Does The Left Need Jimmy Dore?

[storyteller]

HA Goodman

@ineedsleep212 @storyteller

Extreme close-ups and ish with that weirdo fam. Some of us have seen this grift thing turn too many times to stay patient with Jimmy Dore. Dude's trash period.

 

[storyteller]

Lol yea I been off Jimmy Dore but I'm tired of this whole thing being discussed focused around Jimmy even if he needs to get checked for being extra toxic, a whole dumbass and getting all high and mighty if ppl don't move how he moves.

People basically want the Squad to stop being nothing but a prop in a photo and a foot stool in Congress all the while the establishment continues to shyt on them and blame the left in general for everything. I get it and people are antsy cuz nothing is happening. People want them to be accountable and not coopted. I understand the skepticism. The lasers will be on them come this time next month.

The conditions are way worse now than 2018 and their power has grown since then even if the bigger push for real power was lost. The fight has to happen now.

I'm frustrated with this "hold them accountable" crap...what are we doing attacking the people that actually push our messages, write the bills closest to our goals and give us platforms? How is that helping advance ANYTHING we want as a goal?

There are politicians to hold accountable, we shouldn't need a floor vote to figure out who they are and we shouldn't misdirect our ire at the people who would absolutely vote for M4A on a floor vote. If you're skeptical about a rep, then go at THAT REP. We don't need losing floor votes to do those calculations and I can't see anything else even remotely valuable about this strategy otherwise. What does an M4A floor vote that loses accomplish? How does it push us forward? And why is attacking AOC over it a better strategy than attacking people who don't actually support the bill and highlighting who we need to move?

I just don't get this from a strategic point of view at all.

Sidenote: The biggest news of the week should be the progressive caucus forming behind Jayapal, Porter and Omar as the key role players. Progressive politics feels like it's ready to take a big step forward and we're training our sights on the Squad instead of helping build their influence.

 

[Gains]

such a toxic individual

 

[AnonymityX1000]

I'm frustrated with this "hold them accountable" crap...what are we doing attacking the people that actually push our messages, write the bills closest to our goals and give us platforms? How is that helping advance ANYTHING we want as a goal?

There are politicians to hold accountable, we shouldn't need a floor vote to figure out who they are and we shouldn't misdirect our ire at the people who would absolutely vote for M4A on a floor vote. If you're skeptical about a rep, then go at THAT REP. We don't need losing floor votes to do those calculations and I can't see anything else even remotely valuable about this strategy otherwise. What does an M4A floor vote that loses accomplish? How does it push us forward? And why is attacking AOC over it a better strategy than attacking people who don't actually support the bill and highlighting who we need to move?

I just don't get this from a strategic point of view at all.

Sidenote: The biggest news of the week should be the progressive caucus forming behind Jayapal, Porter and Omar as the key role players. Progressive politics feels like it's ready to take a big step forward and we're training our sights on the Squad instead of helping build their influence.

I think the logic is you can really bash reps over the head who don't vote for it during a pandemic in the next election. And not letting co-sponsors hide behind that. A vote yay or nay is way more substantial. And just basic 'get something for your vote'. If the entire party needs you why not get something for it?
Jimmy crapping on Dem Progressives isn't some nail in their coffin it is a bad headline for a week in the smallest of circles. If they do formulate a strategy that's effective and gets something done this will all be forgotten.

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

Trumpset caping hard for Jimmy Dore

Which gives the game away

 

[storyteller]

I think the logic is you can really bash reps over the head who don't vote for it during a pandemic in the next election. And not letting co-sponsors hide behind that. A vote yay or nay is way more substantial. And just basic 'get something for your vote'. If the entire party needs you why not get something for it?

Why would any of the cosponsors worry about switching to a nay vote when there aren't enough votes to pass the bill? If a bill needs 5 more votes to pass anyway, there's no reason for a politician to change their position on the bill. I feel like we intuited throughout some of the Trump era votes and applied it to Republicans. We'd assume that the four or five Republicans mulling over voting against the party were only doing so as long as it wasn't actually a threat to be the vote that passes the bill or the impeachment for example. ie: Mitt Romney's not brave...he's inconsequential.

