Home | About | Donate

Ahead of Tuesday Primary, Progressive Candidates Vow 'to Bust Up Big-Money Politics in New York'


#1

Ahead of Tuesday Primary, Progressive Candidates Vow 'to Bust Up Big-Money Politics in New York'

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

Ahead of a closely watched New York primary on Tuesday, progressive gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon and congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez endorsed each other on Monday, and announced they are coming together at a Get Out the Vote event in Queens to "speak of their shared progressive, people-powered campaigns taking on centrist, corporate Democrats."


#2

I can only hope that NY voters will put the corrupt money in politics and revolving doors issue front and center.


#3

So far progressive candidates aren’t doing that well in primaries.

“Our Revolution, has had only marginal success. Though it has touted its electoral victories in recent primaries, fewer than 50 percent of the more than 80 candidates it has endorsed have won elections this year.”


#4

You are too fucking predictable.

Gosh golly, you mean that progressives aren’t doing amazingly well in a system dominated by two parties that are dead set against them, when the DCCC and the DNC so favor establishment and corrupt candidates, in a system thoroughly corrupted by moneyed interests, where third parties emerging are next to impossible because of the two parties that control the system? Shocking. I fully expected the people that always lectured about pragmatism to realize that whatever long overdue changes needed to happen, that they wouldn’t happen overnight. Cause outside of revolutions, things don’t. Clearly you pragmatists are only “pragmatic” in the sense of telling working people that are struggling in this dying system that the changes they seek will never happen.

Now, how is has your party been doing in recent decades? How are the American people doing when either your party or the Republicans are in charge? Are they doing well, or do we see decades of grinding struggle and stagnation? And, if your party, led by right wing Democrats that you call centrist, get some power (far less likely at this point than a year ago) in the next elections, what exactly will they do with their power? What policies will they push for, what alternatives do they offer, what solutions to our largest issues do they offer? Admit it, more of the same.

Personally, I think that democratic socialists winning as much as they have is a great sign of progress. The boring and corrupt politicians that you support argued that doing just that was impossible up until the last year or so, and they were correct largely until about a year ago, and those same people have been doing all they can (with the support of their top donors) to undermine the left, which they have done time and time again. To argue that the future belongs to people like Cuomo is absurd. If things continue as they are, the system will simply implode, and Cuomo wouldn’t have any fucking power if it weren’t for corruption.

Shocking too that you would post this in a thread about a corrupt cretin like Cuomo, who you comically said would make a good president.

The fact is that the left struggles at this point to get people to even trust the system enough to even bother voting. The corrupt politicians that you provide cover for have so thoroughly destroyed this system in the eyes of the American people that most people have just lost hope. The system is corrupt, which people like you really like, it doesn’t address our biggest problems, it policies are a net negative for most people, the two parties have rigged the system so no other parties can emerge, anyone even moderately progressive is forced to operate in a corrupt and undemocratic party to be able to even run for office, and if they do try to do so, the entirety of your party’s big money donors come down on them as hard as possible. The left’s policies are popular, but people simply don’t trust this system enough anymore to bother to vote, and the left is in a position where they have to funnel people into a corrupt party in order to try and change a system, when that party opposes those structural changes in the end just as much as the Republicans. In this context, no shock that rotten people like Cuomo win. And no shock that the corrupt system continues to support policies that are destroying the poor and working people. You should be happy Lrx, you as a parasite on your party and the political system are in good hands with people like Cuomo and Pelosi in charge,


#5

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that either of these candidates will win against their primary opponents. But if their supporters react to it by bitterly saying “it is rigged” they will completely miss the point. All the throwing up-of-arms and shouting “it is rigged” will not increase the chances of winning more seats in the future either. Of course such nascent challenges to the establishment in electoral politics don’t win every time. The Sanders/DSA wing is barely 2 years old. Only after several more years of hard work of organizing, organizing, organizing will we start to win an majority of the races.


#6

The focus should be on how many new Progressives have won. There’s “progress” happening.

Also focus on how many centrist, corporate Democrats have lost nationwide in the last decade or so: 1,000!


#7

Actually, for such a young grassroots movement barely 2 years old that must rely on far less funding, a success rate of 40 percent in the Democratic primaries is a very impressive accomplishment. In another two years, it will be 70 percent. And two years after that, the “centrist” Democrat species will be on its way to extinction.


#8

I would like to see an article titled “How Big Money Wins Elections”.

And another titled “How Progressives Lose Elections”.

Just the mechanics and data. No drama.


#9

Under the classical definition of demo./repub. democrats are now republican and republicans are alt-right fascists. I fully support the DS of A. Won’t you? Since before we became a country New York has always be awash with money, old money. Every so often there is an attempt to bust up big money. It hides for a while in the sewers but manages to get fresh air at times. I wish them all the luck in the world.


