On the one hand, I’m glad this guy said it and I hope that more reps back his attestation. This kind of courage is a good thing and we should celebrate it.
On the other, you now have proof that the “defense” of Jeffries by progressives is actually the result of political strong arming. Sure, you could call their capitulation cowardice, but in American politics, politicians are judged by their individual effectiveness, in spite of the fact that legislation is collaborative. So, if you don’t play ball with the most powerful coalitions, you’ll look like you’re not getting anything done without the public necessarily knowing why, which would probably end in you losing your next election. You can attempt to pushback at that point, but YMMV based on lots of factors. For example, AOC, as a woman, gets less credulity when it comes to being unable to navigate political minefields. So her coming forward about the fucked up nature of the establishment gets less waves than her male counterparts (example, she just came forward about the sustained harassment she experienced in the house as freshman, but she is still being used as a kicking post here)
So I think it’s more important to put the spotlight on the fucked up internal politics and harassment strategies of the DNC establishment and less on the targets of said harassment and how they’ve managed their careers around it.
So, if you don’t play ball with the most powerful coalitions, you’ll look like you’re not getting anything done without the public necessarily knowing why, which would probably end in you losing your next election.
Yes that’s why people always say that entryism into the Democratic party won’t work because in the end you either support their corporate Zionist leadership or you get booted out.
But if people actually wanted to change the Democratic party and replace the leadership they would do EXACTLY what this non-DSA member just did. Because they’re not supposed to want to play nice with the other Democrats but instead show that they are corrupt so other people will vote them out and vote in people who actually want change.
But if people actually wanted to change the Democratic party and replace the leadership they would do EXACTLY what this non-DSA member just did
Yeah, and this is where we disagree. DSA progressives do actually want to change the democratic party, but their overall strategy is to endorse national players who have the appearance of “getting shit done”. Mostly because they’re trying to promote an incredibly propagandized against form of governance for the US. A strategy that is clearly working with Mamdani as its current poster child.
And we can be honest. If DSA members had made a huge stink about intraparty politics before now, the average voter wasn’t going to see it or care all that much. The average voter assumes politicians to be corrupt, so trying to paint them as such doesn’t really do much, especially if they’re viewed as “getting things done” (see, Trump)
I do think it is time for the DSA and Progressive caucuses to rock the boat, but that’s because their coalition is clearly more electable than their “centrist” counterparts, but making the move earlier would’ve just made them look ineffective and whiny in the eyes of the average voter.
That’s completely false. For example, Zohran won his election while staying principled with maximum opposition of the Democratic Party. But he still turned anyways after his election. And is now endorsing all the top Zionists so no change will ever happen in the party.
Your stupid strategy has been disproven twice in recent elections once in 2016 with Bernie getting DNC shafted and once in 2020, when the progressives had massive leverage but refused to use it.
At some point you’re just going to have to admit that you love to keep falling for it.
I know we’ve been having this conversation over a couple threads for the last few days, but I want to point something out to you. I’ve stated before that Mamdani’s begrudging endorsement of Jeffries is because of political strong arming. You retort every time that its actually some moral failure on his part (he’s become a part of the machine). Here we now stand in a thread where it’s blatant that political strong arming is occurring in keeping the ducks endorsing Jeffries and still you claim a personal failing from Mamdani. I know I’m not gonna change your mind, but I really do want to hear how both of those things can be true. That the DNC is throwing their metaphorical dick around to keep the party outliers in check and also Mamdani is actually a secret centrist and its entirely on his two-faced nature to explain his evil endorsements.
Because being willing, or indeed capable, of caving to the strong arming instead of publicly and loudly making everyone aware of it 100% is a moral failing.
I’ve stated before that Mamdani’s begrudging endorsement of Jeffries is because of political strong arming.
This, itself, is an indictment of Mamdani. This reveals what he actually is: an opportunist. They can strong arm him because he feels threatened by their ability to obstruct his reforms and policies, and instead of revealing their perfidy to the public and fighting them he just bends the knee. He decided the fighting was over when he got elected and now it’s time to compromise.
How can you look at that and then conclude he has no personal failings? If the DNC throws their dick around, rip it off.
What political strong arming are you talking about? Him wanting to become mayor and fill a few potholes is what you wanted to accomplish?
The goal was supposedly to replace the whole DNC from the inside, but I guess you just completely forgot about that, now that Zohran is endorsing them.
