292
This is why Citizens United needs to die.
In another thread some time ago, someone * asked the best way to report illegal income without having the feds on them for either tax evasion or illegal income. I feel ignorant for not thinking of pacs and superpacs. In fact, I believe I saw a thread title recently that suggested they are money laundering.
Simply running a campaign into the ground and then quietly moving the money into different accounts after a couple of years is incredibly popular as well. The US is terrible at tracking defunct campaign accounts.
I think that's a "feature, not a bug" in the grand political scheme.
You’ve described literally every conceivable situation in politics. You should switch it to “Maeve (quotable)” next.
Hmm?
If it wasn’t you then someone else named themselves Maeve (famous) for a bit.
Oh? Why were they famous? Links?
They did it for a bit, and assuredly for a bit. And yes, they were famous for a bit. If you can find a Lemmbin server 2 weeks behind on its queue, you might find the bits.
Red flag much? I'll pass,. Thanks anyway.
seems like a good thread to plug https://represent.us
they describe themselves as
RepresentUs is America’s leading nonpartisan anti-corruption organization fighting to fix our broken and ineffective government. We unite people across the political spectrum to pass laws that hold corrupt politicians accountable, defeat special interests, and force the government to meet the needs of the American people.
here's their policy platform https://represent.us/policy-platform/
they claim to have played a part in over 185 pieces of legislation (mostly at the state level) that contributed to their core platform https://represent.us/our-wins/
here are their ongoing campaigns presented state by state https://represent.us/2024-campaigns/
nobody and no organization are perfect but I feel like most people can find something to agree on here
Their board has Microsoft and marketing execs and a venture capitalist and their advisory council has someone from the RNC at the top, hard pass
e;
I feel like most people can find something to agree on here
Do you think a political organization might misrepresent what they're about as a means to gain more power? Because that's happened, like, several times in human history
It is good and reasonable to be continually skeptical of the people and organizations we get involved with, and I appreciate your warning and looking out for bad organizations.
On the other hand, my experience in politics leads me to believe that if you sit around waiting for the perfect allies, you will usually be waiting alone for a very long time.
Looking at this group, it looks like in my state (Utah) they have been key support for a couple of well respected local nonprofits that have done great work on RCV and anti gerrymandering. That doesn't sound like such a bad thing to me.
I think it's a mistake generally to view Republicans as the enemy. Even if they are in a leadership role like in the RNC. For example, in Utah, nothing gets done without Republican approval. So saying "I won't work with you because you're Republican" here is a losing strategy to make changes. And we now have the beginnings of progress on RCV.
So I think we should continue to be vigilant and watch out for the first signs that people are acting in bad faith. But if we want our ideas to be popular, we are going to need to learn to (without compromising our own values) build a bigger tent.
nobody and no organization are perfect but I feel like most people can find something to agree on here
Basement dwelling Lemmy edgelord teenagers: "hold my Mountain Dew"
cracks knuckles
starts typing
Ok, I'm as progressive as it gets, but Bowman was done after the fire alarm stunt. Voters in his district didn't forget about that bullshit. Worse than that, he revealed that he was kind of an idiot in his attempts to explain his behavior.
Yes, all of the things about his opponent are troubling. The DNC is not on our side, and we need more progressives at every level of government. But we also need better politicians at every level of government. I'd rather have progressive morons than centrist who is competent, but either is better than a conservative, and the moron might not win a general election.
Didn't he pull it so that there was time to read the Republican stop gap spending bill for the government shutdown?
Not that I agree with the tactic, but it's not like he just pulled it to be a child.
Now him lying about "accidentally" pulling it is dumb AF. Own that shit. But still.
Yes. It he also said he was confronted by a locked door he thought was normally not locked, which kinda made him look an idiot.
He probably would have had it play better if he just came out and said why he did it
(Although, I’ve seen it happen enough times as a security guard. Fire pulls shouldn’t be immediately next to a door- those should be emergency releases. But those shouldn’t be on the locked side of the door, and fire code would suggest an ability to always get out is kinda sorta important.)
He didn't pull it to be a child, but he did pull it to be a dumbass, and people remember. His reasoning was idiotic from the start, and it will and should bite him. I'd still take him over any Republican, but I'd almost take any other competent Democrat.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Really? That made me like him more. Finally a Congressmen didn't take the Republican's shit lying down.
