The Democratic National Chairperson election 2017

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Democratic National Chairperson election 2017

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

JeffersonClay posted:

Trump repeatedly praised Bernie on the campaign trail and talked about how unfairly he'd been treated by the DNC and Clinton. In concert with the hacked podesta emails, it was a naked attempt to ratfuck us and it worked like a charm.

Ok, but that doesn't imply direct Russian involvement with Bernie. That's a strategy they could've come up with on their own.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 19:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 09:04

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

JeffersonClay posted:

It takes willful ignorance to look at that quote and not see the implication.

I see a rallying cry against NAFTA that I don't necessarily agree with, but what I don't see is a promise to bring back manufacturing. What I have seen all over his website and in a shitload of interviews is a promise to grow a green energy economy, invest in infrastructure, increase broadband access and make state college free so people can get jobs relevant to the current economy. I've just literally never seen him advocate for manufacturing, so I'm wondering if that actually happened or not.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 19:39

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

Kilroy posted:

Okay let's talk about this instead of rehashing the primary because this is a legit interesting issue and one of the big differences - perhaps the biggest difference - between the GOP and the Democratic party. And it's something the Democratic party badly needs to address.

When you vote for a Republican you know what you're getting; sure you might get a John McCain instead of a Jeff Sessions, but they're pretty much going to vote the same way anyhow. We'd have to be deep in Nazi territory before the differences between those two became apparent, so for American politics over the last couple decades GOP candidates have been pretty much interchangeable on policy grounds. To me that is a huge advantage because it means that Republican voters are comfortable voting for whoever the GOP puts forward because they know: they agree with the GOP national platform, they know this person they are voting for will vote consistently to advance that platform, they know (and this is important!) that other GOP politicians running for office elsewhere will also reliably vote to advance that platform. The GOP is, in some sense, the only serious national political party in the United States, with the Democrats being more like a politicians guild.

If you vote for a Democrat, even if you know the person you're voting for well enough to know they're pretty in-line with the party platform and will work to support it, it's still a crapshoot. You know the Democrats will need larger majorities in Congress to advance their agenda to the same degree the GOP would, because the party is more fragmented. You know that plenty of other Democrats will be actively working against this person you're voting for. And, if you don't know the candidate that well or you don't trust them that much, even if you're in a safe blue district for all you know you're voting for another Feinstein. All of this works to sap support from Democrats and lower turnout.

So in the case of Manchin, Heitkamp, et al, basically the heirs of Lieberman, it seems to me that cutting them loose could help the party nationally. It could make the party more focused and more cohesive, and better able to present a coherent and believable message to voters nationally. Democrats in every race local to national and countrywide could rely on the reputation of the party the way Republicans do right now, instead of always having to win purely on their own merits. To paraphrase Schumer, for every Manchin we cut loose in a red state we pick up two Tim Ryans in purple states.

Eh, Leiberman was different because he was a shithead in a blue state. Manchin and Heitkamp are Democrats in Red States who are not so easily replaced. That's a big difference.

The other reason for this is the Democrat Party itself allows for and encourages a panoply of views and ideas, where as the Republicans don't. They encouraged rigid orthodoxy.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 19:39

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Chelb posted:

congrats on answering a truncated post and presuming that me saying white americans are racist means that they're permanently opposed to democratic messaging, and not that modern leftist movements have no reliable safeguards against ideologies built upon vocal hate

i wonder why i would assume that?

quote:

quote:
We don't have a chance of reversing that because our party no longer has enough power and the vast majority of America is racist and unethical.

Get rid of the unethical part and add "White" before "America", and I'll be glad you agree with me.

quote:

We don't have a chance of reversing that because our party no longer has enough power and the vast majority of white America is racist

Hmm.... it doesn't sound like you think white americans are amenable to democratic messaging...

as for the rest of your post? why should I bother addressing it? it's an ill constructed hypothetical that you draw specious conclusions from. but if you insist...

quote:

Are they dispirited? Let's put ourselves into the shoes of a person who is not being held back from voting due to voter suppression - say, a white male with a decent job that offers enough downtime for him to easily vote. When he read on the news that Donald Trump was recorded bragging about sexually assaulting women, or that he mocked a disabled reporter, or that he insulted the parents of a dead veteran for no reason other than that they find him reprehensible, what do you think he thinks when he decides not to vote? That both sides are equally bad? That what he's heard all around him, very nearly shouted from the rooftops, on TV or the internet, are lies?

