chasfh Posted June 4 Posted June 4 16 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Now you're inferring I'm simple? BTW, in your scenario, you would be the one inferring, and I would be the one implying. Quote
gehringer_2 Posted June 4 Posted June 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, chasfh said: As if Rashida Tlaib matters even a little. I wish it were so. But every seat in the US Congress matters, even if she doesn't matter as an individual character it's also true that the other side gets a lot of by mileage nationalizing their messaging against the dem's loonier members just as the left nationalizes their against Jim Jordans/MTGs etc. And MB is correct that no matter how you want to tally the total effect, she was more a detriment than aid to the Presidential ticket in '24. Even if you grant that it was Harris herself who put herself at risk with Arab Americans, Tlaib, as a Palestinian, could have provided a measure of political cover by exemplifying that was still important to support the ticket against Trump as a net gain, but instead she did basically the opposite. Edited June 4 by gehringer_2 Quote
chasfh Posted June 4 Posted June 4 3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: I wish it were so. But every seat in the US Congress matters, even if she doesn't matter as an individual character and it's also true that the other side gets a lot of by mileage nationalizing their messaging against the dem's loonier members just as the left nationalizes their against Jim Jordans/MTGs etc. Every seat in the US Congress may matter, but not every seat matters equally. Jim Jordan chairs the House Judiciary Committee. Marjorie Taylor Greene chairs a House DOGE subcommittee. Rashida Tlaib chairs the multiracial Mamas' Caucus. They are not anything like the same. Rashida Tlaib is a fringe character serving a fringe constituency. When she starts getting actual power, then I'll start getting concerned. 1 Quote
Motown Bombers Posted June 4 Posted June 4 29 minutes ago, chasfh said: BTW, in your scenario, you would be the one inferring, and I would be the one implying. Well, I'm too simple to figure it out. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted June 4 Posted June 4 14 minutes ago, chasfh said: Every seat in the US Congress may matter, but not every seat matters equally. Jim Jordan chairs the House Judiciary Committee. Marjorie Taylor Greene chairs a House DOGE subcommittee. Rashida Tlaib chairs the multiracial Mamas' Caucus. They are not anything like the same. Rashida Tlaib is a fringe character serving a fringe constituency. When she starts getting actual power, then I'll start getting concerned. She's the most influential congressman in Michigan and put money and resources into a campaign to not vote for Biden and Harris. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted June 4 Posted June 4 29 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: I wish it were so. But every seat in the US Congress matters, even if she doesn't matter as an individual character it's also true that the other side gets a lot of by mileage nationalizing their messaging against the dem's loonier members just as the left nationalizes their against Jim Jordans/MTGs etc. And MB is correct that no matter how you want to tally the total effect, she was more a detriment than aid to the Presidential ticket in '24. Even if you grant that it was Harris herself who put herself at risk with Arab Americans, Tlaib, as a Palestinian, could have provided a measure of political cover by exemplifying that was still important to support the ticket against Trump as a net gain, but instead she did basically the opposite. Remember in Trump 1.0 when she was part of the squad and every Dem came to her defense and then she actively campaigns against Dems because of a conflict that doesn't involve US troops. Quote
oblong Posted June 4 Posted June 4 1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said: I wish it were so. But every seat in the US Congress matters, even if she doesn't matter as an individual character it's also true that the other side gets a lot of by mileage nationalizing their messaging against the dem's loonier members just as the left nationalizes their against Jim Jordans/MTGs etc. And MB is correct that no matter how you want to tally the total effect, she was more a detriment than aid to the Presidential ticket in '24. Even if you grant that it was Harris herself who put herself at risk with Arab Americans, Tlaib, as a Palestinian, could have provided a measure of political cover by exemplifying that was still important to support the ticket against Trump as a net gain, but instead she did basically the opposite. that community in particular is one that looks to leadership for guidance. What is being said by others may be true "in general" but in her particular case it's important to note the differences. THe lack of endorsements by her, and teh mayors of Hamtramck, Dearborn, and Dearborn Hts, played a big part in flipping MI. It's a very tribal community. Quote
chasfh Posted June 4 Posted June 4 2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said: She's the most influential congressman in Michigan and put money and resources into a campaign to not vote for Biden and Harris. Quote
ewsieg Posted June 4 Posted June 4 3 hours ago, Motown Bombers said: "Her little enclave" is enough to throw Michigan to Republicans. She literally ran a campaign against her own party's nominee. But again, did Tlaib run against her own party's nominee, or did Kamala run against Tlaib's own constituents in this district? Quote