Zohran is doing the exact opposite of winning political capital. He is losing all of his political capital by endorsing Jeffries and the others. There is nothing worse for him electorally.
I’m of two minds here.
On the one hand, I’m glad this guy said it and I hope that more reps back his attestation. This kind of courage is a good thing and we should celebrate it.
On the other, you now have proof that the “defense” of Jeffries by progressives is actually the result of political strong arming. Sure, you could call their capitulation cowardice, but in American politics, politicians are judged by their individual effectiveness, in spite of the fact that legislation is collaborative. So, if you don’t play ball with the most powerful coalitions, you’ll look like you’re not getting anything done without the public necessarily knowing why, which would probably end in you losing your next election. You can attempt to pushback at that point, but YMMV based on lots of factors. For example, AOC, as a woman, gets less credulity when it comes to being unable to navigate political minefields. So her coming forward about the fucked up nature of the establishment gets less waves than her male counterparts (example, she just came forward about the sustained harassment she experienced in the house as freshman, but she is still being used as a kicking post here)
So I think it’s more important to put the spotlight on the fucked up internal politics and harassment strategies of the DNC establishment and less on the targets of said harassment and how they’ve managed their careers around it.
Yes that’s why people always say that entryism into the Democratic party won’t work because in the end you either support their corporate Zionist leadership or you get booted out.
But if people actually wanted to change the Democratic party and replace the leadership they would do EXACTLY what this non-DSA member just did. Because they’re not supposed to want to play nice with the other Democrats but instead show that they are corrupt so other people will vote them out and vote in people who actually want change.
Yeah, and this is where we disagree. DSA progressives do actually want to change the democratic party, but their overall strategy is to endorse national players who have the appearance of “getting shit done”. Mostly because they’re trying to promote an incredibly propagandized against form of governance for the US. A strategy that is clearly working with Mamdani as its current poster child.
And we can be honest. If DSA members had made a huge stink about intraparty politics before now, the average voter wasn’t going to see it or care all that much. The average voter assumes politicians to be corrupt, so trying to paint them as such doesn’t really do much, especially if they’re viewed as “getting things done” (see, Trump)
I do think it is time for the DSA and Progressive caucuses to rock the boat, but that’s because their coalition is clearly more electable than their “centrist” counterparts, but making the move earlier would’ve just made them look ineffective and whiny in the eyes of the average voter.
That’s completely false. For example, Zohran won his election while staying principled with maximum opposition of the Democratic Party. But he still turned anyways after his election. And is now endorsing all the top Zionists so no change will ever happen in the party.
Your stupid strategy has been disproven twice in recent elections once in 2016 with Bernie getting DNC shafted and once in 2020, when the progressives had massive leverage but refused to use it.
At some point you’re just going to have to admit that you love to keep falling for it.
I know we’ve been having this conversation over a couple threads for the last few days, but I want to point something out to you. I’ve stated before that Mamdani’s begrudging endorsement of Jeffries is because of political strong arming. You retort every time that its actually some moral failure on his part (he’s become a part of the machine). Here we now stand in a thread where it’s blatant that political strong arming is occurring in keeping the ducks endorsing Jeffries and still you claim a personal failing from Mamdani. I know I’m not gonna change your mind, but I really do want to hear how both of those things can be true. That the DNC is throwing their metaphorical dick around to keep the party outliers in check and also Mamdani is actually a secret centrist and its entirely on his two-faced nature to explain his evil endorsements.
Because being willing, or indeed capable, of caving to the strong arming instead of publicly and loudly making everyone aware of it 100% is a moral failing.
This, itself, is an indictment of Mamdani. This reveals what he actually is: an opportunist. They can strong arm him because he feels threatened by their ability to obstruct his reforms and policies, and instead of revealing their perfidy to the public and fighting them he just bends the knee. He decided the fighting was over when he got elected and now it’s time to compromise.
How can you look at that and then conclude he has no personal failings? If the DNC throws their dick around, rip it off.
What political strong arming are you talking about? Him wanting to become mayor and fill a few potholes is what you wanted to accomplish?
The goal was supposedly to replace the whole DNC from the inside, but I guess you just completely forgot about that, now that Zohran is endorsing them.
Zohran is doing the exact opposite of winning political capital. He is losing all of his political capital by endorsing Jeffries and the others. There is nothing worse for him electorally.