as explained earlier they don't have the leverage in either congress or the party itself. The Progressives in congress aren't all on Team Bernie, it's split over multiple groups. This is why Sharice Davids is in the New Democratic Coalition rather than the Justice Democrats. The Democrats are a top down organisation they don't lead, there is no other way this would go.
Neither do I, but that's not something the JD's can control. You need to make peace with it and figure out how to work with them until they are replaced by people you like.