Also didn't help being so adamant dismissing claims of all sexual violence on oct 7. He didn't understand his constituents which changed slightly in redistricting, and for some reason the Bernie and AOC rallies occurred like 10 miles outside of his district which was most at risk for primary. Probably doesn't help referring to all people with any sympathy towards Israel as being part of a Zionist regime. Probably should have focused more on domestic issues that got him elected instead of focusing heavily on foreign policy that was divisive in his district.
He doesn't strike me as a particularly thoughtful or talented politician, but the situation in Gaza is particularly fraught. Nuance doesn't fit into a campaign slogan, and you'd have to be better at this to thread the needle between Zionism and anti-Semitism. I'm certain he would have preferred to make the primary about domestic issues, but his opponent wanted to make it about Israel/Palestine.
I didn't really follow the campaign, but you'd think "my opponent wants to talk about Israel and Palestine, but I want to talk about you, our community and its needs" would be an easy way to get out of that.
Maybe, but there is a significant Jewish population in New York for whom no other issues matter. So you'd have to be an excellent politician to sell that line after you've already used the "Z" word. Bowman is not an excellent politician. He seems like a decent human being, in over his head and unprepared to defend his positions from all sides. I wish he was better, because we need more progressives in leadership positions, and the centrists will use this to continue to sell the line that progressives can't win elections.
In December 2023, Latimer announced that he was running for the United States House of Representatives in 2024, challenging incumbent Jamaal Bowman in the June 25 primary for the Democratic nomination in New York's 16th congressional district.[22]
Latimer has received high-profile endorsements for his campaign including from Hillary Clinton, a resident of Chappaqua in Westchester County, former area representatives Eliot Engel and Nita Lowey, and most state legislators representing the district.[3][23] During the campaign, multiple news outlets reported on the "record-breaking" levels of outside spending in Latimer's favor. Over $14 million in outside spending benefited Latimer's campaign, much of it from groups affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.[24][25]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Latimer_(New_York_politician)
I did not see that coming. /s
In the NY-16 district election, Jamaal Bowman received 84% of the vote in the Bronx, a working class area. He did poorly in the suburbs of Westchester and ended up with 42% He lost in the suburbs. Why do you think that is?
Spending. I think his outreach was unable to beat the advertisements paid for by his opposition, in part due to the absolutely bonkers investment from the AIPAC. So, that's my answer
simple people over simplify answers. money was one factor. but his outreach game sucked. he embarrassed himself in nationally visible ways (fire alarm). he took hard stances on divisive political issues (Israel/Hams) when his constituents had divided opinions. he district was redrawn so he lost part of his base.
load more comments
(14 replies)
Why didn't local democrats in his district come out to support him with more rigor? Did he forge those relationships? Did he cooperate and take time to get to know the Westchester community? If I understand correctly, the redistricting made him lose a chunk of the Bronx. Race-wise it looks like based on wikipedia change history the district changed from 30% black and 30% white to 40% white and 20% black. I am not saying this is inherently racism, but his constituency changed. He lost a pocket of his base and was required to forge new relationships and build up a new base. And his fumbles and positions on Israel did not help in that regard. Money played into it, but he redistricting and bad choices created the vulnerability that allowed them to step in.
His district boundaries changed and he did nothing to reach out to and attempt to represent his new constituents.
And that's why it's important to look at the data. Sorry about the inevitable downvotes, but falsehoods fly around the world as truth is tying up its boots.
This jezebel garbage is pretty rage baity. The NYT had a much better and informative take: What Jamaal Bowman’s Loss Means for the Left https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/26/nyregion/jamaal-bowman-squad-left.html
And
Bowman Falls to Latimer in a Loss for Progressive Democrats https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/nyregion/bowman-latimer-house-new-york.html
On the ground, though, even some of Mr. Bowman’s allies conceded that his campaign was in trouble long before the group got involved, hamstrung by unforced errors, staff churn and strategic missteps.
The biggest took place last fall when Mr. Bowman, in a hurry to get to the Capitol, pulled the fire alarm. He later apologized, but he was charged with a misdemeanor, and the timing, just a week before Oct. 7, could hardly have been worse.
Opposition researchers turned up old blog posts dabbling in 9/11 conspiracy theories and publicized video of Mr. Bowman calling reports that Hamas sexually abused Israeli women during its attack “propaganda.” (He later apologized.)
Relatively few Democrats in the area stepped up to defend him. Some explained that in four years in office, the congressman had rarely shown interest in getting to know their communities.
Check out runforsomething.net if you're interested in running as or supporting progressive candidates.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
292 points (94.5% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4523 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS