|
Trabisnikof posted:Why do you think she has control over the course of those elections? The problem with the Democrats is they value seniority above all else. Schumer has been around a long time and raises the most money, so he gets to be Senate leader. Pelosi has been around a long time and raises the most money, so she gets to be the House leader. Nevermind the fact that to the extent the electorate knows who these people are, it thinks they're a joke, and that they're both completely out of touch technocrats with no idea where to go from here to rebuild the Democratic party and start winning elections.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
botany posted:If you count Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania as the Rust Belt, Sanders got like 2 million votes less in the rust belt than Clinton. But look at the racial breakdowns in exit polls. His base in the primary was millennials across race and gender (better with white, but good enough with PoC) and white men everywhere, but especially in the rural, dying towns where Trump killed it. The reason I'm making a deal out of this is that it is not hard to get a candidate on a message who appeals to all of these different voters. We don't want to minimize who Bernie and Hillary did well with, and we want to admit who they did poorly with, because we want to win a drat election. Kilroy posted:oh look House Dems voted to retain Pelosi as minority leader because everything is fine and you don't switch horses in midstream Who would you suggest?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:The something awful forums are an echochamber and if you take any piece of it to be representative of America as a whole you are a moron.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
One of these days there's going to be one of those commerative, legal tender, dollar coins with Trump's face on it isn't there?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:But look at the racial breakdowns in exit polls. His base in the primary was millennials across race and gender (better with white, but good enough with PoC) and white men everywhere, but especially in the rural, dying towns where Trump killed it. Sure we can start with accepting that the economic or identity politics messaging wasn't the end all be all for why candidates won the important rust belt states. There was, you know, all of the scandals or the fact that there were practically no clinton ads or visits to the area toward the end of the campaign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Visual aid: This is why she won. But I don't think it really means anything going forward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Rip Testes posted:One of these days there's going to be one of those commerative, legal tender, dollar coins with Trump's face on it isn't there? He will want to take the $1? Or will he go for a Million Dollar bill?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Sure we can start with accepting that the economic or identity politics messaging wasn't the end all be all for why candidates won the important rust belt states. There was, you know, all of the scandals or the fact that there were practically no clinton ads or visits to the area toward the end of the campaign. The scandals were fabrications and part of a decades-long smear campaign specifically against her, but yeah, she completely hosed up the last few weeks of the campaign. To be fair to her though (because I have lingering fondness for America's out of touch grandmother), the polling was complete garbage and misled the campaign in ways that were really destructive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
If people are hungry for change they should just eat the rich, so simple.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Sure we can start with accepting that the economic or identity politics messaging wasn't the end all be all for why candidates won the important rust belt states. There was, you know, all of the scandals or the fact that there were practically no clinton ads or visits to the area toward the end of the campaign. Barely eeking out a win against a reality TV star would have been just as big a sign the times have changed. The fact that this election wasn't 60-40 is a joke and is the clearest illustration of why HRC was a weak candidate. Beyond that, her policies are bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:I think my favorite thing from conservatives in the post-election time is when you confront them with how much voter suppression there was of poor and minorities they just say that you are the real racist/classist because you underestimate what those people could do to get around the suppression.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Trump knows (or thinks he knows, same thing in this case) his history. The big problem for the Democrats in 2020 will be running against a war-time President. What war? Whichever one it takes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:He will want to take the $1? Or will he go for a Million Dollar bill? $3 coin, because Trump water probably costs $2.49 plus tax and a $3 bill is "queer"
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Speaking of that, would it be illegal for Democrats to go to cities in states with voter ID laws, and pay people to get an ID and drive them to/from the office, if necessary? Like, just flat out give them $100 and a ride? It seems like it would be a pretty good bang for the buck compared to other things campaigns use absurd amounts of money on. If it means more poc voting you better believe it is or will be illegal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's a good post there. This is a specific policy that we still have the power to change. Like I said, find your county Democratic party and go to the meetings! This poo poo flows uphill, take control of the counties and you take control of the state; take control of the the states and you take control of the DNC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Sarah Palin for Secretary of Veterans Affairs. LOL