#10

Another example of Joan spreading the hate. When she can’t say something with facts, she spews bullying insults.


#11

Right. Once again, it’s as if one has to remind people this is not 1996.

There are new forms of communication and new forms of crowdsourcing money. The issues are global, and the audience is global.

Hello. Oh and Blockbuster video closed.


#12

Lrx is a bot. Or, a dimwitted DLCer follower of the Clintonistas and Obamabots. Neither of those groups represent a future for the rank-and-file Democrats who Ocasio-Cortez hopes to serve.
JR understands this better than you or Lrx, apparently.


#13

The problem with social media is it tends to encourage insults and slander.

Calling someone a bot because you disagree with them is not an argument.

In fact, what it really means is that you need to turn off your computer and go for a walk.


#14

YESSSSSSSS! You go Joan! : )


#15

I said a lot of facts, which you obviously cannot respond to. Lrx defends corruption here all the time, so my frustration for what they are defending comes from that. You, as a strong defender of an inequitable, undemocratic and environmentally destructive system don’t address anything I said for obvious reasons, and you have nothing to add outside of simplistic comments about population, and you can’t even respond to critiques of your simplistic reading on population. Now, Lrx isn’t as bad as you are, since at least Lrx comments on things in a thread that have something to do with the thread, whereas you interject comments on population into every single thread.

Like I said though, I said a lot, not just comments on Lrx, so it is silly to say that all I did was insults. If you want to comment on the rest, you are welcome to. You don’t comment on the rest because you yourself have defended this inequitable system, you have defended the rich, corruption and any calls to address how inequitable the system is.

Oh, and in our past “debates”, if you want to even call it that, I did in fact give you tons of data, studies and facts. You responded by calling data that was sometimes months old, “dated” and refused to address the factors that impact aggregate consumption outside of population. You also have no response to facts which show how inequitable and undemocratic the system is. I gave you lots of facts on those things. I guess, since you have no logical response, you pretend those facts don’t exist? Yes.


#16

Explain how that is a rational response to what Yunzer said. What does that even mean? He didn’t address particular modes of communication, he only talked about grassroots organizing in general, without addressing particular types of grassroots organizing. Please, wait around for an article on population. At least there, you can give us links to videos on a bunch of cities. Don’t know what the hell that adds to any conversation, but they’re fun to watch none the less. What that he said is outdated?


#17

You sir, haven’t read many of Lrx’s posts, evidently.
Slanderous, hardly. I merely pointed out the obvious and predictable comments which could be ghost written by Nina Tanden, herself. While she’s on Ambien, of course.
R U on Nina’s staff of ghost writers, as well? R U on Ambien right now? Run, don’t walk, to a care facility. They’re trained to deal with folks like you and Lrx.


#18

According to a Gallup poll, 90% of Republicans support Trump. If nothing else, Trump knows how to play to his base. On the other hand, Democratic candidates run as fast as they can away from their progressive base.


#19

discover attacks anyone for trying to address inequality, how undemocratic the system is, strongly defends the rich when they are criticized, posted an article critiquing solar panels, and has denied that the economic system needs to be radically changed, despite the decades of things getting progressively worse for most people. Studies show this, clear as day. I mentioned the limits in regards to throughput, how many pollutants are thrown into the environment, I mentioned how inequitable resource consumption is, as well as pollution generation (the facts on this are beyond question) and discover dismissed all of that out of hand. Said that the data was old, and cannot produce data showing that the situation is different than the studies and data I posted (some of which are months old). We are supposed to just trust discover I guess. I talked about how the market itself ignores massive amounts of information, which is also beyond question, and the numerous problems in regards to taking those impacts into account within markets, and again, he didn’t want to hear any of it. About 15-20% of the world’s richest people consume about 80% of all resources, studies have shown this going back decades, and the top 10% of people worldwide produce about 50% of all carbon emissions. discover, being a right wing reactionary, had none of that. So, we are talking about someone that is probably to Lrx’s right in regards to policy. If you think about the implications, when dealing with environmental issues, of only addressing population, they’re horrific. When the right wing gets around to actually addressing environmental issues, they will focus entirely on population and will focus on the poor having babies.

And in a thread about progressives taking on the establishment, it makes total sense for discover to be here providing cover for corrupt Democrats that don’t want to change this system. Neither does discover. I don’t think he is good enough though at what he does to garner a paycheck from his schtick, but who knows.

Small thing, no big deal, but it is Neera Tanden. I think you might have that mixed up with Nina Turner?


#20

Did you stick out your tongue and say NEENER NEENER Your mother wears boots after writing this?