|
crazy cloud posted:I would literally kill 10 people a month for 120k a year and you could either tell me which 10 or just set me loose “I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.”
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:11 |
|
|
Na for real 2020 is DOA if Obama enters the private sector in any capacity beyond charity, because at that point the Democrats will appear as disconnected as George HW Bush looking at his watch constantly
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/magazine/president-obama-weighs-his-economic-legacy.html reading this puts me so close to meltdown territory. it makes me want to cry that i ever thought this man would bring any change and would help the people hurt most by the 2008 financial crisis instead of giving a handjob to wallstreet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Condiv posted:reading this puts me so close to meltdown territory. it makes me want to cry that i ever thought this man would bring any change and would help the people hurt most by the 2008 financial crisis instead of giving a handjob to wallstreet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
cams posted:lol you are ridiculous i guess 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Condiv posted:reading this puts me so close to meltdown territory. it makes me want to cry that i ever thought this man would bring any change and would help the people hurt most by the 2008 financial crisis instead of giving a handjob to wallstreet. Giving WS a handjob while they call him a nazi. Jesus Christ it's pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
cams posted:lol you are ridiculous Obama really sold people on his whole hope and change bullshit. It's tough to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
So out of curiosity, was Ted Kennedy a third way Democrat or did he compromise on Obama? I know Ted recruited Barack and threw his machine behind him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:So out of curiosity, was Ted Kennedy a third way Democrat or did he compromise on Obama? I know Ted recruited Barack and threw his machine behind him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
cams posted:oh jesus Obama squandered his legacy on Hillary, you really shouldn't be surprised a lame duck president is getting poo poo on as his rear end hits the door
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
here is what we learn, never vote for anyone from IL. btw hilldog is from IL.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Obama not wanting to call out the Russians helping Trump because he might come across as "partisan" before the election is so loving hilariously Obama.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Cyron posted:here is what we learn, never vote for anyone from IL. btw hilldog is from IL. Shes from loving IL? this is on us we should have seen this coming
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Rand alPaul posted:Obama not wanting to call out the Russians helping Trump because he might come across as "partisan" before the election is so loving hilariously Obama. kudos to mcconnell I guess for being able to play Obama like a fiddle I guess
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
cams posted:oh jesus I know Ted's reputation as a liberal firebrand, I was just curious if that was posturing or not, considering the legislative era he inhabited. Also, ya know, No Child Left Behind and Cape Wind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
West Wing poisoned the minds of all the third way toadies
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
Cyron posted:here is what we learn, never vote for anyone from IL. btw hilldog is from IL. Thought he was born in Hawaii though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Seriously a 25 year old tv show discussing political issues that nobody gives a gently caress about now influenced countless posters here and sycophants of the outgoing president into believing US politics was a loving Bible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Rand alPaul posted:Obama not wanting to call out the Russians helping Trump because he might come across as "partisan" before the election is so loving hilariously Obama. I don't really blame him for that one. They thought they were cruising to victory because of the polling, why do anything that would rock the boat?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Seriously a 25 year old tv show discussing political issues that nobody gives a gently caress about now influenced countless posters here and sycophants of the outgoing president into believing US politics was a loving Bible. speak on that
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:kudos to mcconnell I guess for being able to play Obama like a fiddle I guess He's bent over for Republicans in Congress for eight years, why give him anything ever? FuriousxGeorge posted:I don't really blame him for that one. They thought they were cruising to victory because of the polling, why do anything that would rock the boat? When you catch the opposing party engaging in treason you use it to your advantage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Aaron Sorkin should be buried alive
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Adam Curtis documentaries are the definition of pareidolia. Cool word. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Rand alPaul posted:When you catch the opposing party engaging in treason you use it to your advantage. They didn't though, they claim they caught the Russians but the evidence of coordination with the Republicans or Trump is not something they have claimed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:They didn't though, they claim they caught the Russians but the evidence of coordination with the Republicans or Trump is not something they have claimed. yea if you think there's actual proof of literal high treason being done by a presidential candidate or his party leadership and anyone just sat on it you've gone nuts. The investigation was always in the context of Russia just being turds and hey surprisingly enough people were saying that plenty and noone actually cared. There's not a reality where that voter who just needed some RNC wonk to say 'nah that's not a thing' to not care about it would be suddenly swayed by an official report on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
