Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "AOC Rips Party u0026 Media Hypocrisy After Kennedy's Loss" video.

Sanders has shown how to win races w/o big donor money. But that is not the only obstacle. I have always wondered why Democrats did not at least adopt a few very popular policies and have some unified messaging on it. It could get them impressive electoral wins. - Until I realized: Winning the general is NOT the most important thing, not even close ! That is also the reason the Dems maintain polite silence on the R shennanigans (for the most part). They should shout it from the rooftops. But the tactics that the R's use large scale (voters suppression in the general) could also be useful in case of a progressive emergency. Dems whine a little bit about ID laws, but hardly anything about easily hackable voting machines. About closed polling stations (they do it to during primaries). They ignored the info of Greg Palast on Crosscheck in 2016. That massive covert voter roll purge done by states with an R govenor may have cost HRC the presidency, Trump won 3 states with a total of 70,000 votes, it was very close. Exposing that would not do: the (potential) ability to rig primaries is so important, that it even tops the losses in the general that the Dems suffer from it. D politicians live well with lost elections. HRC has a bruised ego, but she is rich, and so is her daughter. Also: The big donor have more to give than only the campaign donoations. THOSE can be replaced by small donors, but not the other perks. The service for constituents pays approx. 180k before taxes (Senator) plus good benefits like healthcare. Big donors can offer covert perks when the politician is active and they provide the cushy jobs and perks later. There are ways to avoid legal trouble. Someone like Sanders took the salary - and that was enough for him. If he had stepped down after 2016, he would not be paid for Wallstreet speeches, or offered favorable real estate deals as thank you for selling out while active in politics. Only after a long career he made some good money from books. And he cold not have planned for his campaign to take off like that. (they planned with grassroots donations of 30 million USD in 2015, they raised 230 milions in 2015 and 2016. Neither Weaver not Sanders really thought he had a chance or could give HRC a run for her money). Books are a popular legal way how an active politician can be paid with the help of thinktanks. They can buy up the books by the truckloads. A publisher that is aware of that can of course offer a better deal to the politician.
2
@SensoriaMaRia Is there a way to register homeless people to vote ?
2
@raymondnoel6053 He was dating some students not HIS students. So was he supposed to date only people much older than him, so they would not be college students for sure ? Or was he only allowed to date people that had blue collar jobs ? - One of the accusers said he felt uncomfortable after he learned that he was a mayor. So he had a date and sex with Alex only based on looks, sympathy, attraction - and Alex did not not try to impress with his very early political success ? (or just wanted avoiding talking about politics). If he "felt uncomfortable" - he could just stop end dating him, no ? Or even block his telephone number and block him on social media. Done ! Making THAT a news story with media colluding for very obvious rotten reasons (campaign money of the D machine turned ad budgets) is an insult and major disservice to the real victims of sexual harrassment.
2
@raymondnoel6053 There was no there, there. you can avoid to run candidates with REAL baggage, but not if it is a made up faux outrage story (heavily promoted by colluding media btw). And it then turned out it was an orchestrated smear campaign. Even if it cannot be proven that Neal was directly involved. Maybe the accuser only wanted to recommend themselves to the party machine, maybe Neal was smart enough to not leave his fingerprints on it. Reminds me of Republican attack ads against a D candidate either in Kansas or Kentucky. a few years ago. In his late 20s he had visited a strip club. Gasp ! No prostitution, no inappropriate or rowdy behavior in the club, no offense, no drugs ..... he was single, and then not in politics. A few years later he run for office. Should he have avoided to run because that was a liability (he likely not even remembered it). It is hard to foresee childish and unjustified underhanded attacks, is it ? you cannot plan for that. You can just handle the shit as they make it up.
2
@raymondnoel6053 Warren won her last Senate race in 2018 convincingly (over 60 % in the general) but she finished third in the presidential primary in 2020. Not winning your state, town, could reflect badly on your performance in your current role. Or it is that voters do not see you in the other role, or there are other reasons. Morse is young, Neal run on what he had gotten MA in the past (not a good argument in my view) and that MA might "lose influence" if he, the heavyweight, is no more in D.C. MA also has a lot of military contractors and health industry, while the role of this big donors cost the country dearly - people having well paying jobs in those industries will root for someone like Neal who will help to continue the dysfucntion. I think the neoliberal policies that Neal promotes cost all states - and also MA much more than he can ever bring home to his state. But the messaging proved to convince voters. At least those who participate in primaries. Turnour was good for a primary. The more people participate the more important the role of advertising money becomes. Or a smear campaign launched with the help of corporate media.
2
@michaelbarrister429 you really have to improve your canned right wing talking points. The wrong claim that AOC had anything to do with Amazon ending the negotiations is of course standard rightwing fare. (NYC dodged a bullet, but No, AOC does not deserve the credit for that).
1
@michaelbarrister429 But that the alleged 25,000 jobs would be in HER district is a new one. - Just make it 100,000 new jobs in the next 3 years and all in AOC's district while you are at it, it does not cost you more effort to type that kind of nonsense. Be bold, go big ;) Simple logic would tell you that can't be possible (hint: apart from the fact that it was ANOTHER district, look at the demographic of her district). You haven't even picked up the basics that mainstream media reported (and they swept a lot under the rug).