As far as "if the entire party needs you, why not get something?" Everyone in this debate agrees on that point. The disagreement is over the ask. I'm not leveraging the vote for a symbolic measure that I don't even think gets us any closer to M4A. So the committee appointments and important roles that could turn into actual progressive leadership in the future? Those are where I try to leverage this. That's not to say that I'm completely opposed to a vote on M4A, but I don't see any practical value in it and what little value I do see is superseded by other better options.

Jimmy crapping on Dem Progressives isn't some nail in their coffin it is a bad headline for a week in the smallest of circles. If they do formulate a strategy that's effective and gets something done this will all be forgotten.

Jimmy crapping on Dem Progressives isn't a nail and the coffin and nobody's treating it like so. He put out a strategy and people don't agree with it. When they expressed strategic disagreement, he began attacking them as not progressive, as cowards, or as being the ones standing in the way of your M4A and being evil (this is literally what he said about AOC). Jimmy can't make or break the movement, but he's a being an a$$hole. It is what it is.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Why would any of the cosponsors worry about switching to a nay vote when there aren't enough votes to pass the bill? If a bill needs 5 more votes to pass anyway, there's no reason for a politician to change their position on the bill. I feel like we intuited throughout some of the Trump era votes and applied it to Republicans. We'd assume that the four or five Republicans mulling over voting against the party were only doing so as long as it wasn't actually a threat to be the vote that passes the bill or the impeachment for example. ie: Mitt Romney's not brave...he's inconsequential.

As far as "if the entire party needs you, why not get something?" Everyone in this debate agrees on that point. The disagreement is over the ask. I'm not leveraging the vote for a symbolic measure that I don't even think gets us any closer to M4A. So the committee appointments and important roles that could turn into actual progressive leadership in the future? Those are where I try to leverage this. That's not to say that I'm completely opposed to a vote on M4A, but I don't see any practical value in it and what little value I do see is superseded by other better options.



Jimmy crapping on Dem Progressives isn't a nail and the coffin and nobody's treating it like so. He put out a strategy and people don't agree with it. When they expressed strategic disagreement, he began attacking them as not progressive, as cowards, or as being the ones standing in the way of your M4A and being evil (this is literally what he said about AOC). Jimmy can't make or break the movement, but he's a being an a$$hole. It is what it is.

If that's the case there shouldn't be any opposition. They can easily demonstrate the cosponsor list is indeed accurate. If AOC threatens with held her vote for M4A, Pelosi budges holds the vote and all the co-sponsors do vote for it and it doesn't pass Jimmy looks pretty dumb. But that's not what happened, AOC when answering the football player seem to say Pelosi would rather lose the speakership that put up the vote. Why is that if the sponsor list is very accurate? It's not really adding up and kinda proving Jimmy's point.
The play is M4A because it is uniquely relevant during a pandemic and AOC had expressed a desire for wanting that vote in the House in the past. It's not at all arbitrary but strategic. And it seems she was against this because of committee appointments and the like she was negotiating behind the scenes and then what happened? She didn't get the committee appointment she wanted. So her resistance to the idea didn't even work in her favor in that regard.

 

[God Almighty]

This guy is today's main character on Twitter, huh?

 

[storyteller]

If that's the case there shouldn't be any opposition. They can easily demonstrate the cosponsor list is indeed accurate. If AOC threatens with held her vote for M4A, Pelosi budges holds the vote and all the co-sponsors do vote for it and it doesn't pass Jimmy looks pretty dumb. But that's not what happened, AOC when answering the football player seem to say Pelosi would rather lose the speakership that put up the vote. Why is that if the sponsor list is very accurate? It's not really adding up and kinda proving Jimmy's point.

So let's say, this all happens exactly as you describe it here...what has it accomplished? How has it gotten us any closer to M4A?

It was performative and meaningless.

The play is M4A because it is uniquely relevant during a pandemic and AOC had expressed a desire for wanting that vote in the House in the past. It's not at all arbitrary but strategic. And it seems she was against this because of committee appointments and the like she was negotiating behind the scenes and then what happened? She didn't get the committee appointment she wanted. So her resistance to the idea didn't even work in her favor in that regard.

Nah, you haven't demonstrated that a losing vote on M4A actually helps. That's where the disagreement is here. I don't see the value of it at all compared to even something nominal. She didn't ONLY mention committee appointments. She used committee seats as an example and her own committee seat isn't the only one that would be up for discussion.

She also mentioned 15 dollar minimum wage which Jimmy loves to mock. She and others have also mentioned aspects of the stimulus package which the progressive caucus conspicuously got direct payments added to this week.