it's possible for the Russians to have deliberately tried to interfere with the election and for all the Hillary camp hoopla about it to be just more rear end covering
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:it's possible for the Russians to have deliberately tried to interfere with the election and for all the Hillary camp hoopla about it to be just more rear end covering Pretty much, yea. It's entirely a possible option that Russia did shady things and also Russia's shady things were more minor but embarrassing things being hyped up as an easy excuse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
That's true, but we've also been studiously downplaying cyber-attacks by Russia and China for almost a decade now, mostly because we have no real political response to it. It'sa problem 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
In the practical sense yelling about Russia increases the chances that the government can be held in deadlock for four years but it also allows the third way neolibs to deflect the blame for their loss from their trash can ideology. It's a win win for them and there's no downside.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
Yeah, can't have a good political response when you do the same or worse poo poo. That's the thing about : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes You can point out the obvious hypocrisy from Russia all day long, but if you are in fact lynching negroes then some people might want to focus more on, "Hey, why the gently caress are you lynching negoes?" than Soviet gulags and there is no good answer to the question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
Reddit is absorbed and delusional with the idea of Trump being denied by the Electoral College when only a minuscule number have given jack and poo poo what libtards think about election standards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Yes. The Hillary Clinton campaign was clearly well versed in knowing what works in gotv. in terms of the actual science of gotv as it relates to the door knocks and phone calls that turn out voters, yes. they were very well-versed. i would not have done things exactly the way they did, in particular due to their reliance on nickerson to write gotv scripts that used 4 year old research instead of the latest stuff, but their techniques were identical to obama '12 and they exceeded obama in their actual numbers during gotv. in this case, the gotv was good but it can't make up for a candidate that fails to draw enthusiasm. quote:Maybe, friend, it is time to admit that the campaign was dysfunctional and hosed up on every level of its strategy, and the only ones who knew what they were doing were the state parties - who had all their money siphoned off by the victory fund for worthless celebrity and red state suburban mom outreach. 1. victory fund money didn't fund "celebrity and suburban mom outreach" because victory fund money is legally restricted in how it can be spent on federal races. federal law allows state parties to spend federal money on state-level AND federal races as long as it's restricted toward gotv efforts. the entire point of the victory fund was to use it to funnel money into state parties in battleground states to fund the field program. so 100% of the field program was run through state parties and it was funded by the victory fund money. that was the point of the victory fund - to maximize the amount of money that could be raised by large donors and direct that money toward state parties without having to tap valuable hfa funds, which are more efficiently spent on television ads due to the very favorable ad rates that campaigns are legally obligated to get. 2. state parties are not the "only ones who know what they're doing." state parties are almost always loving terrible and useless. have you ever actually interacted with one? i mean, they draw from the same professional pool as the rest of the campaign world except people who have no idea what they're doing are usually the ones doing the hiring. 3. i am very much aware that the campaign's strategy was a bad one - that is obvious, but it wasn't dysfunctional. as i said before, they were making arguably correct decisions given the data they had - they just didn't have the correct data and did not do the work they needed to do to validate their data. the decision making apparatus (in terms of the way they were made, not necessarily the outcomes) was a solid one, the campaign's day to day worked well. every losing campaign is going to get poo poo thrown at it, and every winning campaign will be celebrated. but bad or mediocre campaigns win all the time, and good campaigns lose all the time. it's totally possible for a campaign to do a lot of stuff right and still lose due to all the other factors weighing against it, and it's possible for a campaign to do some stuff really well and other stuff really poorly. and that has been a fairly simple point i've made repeatedly in this thread. recognizing what was good and what wasn't is really important, even if a lot of the stuff they did right was lower profile and boring for most people itt. quote:Maybe centralizing all the campaign money so frauds with algorithms can waste it is a bad approach and contributes to the Dems having no organization outside of general elections? i agree that the