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Glazier posted:Yes, but he lost because the voting system specifically excluded people who weren't already engaged in establishment Democratic party politics. From now on, all Democratic primaries need to be caucuses with same day party registration. I remember when I didn't care about politics and I preferred HIlary Clinton in the 2008 primary due to purely name recognition. I didn't pay attention to politics back then because I was busy in real life to worry and let my fellow democrats figure out who's better so I don't vote primaries and vote party. After seeing Obama appoint Tim Geithner as treasury secretary, it woke me the hell up and I found the leftist calling ever since. I recall reading a number of articles regarding people who registered D to vote for Bernie, reverted back to R/I post primary cycle. Post 2016 election, I'd say it's foolish to use primaries as the main measuring metric for success in the general election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Barely eeking out a win against a reality TV star would have been just as big a sign the times have changed. The fact that this election wasn't 60-40 is a joke and is the clearest illustration of why HRC was a weak candidate. Beyond that, her policies are bad. 60+ million people obviously disagree with your elitist perspective that Trump is below them
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Fidel Castronaut posted:I don't know man. I mean, we have every right to "arzy" as the kids call it, but we have the most unpopular president ever about to take Obama's place with a rubber stamp to do whatever the hell he (and his cronies) want to do and it is going to severely gently caress over poor people and pretty much everybody else too. If crappy rear end Hillary almost beat Trump and only lost by razor margins in a few key states, then as much as Americans are (realtalk) complete loving idiots who deserve the world's derision, I don't think Trump has a chance in 2020 if we run somebody who just says hi to poor people from time to time. We get the same voters, some of the lazy people who couldn't bother going to the polls because they didn't know how bad he would be, and a few people who learned the error of their ways. Yeah let's be honest here, someone who is say 90% Hillary on the issues - scandals and + a bit of charisma/empathy could easily overcome those small deficits. Then there's the advantage of being able to run against what will surely be an abysmal record of Trump's, since running against his character was such a clear failure. Not that the Democrats aren't capable of loving that up, but there's a clear blueprint right there staring them in the face, we'll just have to see how they play it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
I don't like Schumer and I believe there are better choices there, but replacing Pelosi would just be change for the sake of change. She's relatively progressive, is good at getting stuff done, and is an excellent choice where the primary purpose of house Dems over the next two years is to make life very hard for Trump. If there were better candidates, this might be something to talk about, but the progressive wing didn't even put up a candidate because they respect her ability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Barely eeking out a win against a reality TV star would have been just as big a sign the times have changed. The fact that this election wasn't 60-40 is a joke and is the clearest illustration of why HRC was a weak candidate. Beyond that, her policies are bad. I thought any decent Dem would've won quite comfortably but not by 60-40. Party ID is very hard to overcome. BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I don't like Schumer and I believe there are better choices there, but replacing Pelosi would just be change for the sake of change. She's relatively progressive, is good at getting stuff done, and is an excellent choice where the primary purpose of house Dems over the next two years is to make life very hard for Trump. She isn't good at winning elections and she has no power to make things hard for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:60+ million people obviously disagree with your elitist perspective that Trump is below them I don't think Trump is below them, I think he's a bad candidate that beat a worse candidate. mcmagic posted:I thought any decent Dem would've won quite comfortably but not by 60-40. Party ID is very hard to overcome. You say that as Gary "what's Aleppo" Johnson takes 3% of the popular vote. Party ID is very hard to overcome but Trump gave the Democrats the only/best shot in years. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:She has control of the messaging and how candidates are chosen. Both were complete and utter failures. Isn't this actually the job of the DNC chair? The thing Ellison is running for?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:She isn't good at winning elections and she has no power to make things hard for Trump. You have no loving idea what the house minority leader does, do you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Isn't this actually the job of the DNC chair? The thing Ellison is running for? It's both.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:hahah hey guys remember this Yeah I certainly do. Snowden lost all my pity this election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/804027364518793217 Swamp draining continues, I see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Coheed and Camembert posted:https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/804027364518793217 It'll be the turkey slaughter video but instead it's my brother and other veterans getting throats cut on camera.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
looks like Mavericks are back on the menu, boys! you betcha
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Speaking of that, would it be illegal for Democrats to go to cities in states with voter ID laws, and pay people to get an ID and drive them to/from the office, if necessary? Like, just flat out give them $100 and a ride? It seems like it would be a pretty good bang for the buck compared to other things campaigns use absurd amounts of money on. AG Sessions will find reasons to make it illegal, or at least harass the groups behind it so much that they are ruined financially and personally, don't worry. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
CheeseSpawn posted:Post 2016 election, I'd say it's foolish to use primaries as the main measuring metric for success in the general election. Maybe you have to lose the primary....to win the general....
