|
SaTaMaS posted:Your argument is based on one study that only counted Bernie supporters who voted in the primaries, was not broken down by age in an election where far more millennials voted third party than in 2012, and has a comment section filled with Bernouts screaming that the study is total horse poo poo. Ah because people in a comment section say the study is wrong it must be wrong. Great logic. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
So people complain that the Greens waste their time with high profile elections while ignoring local ones but it seems like that's becoming the plan of the Democrats as well. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/democrats-candidate-recruitment-run-for-something I don't know how anyone can look at how the Democrats have performed for the last eight years and say "yeah this is fine we just need a new messenger." It's absolutely shameful and totally indicative of a party that has it's head up its rear end in terms of thinking "well statistically that is a lost district so why waste money there or even try" then proceeds to spend that cash on Schumer's run. The fact that they are letting Republicans run unopposed in districts that HILLARY CLINTON Worst Candidate Ever was able to win is such political malpractice it's absolutely shocking, We are being failed by the party that prides itself on its one real merit of being a check on the power of the Republican party. Obama's popularity basically rotted them since they figured he and his successors would just continue being elected forever and everything else could be ignored. Idiots on this forum proudly pushed that exact same ideology before most of them were perma-banned last November. You see this everywhere with the Florida and Wisconsin Democrats in shambles and unable to threaten unpopular or idiotic governors (or laughably run ex-Republicans against them). Even if you are the most moderate centrist ever you should be angry at how incompetent they have been at getting elected to push your centrist platform. As previously said I can understand party leaders trying to cover their asses but I just don't understand how you can think their performance when they had a supremely popular president in office is excusable. They are directly responsible for the rise of Trump in their willing negligence as a party in their quest to do I have no idea what since they don't even really care about getting elected anymore. Pelosi really said it all with her "there's benefits to being the minority party" comment. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Does anyone have a link that shows demographically who voted for Trump and Clinton? Maybe something that shows votes based on class. Not sure if 538 has something like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Radish posted:So people complain that the Greens waste their time with high profile elections while ignoring local ones but it seems like that's becoming the plan of the Democrats as well. SEE??? the pernicious effects of the far left on the Democratic Party must be opposed!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:SEE??? the pernicious effects of the far left on the Democratic Party must be opposed!!! Stein!!! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Look, I think you far-left wackos fail to realize that the Dem campaign strategy is literally perfect and it's only because you're such bad people that it didn't work 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
The dem strategy is working right now- shareholder values are going up up up!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:As things stand right now I don't know what the left should do. Supporting another group is a non-starter who are we going to back. But the Democrats are dying, their "brand" is toxic and the people in change are even more toxic. Until they've shown a sign of learning how to appeal to actually appeal to people and not loving ghoul policy wonks that love rules, than well we're hosed. I don't think we'll gain jack poo poo in the coming years as Republicans make voting harder and harder. gently caress the Democrats can't even control New York loving state how do we expect them to control anywhere. People here were saying this during Bush, then the same people were saying during Obama that there may never be another republican president because DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS and poo poo like that. The pendulum swings, sun rises sun sets. Radish posted:So people complain that the Greens waste their time with high profile elections while ignoring local ones but it seems like that's becoming the plan of the Democrats as well. Well one of the huge issues is that the dems are filled with groups (e.g. young people) that are strong dems for presidents but just don't loving vote in midterm elections. Like they just won't loving do it. Not only midterms but really many just don't seem to care about anything that isn't the presidential election-- just look at dems on the local and state level. The problem is that republicans are just plain more likely to not splinter over petty differences and don't expect a blowjob in exchange for their vote... they turn out consistently at every level and vote R. Hell they just elected a dude that wrote checks for Hillary godamn Clinton less than a decade ago. Imagine if Bernie did something like that, he'd be a pariah. We can even see it in the past few pages: got any sevens posted:I might vote in midterms if the dems pandered to the populist left wing at all. Except the problem is there's very little evidence to suggest this sort of approach would produce material results. All it takes is one missvote to get thrown under the bus it seems. Or just look at Feingold's election, solid leftist credentials got him jack squat and WI is hardly enemy territory. There's obviously a lot more to it. Instead why don't we look back to 06, one of the rare counter-examples. In it we find the exact opposite of what the LEFTIST PURITY types are saying. It wasn't a left wing dream ticket that caused the dem wave, in fact we have many of the famous blue dogs coming around this time. Instead, people were pissed at bush