|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Take a look at 2008 or other years. They'll bounce back over the net 2, 4 and then 6 years. Not if the Democrats continue to stand for nothing while spending most of their time attacking their own base.
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
readingatwork posted:Not if the Democrats continue to stand for nothing while spending most of their time attacking their own base. The republicans have never said this about themselves as they lost a lot of seats and power
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Suckthemonkey posted:Here's why I'm nervous about the future of the Democratic party: Don't forget that the New York one is entirely dived because of a group of traitorous Democrats broke off and have been siding with the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Not if the Democrats continue to stand for nothing while spending most of their time attacking their own base.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng5tQ5Q2XKQ Sometimes even literally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Bernie would've won I'm sure the same demographic who was too high to vote for him in the primaries would have swooped in to save him at the last moment like the Eagles of Manwë FuzzySkinner posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng5tQ5Q2XKQ oh man a guy reading an article indignantly into an oversize microphone, just what I wanted! Zerg Mans fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Dec 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Take a look at 2008 or other years. They'll bounce back over the net 2, 4 and then 6 years. Maybe, if the DNC gets its head out of its rear end and actually realizes that the South and the West (and, well, state and local elections) exist. This would require considerable effort -- a pretty significant restructuring of their message and a lot of investing in infrastructure. I don't see how Dems pick up any Senate seats 2018, but maybe they can stanch the bleeding. I really don't see things getting better on the House or state legislatures side of things with gerrymandering what it is. If they keep up the complacency, they can have fun being the coastal party and crossing their fingers that they don't lose the electoral college every time they win the popular vote. Coming out of 2008, we had control over AR, LA, MS, AL, and WV. The first four are long gone, and the last seems like it's pretty much gotten there as well. We really shouldn't have had them for as long as we did -- the fact that we did resulted from the weird, racist history of the Democratic party of the South -- 2010 was seemed to cap a realignment that was a long time coming. KomradeX posted:Don't forget that the New York one is entirely dived because of a group of traitorous Democrats broke off and have been siding with the Republicans. NY Democrats are the worst (except maybe IL).
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
What the heck was Hillary thinking even making those speeches in 2013 and 2014 when she knew she was going to run for president? A lot of the content in the excerpts is a lot of the same old wishy-washy substance-less crap from her stump speeches, but what a loving blunder to think speaking to them could possibly play well in terms of public perception. She would have literally been better off playing World of Warcraft during those years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
zegermans posted:I'm sure the same demographic who was too high to vote for him in the primaries would have swooped him to save him at the last moment like the Eagles of Manwë Well yeah, since they wouldn't be getting hosed out of the ability to vote at all by stringent primary registration rules or entire states being called ahead of time or whatever. And then the demographics in Michigan and Wisconsin and so on too disgusted to vote for Clinton would have junped on board. And, best of all, the moral cowards and/or reptoid shapeshifters who actually WANTED rather than settled for Clinton would've fallen into line and voted for Sanders, too, because anything to stop Trump, right? Even if the nominee doesn't share all your policies? Lesser of two evils and all that? Bernie Woulda Won.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:And, best of all, the moral cowards and/or reptoid shapeshifters who actually WANTED rather than settled for Clinton would've fallen into line and voted for Sanders, too, because anything to stop Trump, right? Yeah p. much since we're not entitled children.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Yeah p. much since we're not entitled children. Well I mean not really because if they actually DID have stopping Trump as their top priority they wouldn't have backed a vanity candidate with no vision for America or skill at running political campigns. In point of fact Clinton represented exactly what Sanders was always accused of being - someone who happened to flatter the exact sensibilities of a minority of the population which happened to enjoy outsized media/internet presence, but who couldn't be counted on to actually win a race in which mass appeal and movement building are practical necessities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Nah https://mobile.twitter.com/callawaythings/status/812716182159626240