1
@jcs6206 AOC graduated with distinction and scored high in an international highschool science competition. Her family did not have the money to buy her the admission into the renowed university, have someone else take her GED, or do her homework for her. (like a certain president or his son in law). She had to earn it, and she had to do the work herself. Her parents got a small house in a nice neighbourhood and they could hardly afford that (family chipped in, mum worked as cleaner), but the kids went to a good highschool. She also is able to speak off the cuff, coherently and has a much better vocabulary than for instance ... let's say Trump.
1
@jcs6206 you have realized that the Green New Deal was a NON-BINDING RESOLUTION, a discussion starter if your will ? Have you ?
1
@markhaus agree they DNC wanted to send a warning to all middle of the road Democratic politicians, that might consider reposition themselves a little more to the left (if only for fear of being primaried by a progressive).
1
@markhaus Well connected shills are being rewarded with cushy posts if they lose elections (running as Republican Lite). But the golden parachutes might not be quite as good for the generic politician losing a race. As opposed to someone like Joe Crowley. I assume the big donors provide for everyone that has been useful for them in the past - kind of. if they come to the party leadership hat in hand. That dynamic (no or limited risk for sellouts even if they lose their seats IF they have been useful in the past) is the reason they do not run on policies that are very popular - until now the generic candidate could not go against the machine, they needed access to campaign money. The risks are higher for Corporate Democrats that have not held office for long, and thus could not make themselves a good name with the big donors, or suck up to the party leadership or are not the networking talents. So for them trying to increase their chances to hold on to the seat by becoming more progressive can make sense. Fundraising with grassroots and winning reelections becomes easier and much less work once a poltician is well established. But chasing the big donors and dialling after dollars remains a lot of work. Some estimate that polticians use 30 - 40 % of their time to raise money. I think the fancy dinners also become boring and it is worse with dialling after dollars (everyone hates it). That is one of the reason the SuperPacs and BUNDLERS are so popular with most U.S. politicians, it saves them time. They do not have to go after the 1000 dollar donations, or sell those plates at dinners. The cushy posts for fmr politicians are not all equally attractive, long term, or safe. Some standard Democrats that are not as rich as Schumer and Pelosi and would rather keep their seat than hope for a golden parachute with the help of party leadership and big donors, might figure out that it could be a smart move to play nice with progressives from now on. Building on existing name recognition (bought with big donor money in former races) plus maybe activating young new voters, non-voters. Also to become less dependent on the party leadership and the big donors. I am sure Markey got many SMALL out of state donations, that is unusual in U.S. politics. (Big donors that are out of state are common). Markey for instance made sure to sharpen his progressive profile in the last 2 years. He was not that progressive throughout his career (also voted for the Iraq war. MA has a lot of miltiary contractors). But he repositioned himself. And he was always strong on Climate Change. Co-sponsoring the Green New Deal of AOC might have helped to save him in this race. It made Markey a target - but arrogant Kennedy might have tried to get his seat anyway. Kennedy is the better fundraiser for the party (money from big donors), so likely the party would have thrown Markey gladly under the bus, even if he had not offended them with the Green New Deal. Kennedy is also young and just the kind of shills the party "leadership" likes to send into presidential primaries. A Senate seat has to be defended every 6 years only, and has more prestige. There were lots of reasons to push Kennedy even if Markey could be expected to win the Senate seat in Nov. 2020. No Kennedy has ever lost in MA ... so he was willing to give up his Congressional seat for this gamble ;) For everyone but a Kennedy it would have been pie in the sky project to primary a D incumbent in MA, that has been as long in Congress / Senate as Markey. And Pelosi supported that failed gamble ;) :)
1
@gabrielmiller668 Ask your Kennedy voting buddies which of his stances / policies they liked best ...... and what was at fault with the incumbent (someone that had held a Congress Seat and then a Senate seat for many years) ....... - It shows you the power of NAME RECOGNITION. If Joe Kennedy would be a better speaker, better with TV appearance he made have had a chance.
1
Lesser evilism looks on the current election as "this, and only this emergency". The emergency being the terrible candidate of the Republicans, and Corporate dems can rely on them coming up with a god boogeyman. - Meanwhile the big donors run their strategies over decades. Jill Stein: "Always voting for the lesser evil gave us everything we were afraid of."
1
Vote Green party (presidential race) in the safely ! RED OR BLUE states. And the most progressive choice downballot - holding your nose for a neoliberal politician can be corrected in 2 years (Congress). That strategic vote will not even change the outcomes (of THIS election), but it is a start, it is strategic and there are benefits. Rewarding the Greens for trying to be an opposition. (at this point it does not matter how much you like all of their platform or the candidates - their platform is not going to be enacted anytime soon. This is a longterm strategy). They get federal funding if they have 5 % of the popular vote. the money can help with lower races too. (those are also important. That is why it makes sense to vote green. They have the best chances to get over 5 %.