message testing structure that dems use is flawed, but that's not necessarily hfa's fault. that's the entire campaign consultant class on both sides of the aisle, except for donald trump who just did whatever. literally everyone does it the way hfa did it. it would be somewhat absurd to single them out as incompetent for following standard practices. dems have no organization outside of general elections because they fire all their staff in mid-november. putting the money into state parties doesn't solve that problem. quote:Also lol at the continued insistence Hillary ran a poo poo campaign only because she had a few months to build it (because of that mean ol' Bernie not rolling over). i'm not talking about bernie. the mere fact that hillary isn't an incumbent meant that she had to build a staff quickly and draw from a pool of people who had never worked for her, unlike obama who 1. had years to staff out and 2. could draw from a huge pool of '08 alumni who all wanted to work for him. regardless, i think hillary actually did a pretty good job at this. i have qualms with various staffing decisions that were made (in particular a bloated management structure created by the desire to promote junior staffers who worked during the primary). her efforts were vastly superior to obama '08, which was a shitshow papered over by the quality of the candidate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
Serf posted:120k is like twice the average American income lol yeah i'm sure he's gonna retire on that. he made less than basically anyone in equivalent position in on a campaign or especially in private sector. Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 07:57 on Dec 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:yeah i'm sure he's gonna retire on that. Uh. I could retire on $120k That's more than 99% of Americans will ever have. And he got that money for no reason other than his connections. He's a bad campaign manager that shouldn't have gotten a single penny. He was actively harmful to the democrats and helped usher in Trump. Why the hell are you defending him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
if i lived in dumbfuck nowhere i could retire if you paid me a solid $300
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
but for just $50, i could live like a king in this godforsaken land
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
So basically they ran a "good" data based campaign but turns out the data they had was all wrong so everything they did was all wrong woopsie daisy, here's a hundred thousand dollars 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:i'm not talking about bernie. the mere fact that hillary isn't an incumbent meant that she had to build a staff quickly and draw from a pool of people who had never worked for her, unlike obama who 1. had years to staff out and 2. could draw from a huge pool of '08 alumni who all wanted to work for him. regardless, i think hillary actually did a pretty good job at this. i have qualms with various staffing decisions that were made (in particular a bloated management structure created by the desire to promote junior staffers who worked during the primary). her efforts were vastly superior to obama '08, which was a shitshow papered over by the quality of the candidate. My wife thinks you are stupid after reading this excerpt. She also described Hillary as the "definition of the establishment" and doubts that Hillary was lacking resources for her campaign. I however wonder if you, given your description of the '08 campaign as a shitshow papered over by the quality of the candidate, would considered '16 to be a well-oiled machine undermined by the quality of the candidate?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Uh. I could retire on $120k you probably could not retire at $120k, from a single year of income, living in brooklyn, after taxes, in your early 30s. unless you're really loving frugal. $120k/y would be around the 90th percentile of american income - good, but about the same as a well-paid engineer. i am really not sure why so many people here are gawking at $120k/y like it's some insane and incomprehensible amount of money. it's not? i really do not think mook was the issue at hfa. he did well, i have no problem with him. he got the job because he ran mcauliffe well and had a very strong reputation in democratic staffer circles for years. i think you're basically blaming the wrong guy - the campaign manager in 2016 doesn't make all the decisions like a dictator. the consultants call the strategic shots. mook has input, obviously, but he runs the day-to-day. the day-to-day was good. if you want to blame someone, blame joel benenson who made all the ads, did all the polling, and made all the messaging recommendations. Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 08:14 on Dec 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:11 |
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:My wife thinks you are stupid after reading this excerpt. She also described Hillary as the "definition of the establishment" and doubts that Hillary was lacking resources for her campaign. ok? hillary wasn't lacking resources, obviously. it's just difficult to hire thousands of people quickly. a lot of people who were good were obama loyalists and didn't want to work for hillary. many others became consultants and weren't on the market. it's easier when you're running for re-election to get all the people you want, as quickly as you want. quote:I however wonder if you, given your description of the '08 campaign as a shitshow papered over by the quality of the candidate, would considered '16 to be a well-oiled machine undermined by the quality of the candidate? i would say that's pretty accurate. Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 08:15 on Dec 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 08:13
|
|