You can't just put this shyt in a vacuum. It's not "this one thing versus M4A," M4A doesn't even get off the House floor in your best case scenario.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

So let's say, this all happens exactly as you describe it here...what has it accomplished? How has it gotten us any closer to M4A?

It was performative and meaningless.



Nah, you haven't demonstrated that a losing vote on M4A actually helps. That's where the disagreement is here. She didn't ONLY mention committee appointments. She used committee seats as an example and her own committee seat isn't the only one that would be up for discussion.

She also mentioned 15 dollar minimum wage which Jimmy loves to mock. She and others have also mentioned aspects of the stimulus package which the progressive caucus conspicuously got direct payments added to this week.

You can't just put this shyt in a vacuum. It's not "this one thing versus M4A," M4A doesn't even get off the House floor in your best case scenario.

If the public sees their politicians voting against M4A during a pandemic it will have some effect on public sentiment regarding their status/future electability, it gets the conversation going in the public discourse.
Everyone already supports a $15 minimum wage, hell Biden actually ran on it. That issue is not holding anyone's feet to the fire. And specifically there are multiple video clips of AOC saying she really wants a vote on M4A in the House. She has paid a lot of lip service for getting this vote before Jimmy ever hatched this. So this is putting her previous words to the test to see if she was really about that or just saying shyt.
So after Progressives voted for the CARES Act, voted to continue the Patriot Act and all the while not extracting anything for these votes they are starting to look funny. The rubber has to meet the road eventually. You can't position yourself as a Progressive, differentiate yourself from the avg. Dem in Congress and verbally flout leadership but then go along with everything when it's time to vote. You look funny after awhile. Progressive pols are gonna have to take a stand against the status quo sooner rather than later. Jimmy thought this was a uniquely opportune time for this fight. Yeah, AOC and the rest of the Progressives don't have to agree but now they have to do something/anything confrontational to leadership or what's the point of all the rhetoric?

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

I feel like the left doesn’t need Jimmy Dore

 

[storyteller]

If the public sees their politicians voting against M4A during a pandemic it will have some effect on public sentiment regarding their status/future electability, it gets the conversation going in the public discourse.
Everyone already supports a $15 minimum wage, hell Biden actually ran on it. That issue is not holding anyone's feet to the fire. And specifically there are multiple video clips of AOC saying she really wants a vote on M4A in the House. She has paid a lot of lip service for getting this vote before Jimmy ever hatched this. So this is putting her previous words to the test to see if she was really about that or just saying shyt.
So after Progressives voted for the CARES Act, voted to continue the Patriot Act and all the while not extracting anything for these votes they are starting to look funny. The rubber has to meet the road eventually. You can't position yourself as a Progressive, differentiate yourself from the avg. Dem in Congress and verbally flout leadership but then go along with everything when it's time to vote. You look funny after awhile. Progressive pols are gonna have to take a stand against the status quo sooner rather than later. Jimmy thought this was a uniquely opportune time for this fight. Yeah, AOC and the rest of the Progressives don't have to agree but now they have to do something/anything confrontational to leadership or what's the point of all the rhetoric?

I wouldn’t assume public sentiment turns after a vote. The bill exists with sponsors. A better strategy imo would be to target non-sponsors until you actually have the votes to win. That makes more sense than assuming a losing vote would be spun in a way that turns public sentiment any further than coverage of the issue already has.

Again, AOC can both want a house vote on Medicare for all and also believe that there are strategies with more actual, material impacts than demanding a losing vote on a bill and hoping for a sudden swing in public reaction.

AOC didn’t vote for the CARES act I thought?

Anyway, I’ll maintain my simple belief that actually getting something consequential will always be more important than chasing a performative loss in hope that it’s some sort of silver bullet to manifest M4A which just sounds like wishful thinking to me.

This is more the type of thing I’m hoping for:

 

[AnonymityX1000]

I wouldn’t assume public sentiment turns after a vote. The bill exists with sponsors. A better strategy imo would be to target non-sponsors until you actually have the votes to win. That makes more sense than assuming a losing vote would be spun in a way that turns public sentiment any further than coverage of the issue already has.

Again, AOC can both want a house vote on Medicare for all and also believe that there are strategies with more actual, material impacts than demanding a losing vote on a bill and hoping for a sudden swing in public reaction.