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Yeah p. much since we're not entitled children. I mean, if you're running for office and if you're depending on young people to vote, as Clinton did in assuming she'd get the Obama coalition, you're kind of playing with fire. They just normally don't really do it, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. (And I'm a MILLENIAL for Christsakes!) As much as I love Bernie, I have no idea if he'd win or not. It's a hypothetical -- there's no way I can. I'm really inclined to think he would've. But hell, maybe Bloomberg would've run and hosed poo poo up for all I know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Yeah p. much since we're not entitled children. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
I don't know how much stock I put in "Bernie would have won the general" when the people saying it are the same people who were convinced he'd win the primary, and were surprised and shocked and outraged to find out the DNC was supporting Clinton. Like, what did you think being the establishment candidate meant?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
What does any of this matter now? We're in a one party system and will be for the rest of time now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
Covok posted:What does any of this matter now? We're in a one party system and will be for the rest of time now. Even at my most pessimistic, I haven't figured that. Not even trump can magically put the demographics genie back in the bottle. Assuming the Republicans do enough to keep elections technically locked down, they will be presiding (ineptly) over the futures of a significantly more liberal, significantly not white american populace. Their only choice is to go down in electoral flames at some point, or survive long enough to be put to a literal wall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
biznatchio posted:I don't know how much stock I put in "Bernie would have won the general" when the people saying it are the same people who were convinced blablablah Gigantic logical fallacy alert People can be both stupid and correct
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
Kavros posted:Even at my most pessimistic, I haven't figured that. Not even trump can magically put the demographics genie back in the bottle. There are a lot if young neo-nazis and alt-right people...
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
Kavros posted:Even at my most pessimistic, I haven't figured that. Not even trump can magically put the demographics genie back in the bottle. You're assuming that they can't keep the elections locked down, and that there will continue to be elections. Either way, the other ending is possible if they can't either find some other source of legitimacy besides the pretense of a representative democracy, or thoroughly and unassailably oppress all opposition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
Covok posted:There are a lot if young neo-nazis and alt-right people... Yeah they maybe make up 3-5% of all Millenials. Seriously if politics make you this depressed, step back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:You're assuming that they can't keep the elections locked down, and that there will continue to be elections. A lot of dictatorships manage to keep elections locked down indefinitely... Crowsbeak posted:Yeah they maybe make up 3-5% of all Millenials. Seriously if politics make you this depressed, step back. Good advice. Really wish I could, but being mixed race, bi, and non-binary makes that hard. Also, you're ignoring the more regressive millenials who don't fall into that category and gen z which was found to be more conservative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
Kavros posted:Even at my most pessimistic, I haven't figured that. Not even trump can magically put the demographics genie back in the bottle. The problem with this line of thinking is that other demographics voted less this time around too. You cant just take them for granted, there can and likely will be other demographic Trumps, especially if the inept elites of the dem party take the stance of "our problem was hillary, we can totally pull an Obama con if we find the right person, yyyyep. Any year now." If you wont listen to leftist supporters, listen to your own words: "of course you didnt need to vote, you're privileged enough to survive Trump". What do you think the millionaires have to lose if their democrat pet project fails? Do you seriously, genuinely believe that time is as much their enemy as ours? The Clintons of the world will survive irregardless of who wins. That's why Hillary could be so careless in the first place. Why treat every day like a do-or-die situation when you could walk in the woods behind one of your 10+ millions-dollar homes and take a breather?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
sit on my Facebook posted:Gigantic logical fallacy alert Except that their arguments for why he would have won the general are basically the same arguments they made when they believed he could win the primary. It didn't work then, and that was with the benefit of a Democratic electorate that if anything should have been more receptive to his leftist messaging due to them already being Democrats and thus being more likely to be leftist themselves. There's basically no reason to believe it would have worked in the general against a less favorable electorate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