so the right, in a rare instance, actually stayed home but also you had more dems coming out as well. But at any rate the victory had nothing to do with leftism at all. Obama deserves some blame because he completely squandered the mandate and popularity he rode into office with out of (it appears) an extremely misguided belief in what kind of opposition he was dealing with. But a more solid majority would have made it a lot easier to make progress and it's really hard to do that when young people consistently vote during midterms at half the rate that older people do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_vote_in_the_United_States Who knows what the solution to that is but if 18-24 voted at the rate of older people we would have a massively different situation going on now. Would "pandering to the populist left" bring them out? I'm not sure that would be the case, and you could easily lose more moderates than you gain progressives in the process. so i guess the tldr is that the idea that swinging to the far left is the obvious solution has a lot of holes in it. Most people don't want to 'eat the rich' or have 'full communism now'. They want good secure jobs. Neeksy posted:Trump came in with even less of a mandate and congressional support than Obama and has already accomplished more appreciable, understandable destruction in 5 days than Obama built up in 8 years. Trump didn't do worse than Romney by the number that actually matters, the overall popular vote simply is not a significant measure of what people think it is. For any game, any contest, any sport, for jobs, for almost anything... people form the strategies based on the metric that decides the outcome. You cannot directly compare other numbers, like the popular vote, or directly use it as a measure of anything because that's not what decides US elections. When you look at the numbers this is pretty much exactly what you find-- Trump did better in states that actually mattered in the election vs Romney and did worse in the states that did not. For example, Florida Trump + 450k over Romney, CA Trump -350k. At any rate you are right though, the democrats spent most of the Obama administration completely ignoring fiscal issues and are trying to grasp at any straw as a reason for the loss besides the fact that they ignored labor and paid the price. Why on earth should union dudes in the rust belt vote D? What the heck has the party done for them besides deriding them for being white males and saying they didn't matter anymore. E: Confounding Factor posted:Does anyone have a link that shows demographically who voted for Trump and Clinton? Maybe something that shows votes based on class. Not sure if 538 has something like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Voter_demographics tsa fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
If you want the winnable young people to support you, it seems Bernie Sanders struck a chord with them. Maybe listen to his advice on how to win in the midterms? I mean, there are not going to be any easy answers. But the easiest answer of all, "Let's try centrism again!" seems particularly dubious. For all the talk of purity tests from the left, the worst purity testing I've ever seen happened when the centrists turned Obamacare into a pile of poo poo because the public option was just too radical for them. This pretty much sealed the fate of the Obama presidency and helped get us here in Trumpworld down the line. Nominating politicians whose centrist purity will sabotage any gains we make seems like a Pyrrhic victory to me. If we do try and steal some red state seats and turn them blue, we better make sure this time we do it with centrists whose loyalty is to the party first, not their own seats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
tsa posted:Well one of the huge issues is that the dems are filled with groups (e.g. young people) that are strong dems for presidents but just don't loving vote in midterm elections. Like they just won't loving do it. Not only midterms but really many just don't seem to care about anything that isn't the presidential election-- just look at dems on the local and state level. The problem is that republicans are just plain more likely to not splinter over petty differences and don't expect a blowjob in exchange for their vote... they turn out consistently at every level and vote R. Hell they just elected a dude that wrote checks for Hillary godamn Clinton less than a decade ago. Imagine if Bernie did something like that, he'd be a pariah. We can even see it in the past few pages: It's pretty hard to get people to vote Democratic in local and state-level elections when the Democrats won't even run a loving candidate. Which is the actual problem here - the Democratic Party is a loving scam designed to secure the reelection of Congressional Dem incumbents rather than a competently run party built to win power from the top to bottom levels of government. Whining about group X not turning out for midterms is merely deflection from the natural result of this incompetence, because absent convenient scapegoats people might start asking questions about how the party is actually run.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
It's probably a lot easier to run candidates people like (or even run them AT ALL) than hope that young people suddenly get stoked to vote in politicians that campaign on not shaking up the status quo too much because everything is mostly cool. The whole "well people don't vote dem in mid terms so I guess we should just abandon them" is such a profoundly bad attitude for the leadership to have since you will never win if don't even try at all. Remember Teen Vogue is actually running good political stuff because regular journalism is trash and young women are politically concerned. Considering this forum was lousy with people saying "who cares about the youth since they don't vote for us" I'm sure that kind of thinking is very present in the leadership of the party. Why SHOULD the youth vote Democrat when they seemingly don't care out their current problems of college debt and under-employment or their future of having social security cut to the bone? The fact that they voted overwhelmingly for Hillary shows that they should be listened to instead of repeatedly trying to sell them out for middle class suburbanites who are the ones that are actually stabbing Democrats in the back. Midterms are never going to have Presidential year level turnouts (unless Trump REALLY screws the pooch) but to just act like every four years the party is going to lose seats and that's fine is the outlook of people that have absolutely nothing to worry about and really irresponsible. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Radish posted:It's probably a lot easier to run candidates people like (or even run them AT ALL) than hope that young people suddenly get stoked to vote in politicians that campaign on not shaking up the status quo too much because everything is mostly cool. The whole "well people don't vote dem in mid terms so I guess we should just abandon them" is such a profoundly bad attitude for the leadership to have since you will never win if don't even try at all. Remember Teen Vogue is actually running good political stuff because regular journalism is trash and young women are politically concerned. Remember centrists were praising Hillary for knocking down universal healthcare and free college because young people should have some "skin in the game"? Well, we all have skin in the game now. (Except for rich people, who are just gonna make more money now lol)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
tsa posted:so i guess the tldr is that the idea that swinging to the far left is the obvious solution has a lot of holes in it. Most people don't want to 'eat the rich' or have 'full communism now'. They want good secure jobs. That's socialist as hell, but it's not anything like what Americans typically think when they hear "socialism" - they tend to think socialism just means a command economy with the President determining how many people are working at the steel mill in Lansing, MI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Radish posted:So people complain that the Greens waste their time with high profile elections while ignoring local ones but it seems like that's becoming the plan of the Democrats as well. I really hope Ellison's national strategy amplifies the efforts in that article. It's nice to see people putting in a broader effort to grow a proper slate of candidates but even if the DNC doesn't have the money to buy ads for every city council race in every Bumfuck Nowhere it'll be reassuring to at least have some kind of recognition from the party that they're happy to have the effort. I'm not sure how successful it will be in say 5 years time when people come back to complain that it isn't moving fast enough but at least there's more folks in more places willing to do the work of shaping a party they want to support rather than just expecting them to pander to you when you can't even make a credible primary threat to the entrenched schmucks who already have an interest in ignoring you. E: Good job with the Hindenburg avatar, dumbass, it was Ludendorff who had the nervous breakdown and started blaming social democrats, and it was the social democrats who thought Hindenburg Would Have Won against Hitler. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't think you know that with any degree of certainty. The 90% figure is from a poll in late July and other polls around the time show a range from the high sixties to 90%. OK let's see your numbers on how many Bernie supporters voted for Hillary. You do have those right, this isn't just speculation to support your narrative. JeffersonClay posted:So now it wasn't about leftist enthusiasm? Are you making the case that moderates and independents are pining for socialism or a chomskyan foreign policy, despite trending more and more republican? Obama-to-Trump voters existed, union turnout was down for Democrats, union leaders were warning Hillary's campaign that their members were pro-Trump, and Trump won rural counties that haven't voted Republican in 100 years. The neoliberal narrative is that those people are all just fiscally conservative and if the Democrats scoot more to the right, and give more tax cuts and blow jobs to Wall Street, and nominate pro-choice Governor Romney then they'll get all the votes. But you know who did worse in those critical rust belt states than Trump. Mitt fuckin' Romney. Trump broke with fiscal conservatism in important ways: he promised protectionism, he promised regulation and tariffs, he promised universal health care that would "take care of everybody" and shrugged off Ted Cruz when Cruz called him a socialist for it, and he promised to get rid of the loopholes in the tax code that benefit the rich. The Republicans running on nothing but tax cuts and deregulation went down in flames to an orange idiot even among Republican voters. At the debates he bashed Hillary Clinton from the left on carried interest and blamed her for not fixing it. People want government regulation that they think helps them. Trump promised to do that. It's more likely that Obama-to-Trump voters just don't care about more environmental regulation and Dodd-Frank at all, they were fine with Obama doing that as long as he promised to use the government to help them, and then they voted for Trump who promised to use the government to help them. Trump said he would tax the gently caress out of the companies screwing them over with offshoring and stick it to the elites. JeffersonClay posted:People forget that carter was a hardcore fiscal conservative. He torpedoed a bill guaranteeing full employment with government jobs and a progressive healthcare bill. So when were democrats not lovely centrist compromisers? Did carter light a 40 year fuse that blew up Hillary's campaign? Why would these hypothetical bettayed democrats pick right now to jump ship and not 4, 8, or 20 years ago? They didn't turn racist because democrats have been abandoning them for decades, they voted for a racist because they liked the racist appeals Trump was making. lmao yeah the Democrats have been doing this poo poo since Carter, that proves it's working out fine, just look at notable electorally successful fiscal conservative President Jimmy fuckin Carter  I'm sure that's just because Ted Kennedy stabbed him in the back and depressed the left by pointing out the things Carter did wrong yeah? Carter was just a bad campaigner, let's nominate his VP and change absolutely nothing. Oh poo poo, a leftist insurgency kept the anointed successor from locking up the convention, lucky we have superdelegates to push him over the top. Got a new messenger, same message, let's get a lady VP in here because women vote with their vaginas and boom we'll walk right into the white house without having to change a thing.  "We've been doing it since Carter so it can't be a problem" lmao you can't make this poo poo up. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:OK let's see your numbers on how many Bernie supporters voted for Hillary. You do have those right, this isn't just speculation to support your narrative. lmao fiscal conservativism has been a loving disaster but democrats have been gagging on golden cocks for so long they have to effectively be shoved off the casting couch by a grassroots leftist uprising.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:OK let's see your numbers on how many Bernie supporters voted for Hillary. You do have those right, this isn't just speculation to support your narrative. this is a good post. thank you. i think all of us can use some history lessons on the modern democratic party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Once Tim Kaine strengthens his fiscal conservative and warhawk chops by voting for the Iran War, tax cuts, and half of Trump's economic plans, we can run him in 2020 and totally clean up with a "Trump hates women" platform. Get Wasserman-Schultz up there for his running mate and RIP GOP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
I'm thinking Booker looks more likely as the establishment searches for Obama 2.0
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
No we need to double down on Jimmy Carter's strategy. Get the running mate who lost the last election up in here, fiscal conservative centrism cannot fail it can only be failed by voters who were too dumb to vote for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I'm thinking Booker looks more likely as the establishment searches for Obama 2.0 Considering the establishment Dem understanding of identity politics is to just try and superficially create a checklist of representation in lieu of proposing substantial policy ideas to address the economic injustice that hits minorities extra-hard, it makes sense that they'd try Booker as
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Hey he saved someone from a fire once he deserves to be president.VitalSigns posted:No we need to double down on Jimmy Carter's strategy. Get the running mate who lost the last election up in here, fiscal conservative centrism cannot fail it can only be failed by voters who were too dumb to vote for it. Remember the party that values running fiscally conservative centrist politicians and losing, if they run them at all, rather than change course is REALLY concerned (the most concerned in fact, more than literally anyone in the world) about protecting minorities from their opponents. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Once Tim Kaine strengthens his fiscal conservative and warhawk chops by voting for the Iran War, tax cuts, and half of Trump's economic plans, we can run him in 2020 and totally clean up with a "Trump hates women" platform. Get Wasserman-Schultz up there for his running mate and RIP GOP. I heard that Kaine even speaks some Spanish! That should get the latinos on board! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
The funniest thing about all these centrists whining about leftist betrayal is that the sole example in modern times of any wing of the Democratic party actually stabbing its presidential candidate in the back was the Democrat right wing stabbing McGovern in 72.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The funniest thing about all these centrists whining about leftist betrayal is that the sole example in modern times of any wing of the Democratic party actually stabbing its presidential candidate in the back was the Democrat right wing stabbing McGovern in 72. No don't you see McGovern represents how the Left is unelectable in America. That Centrists have lost the Democrats almost all representation in government is no reason to doubt them. Only they are electable. Kaine/Clinton 2020 This Time the Voters take it or they get The Donald again
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
I love how JeffersonClay's doesn't even go as far as saying that leftists back stabbed Hillary by not voting for her, but for whining too much about the content of the DNC and Podesta emails. What an out of touch idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Yeah the argument is always "leftists complain Candidate isn't leftist enough" and that is enough to sink Democrats while also saying that leftists are totally irrelevant and no one wants what they have to offer so we shouldn't do anything they want. It's apparently not only your vote that's owned by the party, but your voice as well. Why even bother having primaries if they are so damaging? Apparently running against the DNC favorite makes him/her look bad which throws the election. Why not just go back to deciding in smoke filled rooms if Democratic candidates are so unbelievably fragile that merely running against them is enough to destroy their general election run and they should just be correlated without competition anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Even out of touch mannequin Mitt "Lucille Bluth" Romney didn't blame his loss on Rick Santorum or Rick Perry for having the gall to run against him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:No don't you see McGovern represents how the Left is unelectable in America. That Centrists have lost the Democrats almost all representation in government is no reason to doubt them. Only they are electable. Kaine/Clinton 2020 This Time the Voters take it or they get The Donald again The Dems should have known that having a bipolar running mate is truly the hallmark of far leftism! <-something I'm guessing at least one person on Clinton's team thought Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:I heard that Kaine even speaks some Spanish! That should get the latinos on board! Mi Abuelo!