Motown Bombers Posted June 4 Posted June 4 4 minutes ago, ewsieg said: But again, did Tlaib run against her own party's nominee, or did Kamala run against Tlaib's own constituents in this district? Tlaib ran against her own party's nominee. She literally started a group to not vote for Biden and Harris. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted June 4 Posted June 4 14 minutes ago, chasfh said: What congressman is more influential in Michigan? Keep it simple. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted June 4 Posted June 4 Tlaib did a lot more to resist Biden/Harris than Trump. Quote
ewsieg Posted June 4 Posted June 4 To go further, like every district in the US, there are some unique aspects to each. Some much different then others. If Kamala can only win by getting the full support of a Socialist Democrat's district, my guess is she would lose votes elsewhere based on that platform. IMO, you really want to increase your odds of winning in 2028, find a ton of folks on the left that are willing to not go lock-step with the DNC in every district that is considered hard red. Don't force litmus tests on abortion and guns. Find people that lean left but still sound and act like the same people they are running to represent. And let them say they don't agree with the 2028 Dem nominee on some aspects, but then give the reasons why they think they should still support democratic candidates at all levels. Quote
gehringer_2 Posted June 4 Posted June 4 (edited) 24 minutes ago, ewsieg said: But again, did Tlaib run against her own party's nominee, or did Kamala run against Tlaib's own constituents in this district? I don't know how you can make an argument that the second is true when the opposition is Donald-J-Bibi-is-my-BFF-Trump. It's just a non-sequitor. Was Harris willing to give the Arab American lobby everything or even most of what it would like? Of course not, no US national politician is going to do that, that's not on the table in the real world. So that means it's up to the Arab-American population and its leadership to at least vote rationally given the choices it they want the system to work for them at all. But I'll grant that just boycotting elections you don't like or can't win is a very popular philosophy in ME culture - it's always been counterproductive there just like everywhere else it's tried, but it is what it is. Edited June 4 by gehringer_2 Quote
gehringer_2 Posted June 4 Posted June 4 (edited) 12 minutes ago, ewsieg said: Find people that lean left but still sound and act like the same people they are running to represent This was the irony of Obama, and why he won so easily. The left assumed he was one of theirs because of his bio and they didn't make him 'prove himself' to them, yet Obama was a much more conservative Dem than Biden or Harris, or Bernie, or Warren, and that came through to the rest of electorate, whom he was able to make feel comfortable with him. The DNC appears to be a disaster, but Party orgs today aren't that relevant at the Presidential level - In the TV/Video age presidential politics is personal. A strong Dem can win regardless of what the DNC is doing. Edited June 4 by gehringer_2 Quote
ewsieg Posted June 4 Posted June 4 4 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: I don't know how you can make an argument that the second is true when the opposition is Donald-J-Bibi-is-my-BFF-Trump. It's just a non-sequitor. Was Harris willing to give the Arab American lobby everything or even most of what it would like? Of course not, no US national politician is going to do that, that's not on the table in the real world. So that means it's up to the Arab-American population and its leadership to at least vote rationally given the choices it they want the system to work for them at all. But I'll grant that just boycotting elections you don't like or can't win is a very popular strategy in ME culture - it's always been counterproductive there just like everywhere else it's tried, but it is what it is. The issue many of those constituents have is what has been the de facto US policy for many many years, across many different political parties has largely been the same. In recent history, I will say the general thought is that the GOP has been more pro-Israel, but in reality, the DNC has been pretty pro-Israel as well. There is certainly much more lip service towards the Palestinians from the DNC, but what policies can you point to that shows there is a difference between the two parties in the last 30 years, minus the last 5 months. Meanwhile, Trump was out there saying he is anti-war, regardless of which war. That was appealing to the many in Dearborn area. As you may be aware, I don't hold Trump to any high esteem but even I was surprised that his solution would be to let Israel clear out all Palestinians and build hotels on the coast. But even with that, it's not like Tlaib endorsed Trump, she just simply refused to endorse Harris. Quote
gehringer_2 Posted June 4 Posted June 4 3 minutes ago, ewsieg said: I don't hold Trump to any high esteem but even I was surprised that his solution would be to let Israel clear out all Palestinians and build hotels on the coast Well, maybe I can feel your pain, but as of about 2018 I had to stop giving anyone credit for believing Trump and then being disappointed. 😉 Quote
Motown Bombers Posted June 4 Posted June 4 No, she didn't just simply refuse to endorse Harris. Tlaib led the uncommitted effort and called on people to literally not vote for Biden. Her sister led the Abandon Harris movement. I wish she just didn't endorse Harris. She put up more resistance to Biden/Harris than to Trump. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted June 4 Posted June 4 It was reported before the election that the Trump organization wanted to clear Gaza to build hotels. It was discussed on this forum. How can you be surprised? Quote