1
Bonus: voting for the Greens pisses off Corporate Dems. Having money (federal funding) helps them to get on the ballots (that is expensive). Money for local races is important too. The Republicans understood that the lower races matter a lot. Now they are the ones the administrate (purge) the voter rolls and can close polling stations.
1
good 'ole Greg Palast. - The big donors finance the Democrats so they will win primaries against progressives. Then the ballot will offer the "choice" of careerist weak sellout D versus fierce ideological R - and both beholden to the donors. Some voters are out of reach for the Republican party so the Corporate Democrats are needed in that game. Them winning the general is not crucial. Now the candidates would like to win. But not on popular policies that would give them a landslide win. Nothing is as important as keeping the donors happy, not even winning the general. Not all will lose their seats, from time to time the R's are that bad that they stumble upon an almost sure victory (Biden and his handlers are testing that theory). For them it is not that damaging if they lose, the big donors provide golen parachutes, espcially for the well connected shills that call the shots in the party. All the more reason for all others to fall in line.
1
@barbarapowell5040 AOC improved turnout for the primary in her district. And of course there is higher turnout in the general. At least they have a choice there are districts where only one party (Republican) runs, and often not even a primary.
1
@JonathanNeilRhodes It is only money that is invested (and the efforts of HIS campaign) - so yes the progressive movement can afford to invest in this race. Even getting a fairly good result should unnerve the DNC. It is important that he has a respectable result. Congress is voted for every 2 years. Many progressives only won their second race. Pelosi might not even make it through 2 years. Whoever the next big donor shill and tires to inherit this seat is will not have as much name recogniton. And Shahid Buttar ready to BUILD ON this race and just waiting around the corner to give it another go. (and then there is still the chance Pelosi catches CoVid19 till November).
1
Markey has been around for a long time in MA (Congress and now Senate), it is a safely blue state, whoever will win the D primary will win in November. Especially an incumbent ! it made no sense at all to challenge Markey who is not that progressive even - but he was always solid on Climate Change. Good fundraiser Kennedy was going to be rewarded, and the party leadership likely wanted to stick it to Markey for the Green New Deal cooperation with AOC. Also to send a signal to other middle of the road Democrats that they would be primaried with the help of a lot of money if they ever stick out their neck. Turns out it was very smart of Markey to co sponsor AOC and the Green New Deal. May have been a major factor why he could keep his seat. To make it even sweeter the win was decisive, and now Kennedy has also lost his Congressional seat. He sounded really depressed when he gave his speech acknowledging the results on primary night. Now - the result of Kennedy would have been respectable for a progressive running a grassroots campaign against a party / big donor darling. But not for a person that had the party machine pushing for the prolific fundraiser. The plan: It is a safe Senate seat, and he would have only every 6 years the hassle with election campaigns. And shills like him are the presidential hopefuls the party leadership likes to have ready to go. A Senate seat carries more prestige. Make no mistake Kennedy also had it mapped out how he would run for president in the future. And the book. Arrogant Joe Kennedy III gave up his Congressional seat (2 terms) to go after Markey. (the bad news it that the most corporate shill very narrowly won the primary in a crowded field with plus 20 %, he is also from a traditional political family and with ties to the healthcare industry. But at least he does not have the ring of the Kennedy name, likely not quite as much personal fortune, and will be easier to beat in the primaries 2022. Joe Kennedy is very lacking in self awareness, he is not even slick, or a good speaker. So he thought he could pick a battle that would be normally called a fool's errand, did he ? Just based on his last name. Only to complain on primary night "that the name of his family had been brought up a lot during the race". His family name is the only reason he was even able to win a Congresssional seat. The Kennedy name still has a ring to it (in MA), Markey had to be worried in the beginning. It is extraordinary that young Kennedy even polled that well in the beginning (which shows you the power of NAME RECOGNITION). But he lost his lead in the polls the more debates he had against Markey ;)
1
D politicians are expected to give a cut of their donations to the party. AOC is the only one I think that continues to refuse to give to the party (all other members of the squad have folded). She has started a Progressive Pac in late 2019, not sure what became of it, that money should be totally out of reach of the party. AOC supports races directly (so she does "pay her dues," only she does not give the party machine influence over who gets the money). but you can also see that AOC failed to endorse some progressive challengers of neoliberal heavyweights. (not sure if she endorsed Cori Bush for instance. Almost sure Jamaal Bowman did not have it). Maybe the squad gets bolder after having won the second primary, and then the general in Nov.. And they are very likely joined by people with guts, like Cori Bush and Jaamal Bowman. I think the safe way is to give to Justice Democrats. Sunrise Movement. They also help progressive candidates. Or the DSA (but they have some rotten bourgeoise chapters for instance in San Francisco where they unendorsed Shahid Buttar who runs against Pelosi). On the other hand if you give money to the DSA or the the Working Family Party - that gives you leverage if some busybodies there start playing virtue signalling games over some faux outrage (see Alex Morse, or Shahid Buttar). That smear campaign (sexual harrassment or being "inappropriate" and the claim of a "toxic work enviroment" was so successful - the Corporate Dems are going to repeat that. Worked like a charm. The "Buttar is a toxic boss" accusations are a big elaborate nothingburger. But something stuck and it was enough for many orgs to unendorse.
1