|
If only there was some kind of inclusive mobilization strategy that focused on all states, like some kind of 50 state strategy. Sure, you'll lose most the states you try and reach out to, but you'll get great coverage and you'll genuinely look like you're trying to talk to the whole nation. Hmmmmmm. Nah, gently caress it. Wisconsin will always be blue. Edit: frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Man I don't know. I think she was super garbo as a candidate but I don't think they could possibly be stupid enough to support her in 2020 after this fiasco. Losing a primary is one thing. Losing an election to Donald loving Trump is another entirely. She lost a primary despite having every possible advantage you can dream of other than a dick. If anything 2008 was a much much more humiliating loss.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
mugrim posted:It will absolutely "Do poo poo". i disagree, i think the best way to get rid of the clintons is to forget about them and stop paying attention to them, lest all the built up salt gets people confused like "wow a lot of people are talking about hillary clinton still!!!" when the time rolls around again
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
mugrim posted:It will absolutely "Do poo poo". 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
To be fair AZ was closer than PA in raw votes, wasn't it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
mugrim posted:She lost a primary despite having every possible advantage you can dream of other than a dick. oh i totally disagree. This victory is one that she should have had in the bag and she still managed to gently caress it up. Obama was a once in a lifetime candidate who came out of loving nowhere. Donald Trump was a clown with decades of dirt who can barely string sentences together. I honestly think we've mostly seen the last of her other than the occasional sighting in the wild, like bigfoot or the chupacabra.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
i remember in the early days of 2015 when people were running from door to door looking for a democratic candidate because there was absolutely no one utter madness
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
mugrim posted:It will absolutely "Do poo poo". I think you and I remember 2008 differently. To me it was clear that her appointment to SoS was to keep her in Washington and political active and to keep her bona fides shored up in clear anticipation to try again 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
I don't think it was unreasonable to expect some kind of Hillary run in '16 considering Obama made her Sec of State. If he hadn't, I don't think this election would have been the same at all. Clinton might have had a different dynamic being outside his administration away from the eventual Republican Congress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
zegermans posted:I think you and I remember 2008 differently. To me it was clear that her appointment to SoS was to keep her in Washington and political active and to keep her bona fides shored up in clear anticipation to try again 2016. Oh totally. That didn't mean people were assuming she'd not do it though. Politically she was seen as a massive failure and she simply didn't know how to campaign. I was working that campaign, no one thought she'd get over that hurdle or want to donate money to someone who blew a ton on a primary and still lost. She would definitely run, but the idea of the institution unilaterally lining up behind her seemed questionable at best. By 2016 people figured Bill would be out of the public eye so long it wouldn't matter what his cache was. She pissed off tons of donors by losing what was a sure thing. It's why I have zero faith that she will refuse to run in 2020 and that the DNC won't be 100% behind her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
It's sad we can't even look forward to a cool photo like this because she doesn't even drive a car.  
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
A thread that isn't allowed to "relitigate" this year's primary is about to do it to 2008's primary, lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:A thread that isn't allowed to "relitigate" this year's primary is about to do it to 2008's primary, lol interesting word choice that cannot be found anywhere in the forum rules
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Oh totally. its one thing to lose to obama in a primary and kinda bow down and get your poo poo together and run in a clear field. that's definitely one thing. but losing to donald trump is such political poison that if she actually runs in 2020, literally any other candidate will sweep her out of the way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:interesting word choice that cannot be found anywhere in the forum rules From the OP: quote:IK Note: Please no excessive slapfighting about the primaries. No coulda, woulda, shoulda talk over it. You can analyze what should have been improved on for future primary fields. anime was right posted:its one thing to lose to obama in a primary and kinda bow down and get your poo poo together and run in a clear field. that's definitely one thing. Oh I agree they're not totally linear, but if the narrative becomes "She just lost because of RACISTS and SEXISTS" and the blame isn't put on her, that political poison won't last 4 years. mugrim has issued a correction as of 20:21 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:A thread that isn't allowed to "relitigate" this year's primary is about to do it to 2008's primary, lol You can talk about any primary. It's been clamped down on because nobody can prevent themselves from making silly attacks of other posters regarding it. You don't even have to name posters anymore, attacks are just made, and it's insufferable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
mugrim posted:From the OP: i haven't said anything that implies you've done anything of the sort
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
what i am saying is that hamster dance is a moron
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
You seem really defensive for such an offhand comment lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:i haven't said anything that implies you've done anything of the sort Oh I was addressing Hamster right then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:You seem really defensive for such an offhand comment lol http://i.imgur.com/ZbE4WNJ.gifv
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
im fuckin steamin that the rules only apply to bad posters making bad posts