CMRivdogs Posted June 4 Posted June 4 I personally like this take on the whole "Democratic Party argument" Quote You will notice that no one ever says of Republicans, “They have to figure out how to talk to normal voters.” Even when Republicans were losing the presidential popular vote for a generation, no one suggested that there was something wrongwith the party, or the Republican brand, at the molecular level. That’s an observation which is exclusively applied to Democrats. ............ My own theory—and it’s only a theory—is that the national Democratic party has been so responsible in its conduct of late that one of its challenges is keeping the activist class and the irresponsible fringe onboard. People in the “Free Palestine” movement were demonstrating against the last Democratic president. When Eric Adams got in trouble with the law, he left the Democratic party in order to take shelter under Trump. The Democratic party’s electoral problem is that it traded a lot of its worst voters (antivax cranks, Palestinian militants, conspiracy theorists) for the Republican party’s most responsible voters (educated professionals). And it turns out that, just as a matter of numbers, this was a bad deal. The Democrats’ challenge, nationally, is that they have to find a way to win back the kinds of voters who don’t mind corruption and want meaningless town-council resolutions passed to flatter their obsessions. https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-democratic-partys-problems-real?utm_source=substack&publication_id=87281&post_id=165181488&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=email-share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=false&r=45wcm&triedRedirect=true Quote
Tiger337 Posted June 4 Posted June 4 41 minutes ago, ewsieg said: Meanwhile, Trump was out there saying he is anti-war, regardless of which war. That was appealing to the many in Dearborn area. As you may be aware, I don't hold Trump to any high esteem but even I was surprised that his solution would be to let Israel clear out all Palestinians and build hotels on the coast. Why would you be surprised by that. Profiting at other people expense has been his whole life for 45 years. Quote
gehringer_2 Posted June 4 Posted June 4 (edited) 24 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said: I personally like this take on the whole "Democratic Party argument" https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-democratic-partys-problems-real?utm_source=substack&publication_id=87281&post_id=165181488&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=email-share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=false&r=45wcm&triedRedirect=true The voter trade thing is spot on. And the GOP was the minority party when it was made up of what we used to call the "green eye shade' class - i.e. a lot of well educated and/or small business professionals. But I will theorize a difference for you, which is that in prior generations the working class Democratic voter was much more tuned into democratic process. He may have been an a vet that had to go to war against fascism, or an immigrant that fled empire or totalitarianism, or belonged to a Union or VFW or American Legion or a democratically run Protestant Church, or some other civic org that maybe ran Roberts Rules of order in some internal rules based democratic process that gave them a basic appreciation of democratic management, truth based politics and rules based procedure that prevented prior generations of working class voters from seeing any appeal in a national political politics that has gone off the rails toward deceit and what is basically fascism, the way this GOP has. Edited June 4 by gehringer_2 Quote
CMRivdogs Posted June 4 Posted June 4 1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said: The voter trade thing is spot on. And the GOP was the minority party when it was made up of what we used to call the "green eye shade' class - i.e. a lot of well educated and/or small business professionals. But I will theorize a difference for you, which is that in prior generations the working class Democratic voter was much more tuned into democratic process. He may have been an a vet that had to go to war against fascism, or an immigrant that fled empire or totalitarianism, or belonged to a Union or VFW or American Legion or a democratically run Protestant Church, or some other civic org that maybe ran Roberts Rules of order in some internal rules based democratic process that gave them a basic appreciation of democratic management, truth based politics and rules based procedure that prevented prior generations of working class voters from seeing any appeal in a national political politics that has gone off the rails toward deceit and what is basically fascism, the way this GOP has. And all of that began to unravel with the disenchantment with the Viet Nam War and protests, throw in the race riots of the late 60s and a few other incidents. By the early to mid70s most of the blue collar Democrats switched parties. The problem is not many of them came back to the fold and either became staunch Republicans or remain "independents" Quote
chasfh Posted June 4 Posted June 4 2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said: What congressman is more influential in Michigan? Keep it simple. Influential just in Michigan? I thought we were talking nationally. At least I am. Quote
Motown Bombers Posted June 4 Posted June 4 2 minutes ago, chasfh said: Influential just in Michigan? I thought we were talking nationally. At least I am. No, I clearly said Michigan to which you replied with a Gecko meme. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.