AOC didn’t vote for the CARES act I thought?

Anyway, I’ll maintain my simple belief that actually getting something consequential will always be more important than chasing a performative loss in hope that it’s some sort of silver bullet to manifest M4A which just sounds like wishful thinking to me.

This is more the type of thing I’m hoping for:

Non sponsors are already targeted by Justice Democrats Our Revolution etc. And come on, you got to know the game being played. Coming at Democrats publicly who publicly don't support M4A is a non-story. If you want to come provacative you got to call people frauds and say what they say is not what they mean that's how you trend on twitter and bring attention to yourself and the issue.
Attempting to get a public reaction for politicians not carrying out the overwhelming sentiment of the people is a worthwhile attempt. It might not work but during a pandemic when support is at an all time high is great opportunity. I can't think of another one coming down the pike that would be better to further the discussion on Universal healthcare than during a pandemic.
She says she didn't vote for CARES Act, Jimmy says she did and it's not public information. Every other Progressive definitely did vote for it.
Getting on committees is cool but it isn't what got you elected. Playing get along with establishment to get committee posts isn't what people want. They going to have to stand for something. And what better time than this? Think to, they got to do something to change the House trajectory as well since they are predicted to lose it in two years. Showing some fight on an issue people care about helps.
The Progressives don't have to do it on Jimmy's time table but before 2022 they gonna have to oppose something the horrible leadership is doing and do it with votes and hopefully strategic and effective opposition.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

I wouldn’t assume public sentiment turns after a vote. The bill exists with sponsors. A better strategy imo would be to target non-sponsors until you actually have the votes to win. That makes more sense than assuming a losing vote would be spun in a way that turns public sentiment any further than coverage of the issue already has.

Again, AOC can both want a house vote on Medicare for all and also believe that there are strategies with more actual, material impacts than demanding a losing vote on a bill and hoping for a sudden swing in public reaction.

AOC didn’t vote for the CARES act I thought?

Anyway, I’ll maintain my simple belief that actually getting something consequential will always be more important than chasing a performative loss in hope that it’s some sort of silver bullet to manifest M4A which just sounds like wishful thinking to me.

This is more the type of thing I’m hoping for:

While making the case that she needs to NOT leverage her vote in order to get a committee seat, AOC loses her committee seat to someone who actually leveraged their vote. Just wow.
I mean she didn't have to do what Jimmy said but the irony on this one is pretty deep. lol

 

[storyteller]

While making the case that she needs to NOT leverage her vote in order to get a committee seat, AOC loses her committee seat to someone who actually leveraged their vote. Just wow.
I mean she didn't have to do what Jimmy said but the irony on this one is pretty deep. lol

So I feel like this kinda gets to the myopic viewpoint that Jimmy Dore and his supporters are locked in, turning this into a one vs one battle on the issues when AOC and everyone else speaking about this whole "leverage" thing has offered multiple alternative options.

AOC didn't say "MY committee seat" she mentioned committee seats. So my example above, where Cori Bush gets an important role as a newcomer, still fits what AOC was talking about. But Jimmy will very quickly ignore what progressives do get in order to focus on what they don't. So it's "forget Cori Bush...AOC didn't win her seat therefore she was wrong." That's not how it works.

On top of that, what does this actually tell us? AOC lost this seat conspicuously after acknowledging that she would vote for a Speaker to the left of Pelosi if one were available. The establishment just kicked her in the teeth for challenging the Speaker. But now we're supposed to believe that she had the power to force an M4A vote?

So I assume the pivot from there would be "well if the caucus withholds their vote" which is fine...except why the hell are we hyper focused on AOC when the Progressive caucus JUST named Pramila Jayapal their leader, Katie Porter second and Ilhan Omar their WHIP. If you're actually concerned about accomplishing this over gatekeeping, maybe focus on the people who CAN get your ask accomplished and not just the name with the most click bait value.

And it also worth noting that Kathleen Rice didn't withhold her vote to get this position. She withheld her vote back in 2018 and if you think that was a magic bullet to a committee assignment two years later...oh wait Jimmy thinks that a vote on M4A will magically unseat legislators two years later...maybe he's naive enough to actually believe that Rice withholding a vote a 2 years ago was the key here. But it's a massive reach otherwise.

All from the guy that hyped up Tulsi Gabbard just because she was willing to go on his show