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Fitzy Fitz posted:Maybe you have to lose the primary....to win the general.... The democratic primary voters failed to eject the Wall Street elements of their party like the GOP primary voters did. Granted, superdelegates make it much more difficult to do so (by design I might add) but i guess that's what happens when you're as in bed with wall street as the Democrats are, which is somehow more than the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Rip Testes posted:One of these days there's going to be one of those commerative, legal tender, dollar coins with Trump's face on it isn't there? I'm hoping we just vote to forget the whole thing ever happened Armin Tamzarian style
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:She isn't good at winning elections and she has no power to make things hard for Trump. she is literally the only person that we know has the ability to make things hard for trump in the house of representatives. she blocked key legislation from the bush white house under almost exactly the same conditions. she has the experience, the leftist positions, and the trust of her colleagues. you literally could not ask for a better pick for minority leader, but i guess that's not the point, is it? would you prefer a less effective pick if it sent what you saw as a better Message?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:The democratic primary voters failed to eject the Wall Street elements of their party like the GOP primary voters did. Granted, superdelegates make it much more difficult to do so (by design I might add) but i guess that's what happens when you're as in bed with wall street as the Democrats are, which is somehow more than the GOP. Superdelegates don't do poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Spacebump posted:If Booker ran, why wouldn't he change some of his less popular (with Dems) views to be more in line with what the voters (Dem base) want? It's usually what happens as a result of the primary. Probably but does that trick even work anymore with so much of a politician's career available for free online? SSNeoman posted:Yeah I certainly do. Snowden lost all my pity this election. But... he's right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Venuz Patrol posted:she is literally the only person that we know has the ability to make things hard for trump in the house of representatives. she blocked key legislation from the bush white house under almost exactly the same conditions. she has the experience, the leftist positions, and the trust of her colleagues. The minority leader, especially one who is in such a small minority, has no real power other than to set a national message and be a national figurehead in midterms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Countdown to a Dem. shouting "You have tiny hands!" during Trump sotu?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
superdelegates are the exact same thing as the electoral college. they're supposed to exist to allow smart people to take the reins back from crazies, but in practice they know they're supposed to uphold the will of the people, and that's what they do. no democratic candidate has won by virtue of superdelegates without taking the primary popular vote as well. when it became clear that obama was winning in 2008, nearly every superdelegate (and nearly all of them having supported clinton initially) switched over to support him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
A lovely Reporter posted:The scandals were fabrications and part of a decades-long smear campaign specifically against her, but yeah, she completely hosed up the last few weeks of the campaign. To be fair to her though (because I have lingering fondness for America's out of touch grandmother), the polling was complete garbage and misled the campaign in ways that were really destructive. But there we're people in the ground in those places telling them poo poo wasn't good and they loving ignored them. How many of these articles have we've seen in the thread, if them ignoring Bill's advice, of ignoring the grass roots volunteers on the ground telling them hey there's not a lot of support coming from your traditional base, you need to get out here, and was ignored. Or how underfunded Latino outreach was. Insisting that no one could have seen this coming because of Polls, is completely ignoring how Brooklyn ignored the people on the ground and the warning signals they were giving
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:59
|
|
