|
Lemming posted:I'm a California Democrat, if I touch a gun I will die Run against them yourself or convince someone you think can do it. Alternatively, drug them and leave them for dead in the wilderness or, even better, the desert. Liberals can't survive more than a few hours outside of major settlements.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
Lemming posted:I'm supposed to have 2400 characters and I already have 4400, I'm going to try to get it down to ~1500 maximum so someone might accidentally read it Everything else we've tried has been garbage. Full communism now, what have you got to lose? There. Done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Confirming what we already knew, by way of fancy bar graphs: the Clinton campaign's ad messaging was poo poo. https://twitter.com/BrendanNyhan/status/805592658718638082
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/805579874052280321
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Gonna be great to see his reaction when it's Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Run against them yourself or convince someone you think can do it. I am!!! Doing the first thing, that is. I guess concurrently, there are 7 seats and 5 people have put their names in so far lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Losing the most winnable election ever certainly should qualify Hillary for something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
She bonked into the glass ceiling with all the grace and dignity of the cardinals that fly into my patio door
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
hillary clinton lost one billion dollars to a flatulent pumpkin
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
i'm tired of yuge and bigly already, mainly cause i can't tell if people are using them ironically or not
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Losing the most winnable election ever certainly should qualify Hillary for something. More people in this thread need to get their story straight; was it the candidate or the message? One can plausibly justify socialism now, socialism forever; the other, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
radical meme posted:More people in this thread need to get their story straight; was it the candidate or the message? the results were so marginal that you can plausibly blame basically anything and everything
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Trump should be 2016 person of the year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
It'll be "the voters" or something weak like that Or Pepe, lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
comedy option Megyn Kelly
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
radical meme posted:More people in this thread need to get their story straight; was it the candidate or the message? The candidate picked the message y'know one of several reasons she was not a good candidate
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
"All that Hitler could give, he took - for a second time." 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Trump should be 2016 person of the year. Unironically this. The person of the year is the one who had the most impact, and lol if you think it isnt Trump in 2016 (and Pence or Bannon in 2017)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
radical meme posted:More people in this thread need to get their story straight; was it the candidate or the message? What message? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:What message? So twitter is your only news source? I see the problem here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I am!!! Well do the second thing, for good measures. radical meme posted:More people in this thread need to get their story straight; was it the candidate or the message? Yes
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:the results were so marginal that you can plausibly blame basically anything and everything When people talk about "why Clinton lost" it's implied they mean how she got beaten by the worst candidate in our lifetime, not what caused the 20,000 or however many votes the margin of loss was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
ChickenOfTomorrow has issued a correction as of 22:14 on Jan 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Ace of Baes posted:When people talk about "why Clinton lost" it's implied they mean how she got beaten by the worst candidate in our lifetime, not what caused the 20,000 or however many votes the margin of loss was. I'm not convinced that Clinton would have lost to someone like Rubio. I think that Trump v. Clinton was a uniquely bad mismatch for her. Not claiming that she's a strong candidate, of course, but that Trump obviously scrambled the sensors, so to speak, and forced them to make unorthodox and ultimately misguided decisions in terms of messaging and strategy. of course, the Clinton campaign basically did all they could to ensure that they would be going up against Trump rather than Rubio, so that's their own sort of stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:I'm not convinced that Clinton would have lost to someone like Rubio. I think that Trump v. Clinton was a uniquely bad mismatch for her. Not claiming that she's a strong candidate, of course, but that Trump obviously scrambled the sensors, so to speak, and forced them to make unorthodox and ultimately misguided decisions in terms of messaging and strategy. fake edit: ed balls
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:I'm not convinced that Clinton would have lost to someone like Rubio. I think that Trump v. Clinton was a uniquely bad mismatch for her. Not claiming that she's a strong candidate, of course, but that Trump obviously scrambled the sensors, so to speak, and forced them to make unorthodox and ultimately misguided decisions in terms of messaging and strategy. I doubt Rubio would have been nearly as unpopular as Trump, he definitely would have gotten most of the Johnson votes, and Breitbart and Facebook would have still existed, if it was Rubio or Kasich I think she would have lost electoral+popular.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:Under what sort of scenario does Rubio become the GOP candidate? This is important to establish before discussing this hypothetical In a scenario where Trump doesn't run, or possibly even a scenario where Christie doesn't suicide bomb Rubio in the New Hampshire debate, I think he stood a decent shot at being the nominee. Obviously impossible to say with any degree of certainty though. Ace of Baes posted:I doubt Rubio would have been nearly as unpopular as Trump, he definitely would have gotten most of the Johnson votes, and Breitbart and Facebook would have still existed, if it was Rubio or Kasich I think she would have lost electoral+popular. Kasich is a different sort of thing from Rubio in that I think Kasich would have had a lot of the same Rust Belt appeal as Trump. Rubio and Cruz, though, are much more obviously your typical Sun Belt conservatives. Rubio would have done great in Metro Atlanta, for example, where Clinton ended up beating Trump and flipping some suburban counties for the first time in decades. There's also the fact that I think a Clinton vs. Rubio (and, probably to a lesser extent, Cruz) would ultimately have been a "normal" election where issues like income inequality would have been preeminent - basically the 2012 election all over again. Trump instead basically made the election into a referendum on white identity, to a large extent, which was validated in that white people of low educational achievement basically voted in the same patterns as Democrats had come to rely on African-Americans voting. The Clinton campaign, for its part, was all too happy to follow along this path and avoid any substantive issue debates at all in favor of making the election a referendum on Trump's personality. Basically what I'm saying is that Clinton v. Rubio (or Cruz or maybe Jeb but Jeb probably doesn't win even in a Universe where Trump doesn't run) would have been a more "normal" election and I think that that was the sort of election that the Clinton campaign was built to deal with. HannibalBarca has issued a correction as of 03:49 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Cruz vs. Clinton might have gone either way, but that's still Clinton vs an insanely unpopular terrible candidate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Hillary vs Rubio would be the worst rock em sock em robots ever
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
radical meme posted:So twitter is your only news source? I see the problem here. I did watch some TV Ads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
ChickenOfTomorrow posted:the candidate statement is the hardest part, apart from the bit where you have to get folks there on the day to vote for you. Yeah I'm working on mine now and getting someone to help me edit it, so hopefully it won't be full goon. I wonder what the actual election will be like, if it's it's actually competitive in some sense or it's like "congrats you're one of 14 people to show up, you win" Any idea what sorts of numbers of votes you need to win?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
You guys are just lucky that Hillary didn't have to face Jeb!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
ChickenOfTomorrow has issued a correction as of 22:14 on Jan 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
It's going to be Nigel Farage probably.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
ChickenOfTomorrow posted:someone who is familiar with the SF area ADEMs suggested one must be able to get at least 100 people in order to have a shot. Lol jesus! What does "SF" area mean, exactly? I'm actually further out in the East Bay, district 16 specifically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:It's going to be Nigel Farage probably. Whoever it is, they'll be right-wing. Time hasn't done journalism in 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
hot take: it'll be "the year 2016"
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
Time's Person of the Year already peaked a decade ago.
MizPiz has issued a correction as of 04:43 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 04:41
|
|