|
Kilroy posted:Prove it. Here's my proof: November 2016 you whiner. It's really great how you think a joke made 46 weeks before election is totally going to lose the election.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
fishmech posted:Here's my proof: November 2016 you whiner. It's really great how you think a joke made 46 weeks before election is totally going to lose the election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
It's true, voters are dumb and have short memories.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:So, not proven, then. You don't have any proof of your lunatic theory that voters are going to change their minds based on some random tweet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You don't have any proof of your lunatic theory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
If 3 straight years of Benghazi haven't hurt Hillary I don't think this will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Even the idea that your opponent loving up hard can harm you is some crazy impressive levels of spin. Or just straight up delusion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If 3 straight years of Benghazi haven't hurt Hillary I don't think this will.  This isn't really anything for her campaign to be losing sleep over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Xae posted:Even the idea that your opponent loving up hard can harm you is some crazy impressive levels of spin. Or just straight up delusion. It hurts her by unnecessarily driving a rift between her and the Bernie crew that she needs to bring back in the fold after the convention.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Xae posted:Even the idea that your opponent loving up hard can harm you is some crazy impressive levels of spin. Or just straight up delusion. Kilroy is correct in that the Clinton campaign stands to gain nothing from attacking Sanders over this. Luckily the Clinton campaign has gotten the memo it seems like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
TIL the Obamas have two dogs. Also that all the First Pets except the Obamas' are dead, though I have no confirmation on Ofelia the Cow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You don't have any proof of your lunatic theory that voters are going to change their minds based on some random tweet. It's not that people are going to change their mind over a tweet, it's that they're showing no sign of wanting to bring people in. She assumes like she has all along that all the Democratic votes are hers and that she doesn't need to earn them and she has hired people that think the same. No one is going to care about that tweet next November, but if this is the kind of campaign she's going to run, she certainly isn't going to convince people who have their doubts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
foobardog posted:TIL the Obamas have two dogs. Also that all the First Pets except the Obamas' are dead, though I have no confirmation on Ofelia the Cow. Since the other ones are at least 7 years old, that would make sense. Someone should get an Aldabra Tortoise and have it outlive the nation. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Where's your evidence then, chief? Most if not all the political shows tonight are making the equivalence argument that now the Dems are just as fractured as the Republicans now. Further more, even if folks are smart enough to vote for Clinton in the general, this sort of crap is going to make folks think twice about donating money, making calls or knocking on doors. That poo poo doesn't help Clinton win, and it doesn't help down ticket Dems either. They should have kept this poo poo inhouse. This was an unforced error for the party at large, and your interest in painting all Sanders' supporters as insane reddit posters is blinding you to that fact. Even the Clinton campaign is pulling back from this. Why aren't you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I don't think you know what my "lunatic theory" is since you keep missing the mark in arguing with me. Your insane theory is that the Bernouts horribly offended by this were ever going to vote for her. ReidRansom posted:It's not that people are going to change their mind over a tweet, it's that they're showing no sign of wanting to bring people in. Solkanar512 posted:Most if not all the political shows tonight are making the equivalence argument that now the Dems are just as fractured as the Republicans now. Further more, even if folks are smart enough to vote for Clinton in the general, this sort of crap is going to make folks think twice about donating money, making calls or knocking on doors. Ah yes, the power of the political shows on a late friday night.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Your insane theory is that the Bernouts horribly offended by this were ever going to vote for her. Now they are. After they appear to have been savaged for their response.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:This was an unforced error for the party at large It was an unforced error by the DNC who leaked it to the Washington Post and went nuclear on the Sanders campaign rather than handling it discretely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Now they are. After they appear to have been savaged for their response. Unfairly savaged, because they did nothing close to wrong. The extent of anything that could be considered offensive was a single tweet. Are you maybe confusing the DNC with the Hillary campaign here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It was an unforced error by the DNC who leaked it to the Washington Post and went nuclear on the Sanders campaign rather than handling it discretely. Seriously, DWS is total poo poo and has hosed two elections so far. Will a third finally be enough to get her tossed out on her rear end?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Unfairly savaged, because they did nothing close to wrong. The extent of anything that could be considered offensive was a single tweet. Oh, no the DNC handled it far worse than the Clinton campaign, who really should have just never said anything at all. It was more than a single tweet though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Seriously, DWS is total poo poo and has hosed two elections so far. Will a third finally be enough to get her tossed out on her rear end? I think you'd find those elections hosed without DWS, but it is pleasurable to have a scapegoat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