I can see two options. Either he doesn't understand the effects politics has on himself and on others, or he doesn't care. The first one is something that can potentially be solved through all sorts of ways, from charismatic political messaging to proper education to drawing a few logical conclusions about how cause and effect works. The second one is irredeemable.

So now that we've got that out of the way, which one is more prevalent, ignorance or deliberate disinterest? Considering the attitudes white america has had and continues to have regarding people of different races, genders, and religions, and considering that Donald Trump coalesces and expresses verbally those attitudes - the answer is the latter, op.

even if we assume that most of white america doesn't care about the effects politics has on themselves or others, that doesn't mean they're irredeemable. it's our job to make them care, and it's possible to do just that. but you have to use honey instead of vinegar. you have to entice them to care.

doing this is going to be important in the future since the GOP is going to supress votes way more than they were before.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 19:51

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

Condiv posted:

if you don't believe people who abstain from voting are unethical why are you butting into an argument about whether or not they are unethical?

in any case, you think white america is too racist to vote for dems, so you still think the situation is hopeless. i think it's an idiotic and hopeless viewpoint.

you already said the reason. they are unethical. america is unethical. and that's why dems will never win again.

Unethical people vote democratic too from time to time...

# ? Feb 16, 2017 19:53

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

mcmagic posted:

Unethical people vote democratic too from time to time...

oh, so you want these unethical people to vote for dems? then why are you calling them unethical for not voting instead of trying to entice them to vote democrat?

# ? Feb 16, 2017 19:57

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

calling people that are already weary of you names is not an effective method of getting them to vote for you

"hey everyone that didn't do exactly what i wanted last election, you're a literal nazi, i hate you personally, and i blame you for our country's current political problems, you racist piece of poo poo. please vote for my candidate, tia"

# ? Feb 16, 2017 19:58

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

I see a rallying cry against NAFTA that I don't necessarily agree with, but what I don't see is a promise to bring back manufacturing. .

Trade deals killed US manufacturing. We will end those trade deals so corporations will create jobs here. But oh no I don't mean manufacturing jobs that's ridiculous.

Come on.

Lightning Knight posted:

Ok, but that doesn't imply direct Russian involvement with Bernie. That's a strategy they could've come up with on their own.

Look at all the fawning pro-Bernie articles on RT, for example.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:01

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

RaySmuckles posted:

calling people that are already weary of you names is not an effective method of getting them to vote for you

"hey everyone that didn't do exactly what i wanted last election, you're a literal nazi, i hate you personally, and i blame you for our country's current political problems, you racist piece of poo poo. please vote for my candidate, tia"

Bad news. They're Nazis.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:02

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

JeffersonClay posted:

Look at all the fawning pro-Bernie articles on RT, for example.

Well, yes, it is true that the Russians wanted Bernie, or rather didn't want Hillary. But there isn't the same evidence of direct involvement/collusion like there is with Trump.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:03

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

Lightning Knight posted:

Well, yes, it is true that the Russians wanted Bernie, or rather didn't want Hillary. But there isn't the same evidence of direct involvement/collusion like there is with Trump.

Unlike Jill, who went to dinner with Vlad.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:05

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Eh, Leiberman was different because he was a shithead in a blue state. Manchin and Heitkamp are Democrats in Red States who are not so easily replaced. That's a big difference.

The other reason for this is the Democrat Party itself allows for and encourages a panoply of views and ideas, where as the Republicans don't. They encouraged rigid orthodoxy.

Well maybe we should borrow from the GOP playbook a bit on this. I'm not saying we need to have them in lockstep the way the GOP does, but as I said if you don't do something you're not really a political party anymore, you're just a guild of politicians who help each other get reelected.

Let people like Manchin run as independents if that's what they want to be. Even if they win, they won't be soaking up DSCC/DCCC resources doing so, and there are things the Democratic caucus in the House and Senate can do to get their support when they need it.

JeffersonClay posted:

Trump repeatedly praised Bernie on the campaign trail and talked about how unfairly he'd been treated by the DNC and Clinton. In concert with the hacked podesta emails, it was a naked attempt to ratfuck us and it worked like a charm.