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Oh I agree they're not totally linear, but if the narrative becomes "She just lost because of RACISTS and SEXISTS" and the blame isn't put on her, that political poison won't last 4 years. the former being hysterical because obama won. twice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Means testing is not great, so I still think BI will win out over GMI. But I honestly don't see how we don't do one of them eventually if things keep going the way they are... What's BI? I thought GMI was the idea that everyone got money. Also you guys are right, the idea that you could legislate people to stay in a job that the automation process is trying to eliminate isn't a stop-gap at all. Safety concerns won't stay around forever. "Why should we pay people to do nothing" is still the argument, and even though there's a million jokes I could make about that addressing it seriously has you fighting the fight for general welfare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:What's BI? I thought GMI was the idea that everyone got money. BI is Basic Income, that's the simple straightforward flat distribution to everyone in the country. GMI is Guaranteed Minimum Income, which is the means tests version where you get an mount of money based on your earnings from the previous year, where there is some acceptable level we agree upon and the government gives you enough to make up the difference. It generally rests on the assumption most people would not, in fact, be paid. There's also Negative Income Tax which gives you more money the less you make, but still makes sure you make money working at each step in the process... most variants are mathematically identical to a BI + Progressive Tax Rate but with more complex paperwork and a time delay. From a rhetorical perspective, BI is nice because GMI involves everyony doing work and many people not seeing a reward (it only gives money to poor people), but everyone receives a check and gets to feel like they are benefitting from the system, even if they paid more in than they're getting out of it this year. GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 21:03 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Is this the thread where we talk about 2018 gubernatorial races, because toot toot get ready to wield the sword of Chiang?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
zegermans posted:I thought we were against throwing money into unwinnable races in red states. Huh, that would explain why Clinton didn't bother to visit Wisconsin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
mugrim posted:It will absolutely "Do poo poo". alright calm down. she's not going to run again, and if she did she wouldn't win the primary. the idea of her running in 2016 was never a joke and i have no idea who at dnc thought she should run in 2012 given that quite a few of them were obama staffers. i think it was abundantly clear during the primary that hillary was not a talented politician. she looked a lot better before she ran than while she was running. but i think in the end her loss was due to strategic errors that exposed serious flaws in how the democratic party's professionals conduct campaigns. had their resources been better allocated and their messaging more effective, they probably would have won Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 21:38 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Hillary is a bad campaigner who would have made a terrific president. To be fair, she got more votes than any white man in US history. She merely lost by thin margins in the wrong states. I love her, she's a really great person and a terrific stateswoman, but I really hope she doesn't run again. I doubt she will; you can tell she hates campaigning and she'll be too old anyway. For historical precedent, note that no losing Democratic nominee has run in the next presidential primary for decades, since Humphrey in '72: Kerry didn't run in '08, Gore didn't run in 04, Dukakis didn't run in '92, Mondale didn't run in '88, Carter didn't run in '84, McGovern didn't run in '76. Hillary will not run in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:Nothing like chasing my favorite sandwich, the hotdog, with some lemon bar cookies. lol if your favorite sandwich isn't a taco
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Hillary turned 2016 into a real time reenactment of the tortoise and the hare, if you gently caress up that badly you don't get second chances
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Hillary is a bad campaigner who would have made a terrific president. To be fair, she got more votes than any white man in US history. She merely lost by thin margins in the wrong states. Source your quotes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Amanda Marcotte and her ilk of people who think the flyover country is just lovely poor people who ruin things will begin writing articles in 2018-2019 about Hillary 3.0 where sh'es learned the value of humility and why it's going to lead to the dems having 60 seats in the senate and 2/3rds the house along with her presidential victory. If the insane poo poo about progressivism cannot fail and was just held back by sabotage by those evil NEOLIBRULS that people itt keep going on about holds any water, by 2019 it should be expected the dems will already have 60 seats in the senate and 2/3rds of the house. If they don't, you don't have a leg to stand on to criticize, frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:The House is lost until gerrymandering is eliminated forever. But they could have flipped seats if only they had a candidate people were excited about, with a populist bent. And here goes the "buh-buh-but the establishment CHEATED" excuses, invariably using things that actually happened and were way way worse in the general. LGD posted:she did win a contest with her cookies and the recipe isn't bad, though I still maintain Barbara Bush unnecessarily handicapped herself by going with lemon bars Delicious lemon bars are easy, you just need to figure out the proper timing and put the egg based icing in the oven with it after the base is set. Tatum Girlparts posted:if lemon bars are cookies then so are brownies and we're just living in loving fantasy land. If it has flour and sugar and can fit in your hand it's a freaking cookie. mugrim posted:If only there was some kind of inclusive mobilization strategy that focused on all states, like some kind of 50 state strategy. Sure, you'll lose most the states you try and reach out to, but you'll get great coverage and you'll genuinely look like you're trying to talk to the whole nation. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Fulchrum, your side won the primary, how are you still this mad about it
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
fulchrum full of cum
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
I'm not sure what the Hill Shills want to accomplish with this constant talk about how yooge and luxurious Hillary's election loss was. I mean yeah pointing out that she won the popular vote is all good and stuff but in the end it doesn't mean anything, certainly not three weeks after the election is over. https://twitter.com/Khanoisseur/status/803342830160605184 https://twitter.com/Khanoisseur/status/802891853087375360
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
lol if obama goes down as a modern day buchanan
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
the country hates Trump (if you compare favoribility ratings to any recent presidents at this point in time) and Clinton still lost because the Democratic strategy used by the DNC and Obama for the past 6 years sucked. no two ways around that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
loquacius posted:Fulchrum, your side won the primary, how are you still this mad about it He's a shithead. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Hillary is a bad campaigner who would have made a terrific president. To be fair, she got more votes than any white man in US history. She merely lost by thin margins in the wrong states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I'm not sure what the Hill Shills want to accomplish with this constant talk about how yooge and luxurious Hillary's election loss was. I mean yeah pointing out that she won the popular vote is all good and stuff but in the end it doesn't mean anything, certainly not three weeks after the election is over. "Hillary did well in affluent white collar suburbs and thriving new economy centers." If only the polls required you to show a ticket stub from Hamilton to vote she would have won in a landslide!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:10
|
|