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It's pretty hard to get people to vote Democratic in local and state-level elections when the Democrats won't even run a loving candidate. Which is the actual problem here - the Democratic Party is a loving scam designed to secure the reelection of Congressional Dem incumbents rather than a competently run party built to win power from the top to bottom levels of government. Whining about group X not turning out for midterms is merely deflection from the natural result of this incompetence, because absent convenient scapegoats people might start asking questions about how the party is actually run. Best example being Corine Brown, who went so far as to join the republicans in their defense of gerrymandered Florida districts because even though it would potentially increase the democratic delegation, it would threaten her seat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Best example being Corine Brown, who went so far as to join the republicans in their defense of gerrymandered Florida districts because even though it would potentially increase the democratic delegation, it would threaten her seat. Jesus Christ the FL Dems are loving awful and everyone expects them to just get better on their own. PSA: Nobody is going to do it for you. Vote in every election. Volunteer. Show up for operational meetings and hold your ground. Run for local office. Submit your name as a primary candidate to push the incumbent leftward. Politicians are craven and insecure animals who will react to a primary challenge from the left. Hell it got Hillary of all people to start backing away from globalist trade policies that were her husband's legacy. They've gotten fat and soft because almost nobody wants to do the work of keeping that pressure on them. If leftists had millions of dollars to pay them it would be different but that's never been the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Jesus Christ the FL Dems are loving awful and everyone expects them to just get better on their own. I wonder why people are discouraged in the Dems 🤔 The first thing that has to happen is they stop taking so much money from the donor class and start listening to the real constituents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:I wonder why people are discouraged in the Dems 🤔 Keep up the good work in patiently waiting for them to stop cashing those huge checks, I'm sure they'll come around any day now. Any day now, just keep waiting and doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"We've been doing it since Carter so it can't be a problem" lmao you can't make this poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
So one thing I've been thinking about after these outrageous EOs is that there really is no going back. Like I think the Democrat's before inauguration plan was to quietly sit through another GWB style presidency then coast into office in 2020 (while doing not much for 2018) then get back to business as usual under President Cuomo or Booker. However Trump going full on king with this stuff so quickly has shown a lot of people that bipartisanship is dead and Republicans (or at least Trump aligned ones) really are the monsters that the left has been saying for years. Maybe Trump will be so unpopular that they can win based on people being so mad at the other guy but if afterwards their attitude is "phew glad that awfulness is over. Time to work with our friends across the aisle on making sure that we keep America great!" we'll be back in this same place again but maybe with someone like Bannon in the actual seat of power instead of just the ear. I really think Trump caught a lot of these idiots totally off guard again, even the Republicans, since they are scrambling to try and figure out how to distance themselves from this while also not having to actually hold him accountable. The Democrats clearly have no plan other than letting the GOP poo poo the bed and waiting it out which is absolutely not going to cut it. Even if they have no actual power because of their political malpractice the last eight years they need to be doing a poo poo ton more than just tweeting how bad this all is. I will give Cuomo credit that it seems like he's actually doing poo poo. Democratic Governors might be the thing that protects some of us. There's going to be a lot of work that needs to undone and they really can't just sit on their asses with their "well progress has to be done in small steps [votes with Republicans to cut social security]" garbage. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Jan 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
The Democrats are a dead loving end. There's no salvaging the party https://news.vice.com/story/democrats-are-struggling-to-explain-why-theyre-voting-for-trumps-nominees We're good and hosed
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Yeah there needs to be a serious primary strategy from the ground up. They really had no clue what was happening right under their noses or just didn't care as long as business largely went as usual.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah there needs to be a serious primary strategy from the ground up. They really had no clue what was happening right under their noses or just didn't care as long as business largely went as usual. Granted, the issue is also you have supposedly "left-wing" senators like Warren joining in, who was supposed to be "one of the good ones." If anything there needs to be a movement outside the Democratic party itself to influence even if Ellison wins and turns out to be decent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
Changing rules to let obama look like he was getting stuff done seems like the biggest "we're hosed" part of this. quote:In 2013, Democrats changed the rules requiring a 60-vote majority for such confirmations to only needing a simple majority.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 15:28
|
|