it keeps happening
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It was an unforced error by the DNC who leaked it to the Washington Post and went nuclear on the Sanders campaign rather than handling it discretely. Considering how recalcitrant the Sanders campaign has been on this today, there's part of me that wonders if it could have been handled discreetly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Since the other ones are at least 7 years old, that would make sense. Trump should, although let's be honest, he could adopt a fruit fly and have some pretty good odds there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Agreed and what's concerning to me is that Clinton and her past campaigns have shown a great ability to be tone deaf and unable to read obvious political winds. Mostly because she surrounds herself with loyalists and yes-men instead of the best people for the job. Yeah, I've always been skeptical about the sort of people she's staffed around her. One thing you can say about the Obama campaign and administration (White House), they run a tight ship. An incredibly, somewhat unique in presidential history, tight ship. EDIT: But all in all, this is a storm in a teacup. Nothing makes the American public's eyes glaze over quicker than INTERNET SCANDAL. Expect this to blow away in a week (this poster says optimistically, hopefully not to be mocked later). Shageletic fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It was an unforced error by the DNC who leaked it to the Washington Post and went nuclear on the Sanders campaign rather than handling it discretely. Was it DWS herself that leaked it to the post?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Your insane theory is that the Bernouts horribly offended by this were ever going to vote for her. So let's hear from you how the Clinton campaign reaction, initially at least, since it is their initial reaction that you were defending, is a net positive for her general election campaign.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Yeah, I've always been skeptical about the sort of people she's staffed around her. One thing you can say about the Obama campaign and administration (White House), they run a tight ship. An incredibly, somewhat unique in presidential history, tight ship. Except her campaign this time around is about a billion times better than 2008. Remember Mark Penn?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Let's assume for the sake of argument and since I'm obviously not going to convince you otherwise or get through to you on this, that this is an accurate appraisal of what I think. The initial reaction was "wow stealing data is bad, that's not cool". And then someone made a joke tweet. What's supposed to be a horrible reaction about that? What's even wrong with that at all? Why do things have to be a net positive to be done? I guess they were wrong to expect the whiny contingent to not freak out, but you can't really plan around the barely sane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
smg77 posted:Except her campaign this time around is about a billion times better than 2008. Remember Mark Penn? True, and she's had some Obama people melded into her campaign apparatus. This list shows that there's plenty of old standbys, going back to her 2001 Senate campaign and beyond on deck http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clintonorg.html And then you have the tight cluster of old hands dating from her days as first lady, like Cherry Mills, her former chief of staff, that act as gatekeepers for Hillary. I think I posted an article about it a while ago, I might dig it up later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Why do things have to be a net positive to be done? quote:I guess they were wrong to expect the whiny contingent to not freak out, but you can't really plan around the barely sane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It's actually trivially easy to plan around, provided you don't first dismiss them as "the whiny contingent" and "barely sane". How do you want it sugar coated then?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It's actually trivially easy to plan around, provided you don't first dismiss them as "the whiny contingent" and "barely sane". One could expect that planning for not making ill-received tweets is about as trivially easy as planning for staffers not committing theft.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Was it DWS herself that leaked it to the post? Impossible to say, but it was definitely someone at the DNC. Charitably, you could say it was impossible for them to contain this story, but the fact that the leak to the Post happened at exactly the same time as the lockout of the Sanders campaign ain't great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
You're trying to run for President of the United States. You should 100% be able to make at least some plan around the actions of the barely sane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:You're trying to run for President of the United States. You should 100% be able to make at least some plan around the actions of the barely sane. Seems to be working out alright for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If 3 straight years of Benghazi haven't hurt Hillary I don't think this will. Terrorism. Terrorism will hurt Clinton's candidacy, computer parts, because Clinton is a domestic policy president who doesn't want to "bomb the poo poo out of them"
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Terrorism. You'd need a triple figure body count in the USA but yeah this would do it
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:Isn't that obvious? No, it's not obvious why doing things that change nothing/are neutral is bad. Most things done in any campaign have no effect. There was no way to know that whiners like you were going to take "hey don't do that" as some sort of horrible party ending insult.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 05:11
|
|