biznatchio posted:Except that their arguments for why he would have won the general are basically the same arguments they made when they believed he could win the primary. It didn't work then, and that was with the benefit of a Democratic electorate that if anything should have been more receptive to his leftist messaging due to them already being Democrats and thus being more likely to be leftist themselves. There's basically no reason to believe it would have worked in the general against a less favorable electorate. The democratic primary by its nature involves more invested voters who have a greater interest in the democratic party. By extension they were less likely to put value to Clinton scandals. They also primarily used a closed system where large portions of his base was ineligible to vote before he was even visible. This is without also considering that Hillary (a figure with decades of public exposure) had the full support of the DNC (to the extent that she was warned of hardbalk questions well in advance) and came within ten points of losing to an unknown rural Not-York state repeating one stump speech. Which is to say, its not very indicative of how a Bernie GE run with the full support of the DNC involving GE voters would have turned out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
biznatchio posted:Except that their arguments for why he would have won the general are basically the same arguments they made when they believed he could win the primary. It didn't work then, and that was with the benefit of a Democratic electorate that if anything should have been more receptive to his leftist messaging due to them already being Democrats and thus being more likely to be leftist themselves. There's basically no reason to believe it would have worked in the general against a less favorable electorate. No, the arguments that Bernie would have won are based on polling and favourability data as well as the obvious fact that he'd have easily carried the Rust Belt states. With the benefit of hindsight we can also conclude his campaign would not have dismissed reality in favour of a computer model, which would have been nice. All in all he was clearly in a far better position to beat Trump than Clinton, no matter how much some people want to deny that they picked the wrong horse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
If they would have ran Biden. They'd have won and they'd have won in a landslide. Bernie perhaps would have been squeaker, but I'd still like our chances considering the enthusiasm that people had for his campaign, the ground game and the popularity of his message within the Rust Belt. Biden would have been able to easily run as "Obama's 3rd term". He'd have connected with Rust Belt Democrats and he seems to be one of the more well-liked Vice Presidents I've ever seen in my lifetime. Christ, even my right wing "dittohead" father actually admitted as much. He'd have also destroyed Trump pretty much everywhere. If perhaps it'd have been a race between HRC, Biden and Bernie? Perhaps things would have turned out better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
Suckthemonkey posted:NY Democrats are the worst (except maybe IL). They really are, just about all of the local Dems in my county/District also ran as Republicans. I thought about getting involved with my local Party, but between that and living in a very conservative District, it's literally all the worst aspects of Trump supporters. Gives me very little hope since all the Politicians are too busy sucking up to corporate money or cutting deals to pretty much remain in charge of their local fiefdoms
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:If they would have ran Biden. They'd have won and they'd have won in a landslide. If Clinton was too right then why would Biden be Better? Or do you mean he would pick up more swing voters then he'd lose from the left democrats?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Yeah p. much since we're not entitled children. Why were ostensibly Democratic and Independent voters who didn't vote for Clinton (note this doesn't mean not vote- there were tickets where the president was left blank but downticket was filled) entitled for wanting a candidate that actually represents them as opposed to simply not representing the same thing as Trump? We're supposed to have a two-party system but the primary process this year was woefully understocked specifically to push forward one candidate. That's not a two-party system, that's one and a half. Killer-of-Lawyers posted:If Clinton was too right then why would Biden be Better? Or do you mean he would pick up more swing voters then he'd lose from the left democrats? I think it's a mistake to categorize this as a left-right issue because any candidate would probably have ended up with a similar platform at the end of the primary. The question was do the voters trust the candidate to follow through on those promises. Biden would have been an open question, but Clinton was evidently a resounding "no."
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Yeah p. much since we're not entitled children. Michael Bloomberg literally threatened to run a spoiler campaign if Bernie won the primary, and it's absolutely clear that the Clinton camp felt (and still feels) super entitled to the votes of everybody on the left even after making GBS threads on millions of said voters for months straight. Low effort, mate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Kavros posted:Even at my most pessimistic, I haven't figured that. Not even trump can magically put the demographics genie back in the bottle. And yet as their demographic advantage continues to deteriorate they find themselves winning more and more. It's almost as if being loosely allied with the right demographics isn't enough to win on it's own. Particularly when the country is a broken mess and the "liberal" options don't seem to want to fix it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Fiction posted:as opposed to simply not representing the same thing as Trump? because only a completely warped Bernout who ate a steady diet of Breitbart and Fox News pro-Bernie concern trolling or anti-Hillary garbage actually thinks Clinton and Trump were comparable, and were only willing to entertain this idea in any way because she usurped their beloved St. Bernard - mainly because they simply don't have a concept of not getting their way. Cerebral Bore posted:Clinton camp felt (and still feels) super entitled to the votes of everybody on the left even after making GBS threads on millions of said voters for months straight. *adpots 90% of Bernie's platform* UGH STOP making GBS threads ON ME *makes Bernie a top campaign surrogate for speeches* WHY HAVEN"T YOU TRIED TO EARN MY VOTE?! *does literally anything other than commit suicide and leave a note saying 'nominate Bernie instead'* WHY CAN'T SHE MEET ME HALFWAY?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
quote != edit
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
zegermans posted:because only a completely warped Bernout who ate a steady diet of Breitbart and Fox News pro-Bernie concern trolling or anti-Hillary garbage actually thinks Clinton and Trump were comparable, and were only willing to entertain this idea in any way because she usurped their beloved St. Bernard - mainly because they simply don't have a concept of not getting their way. I didn't say they were comparable. I asked why they would vote for her when the only reason she gave for us to vote for her was a platform she was expresly not campaigning on in favor of talking about trump bad. quote:
Knowing the species she was giving to Goldman Sachs, why would anyone believe that these overtures would carry over to her administration? Obama went to the center after he won and Clinton gave no reasons to think she wasn't also a two faced shill for the financial industry. I know you're salty that every Hillary poster was proven hilariously wrong and need to get the hate out but you should engage with what I'm asking here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
zegermans posted:*adpots 90% of Bernie's platform* UGH STOP making GBS threads ON ME *makes Bernie a top campaign surrogate for speeches* WHY HAVEN"T YOU TRIED TO EARN MY VOTE?! *does literally anything other than commit suicide and leave a note saying 'nominate Bernie instead'* WHY CAN'T SHE MEET ME HALFWAY?! Thank you for demostrating my point for me. Though on the other hand I suppose it explains a thing or two about the worldview of decidated Hillfolk if they think that some transparent and symbolic pandering will totally make the peons fall in line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Thank you for demostrating my point for me. Ok, what could she have done to Earn Your Vote (tm).
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
zegermans posted:because only a completely warped Bernout who ate a steady diet of Breitbart and Fox News pro-Bernie concern trolling or anti-Hillary garbage actually thinks Clinton and Trump were comparable, and were only willing to entertain this idea in any way because she usurped their beloved St. Bernard - mainly because they simply don't have a concept of not getting their way. No one is arguing they're they same thing. However just being "better than Trump" is hardly a ringing endorsement. Particularly to people particularly screwed by the current status quo or who stand to loose a lot from her trade policies. quote:*adpots 90% of Bernie's platform* UGH STOP making GBS threads ON ME *makes Bernie a top campaign surrogate for speeches* WHY HAVEN"T YOU TRIED TO EARN MY VOTE?! *does literally anything other than commit suicide and leave a note saying 'nominate Bernie instead'* WHY CAN'T SHE MEET ME HALFWAY?! Yes... 90%... Sure. Some things in that missing 10%: -Single payer healthcare -Reinstating Glass-Steagall -$15/hr min wage -Opposition to TPP/NAFTA/ETC -Increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations -Opposition to projects like DAPL -Expanding Social Security and Medicare Also LOL if you seriously think she was serious in her embrace of what few of his ideas she took on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Ok, what could she have done to Earn Your Vote (tm). Nothing, since I'm not a US citizen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:-Increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations These things were actually in the platform and stuff Clinton specifically mentioned in the debates. Also they called for UHC and a $12/h min wage, which I guess isn't specifically single payer/$15/h but that's only worth splitting hairs on if you're being overly partisan/unable to understand compromise quote:Also LOL if you seriously think she was serious in her embrace of what few of his ideas she took on. "Adopt our positions" "ok." "well you're lying anyway you conniving two-faced bitch"
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
zegermans posted:These things were actually in the platform and stuff Clinton specifically mentioned in the debates. Also they called for UHC and a $12/h min wage, which I guess isn't specifically single payer/$15/h but that's only worth splitting hairs on if you're being overly partisan/unable to understand compromise It was the DNC supporting $15. You don't see any reason someone might be suspicious when she is haggling against her own party officials for a lower minwage? All of this is moot of course, since 90% of bernie supporters voted for Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 17:23
|
|