Oh god drat it gently caress off with this poo poo. The only lesson you can possibly take from this is that going forward we can't even have a primary in the first place, because doing so will damage whatever precious snowflake candidate does wind up competing in the general. Of course the opposing party is going to try to gently caress with you - the Democrats did it to the Republicans as well and it probably got Trump nominated. Certainly Hillary's camp was delighted by the fact and we have documentation of that.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:05

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Unlike Jill, who went to dinner with Vlad.

And Flynn. :smug:

I kind of agree that I'd rather have lockstep orthodoxy towards good policy than another ACA Lieberman fiasco. The Democrats need more forcefully vote whipping.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:07

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Bad news. They're Nazis.

especially the ones that have never given a single thought about politics and didn't vote

definitely nazis.

this argument is so stupid.

by your logic anyone who votes democrat supports Gitmo staying open, loves bank bailouts, supports expanded drone warfare, agrees with the expansion of the national security state and wireless wiretapping, wants to continue increasing deportations, and thinks all whistle blowers should be persecuted to the full extent of the law. those were the policies of obama. if you voted for obama you 100% agree with all of those policies. not to mention as an american you support the exploration of the 3rd world to support our extravagant lifestyles and externalizing pollution to poorer countries who make all our poo poo.

its total bullshit to generalize massive swathes of populations.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:09

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

Kilroy posted:

Well maybe we should borrow from the GOP playbook a bit on this. I'm not saying we need to have them in lockstep the way the GOP does, but as I said if you don't do something you're not really a political party anymore, you're just a guild of politicians who help each other get reelected.

Let people like Manchin run as independents if that's what they want to be. Even if they win, they won't be soaking up DSCC/DCCC resources doing so, and there are things the Democratic caucus in the House and Senate can do to get their support when they need it.

So we're not giving Bernie and Angus King money anymore?

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:09

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

So we're not giving Bernie and Angus King money anymore?

For what it's worth I don't like it at all that Bernie quit the Democratic party after his run yet is still invested in its politics e.g. promoting Keith Ellison to DNC chair - he should have done that as a member of the loving party and not as an outsider. So to answer your question (and in fact I was not aware that these two get DSCC money), no I don't think they should get funding.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:13

Fulchrum: Apr 16, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Condiv posted:

it is dems fault. they had an easy election and they flubbed it hard with an unlikeable candidate who apparently can't figure out how to campaign. trump is an incompetent boob and his presidency so far has made that drat obvious, but the dems couldn't pull out a win against him even though he was their favored candidate. it's dems job to convince people to vote for them, and they absolutely refuse to do that and instead rely on party loyalty to win them election.the dems need to stop being just the lesser evil and actually appeal to someone other than wall street.

In case you hadn't noticed, EVERY party tried and failed to stop Trump. The difference with the Republicans was that the FBI and Russia didn't help, and that he didn't win against Cruz by a lovely technicality, he won by a large margin.

The Little Kielbasa posted:

Hard to see that given the AFL-CIO's Ellison endorsement.

That came before Perez entered the race.

Condiv posted:

voting is not a duty at all. that's why it's legal to not bother voting. the longer you keep pretending that people are obligated to vote for your party, instead of trying to convince them to vote for your party, the more support the dems will bleed. hth

It's amazing how according to the numbers, zero Republicans agree with this sentiment. Almost like not thinking of a vote as something you have to purity test endlessly and instead just do, gives them what they want. What an amazing concept.

Unless what you want is purity and no amount of political gains on earth will ever mean as much to you as that feeling of smug self satisfaction.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

*loses 900+ seats*

this is fine. we are okay with the events that are currently unfolding. the current party leadership will be okay

*loses 900 seats*

See, I shouldn't feel any obligation to vote at all.

Crowsbeak posted:

Yeah he should not have run on reforming it at all. Also bipartisan support doesn't mean it was good for America as 2008 showed. Clinton let the left down then expected fealty. Not going to happen. Best of all despite the support we showed her and him at the booth she lost. So now we can rightfully blame them.

So you mean in the same way they were right to blame the failure of the left in the 80s?

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:14

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

RaySmuckles posted:

calling people that are already weary of you names is not an effective method of getting them to vote for you

"hey everyone that didn't do exactly what i wanted last election, you're a literal nazi, i hate you personally, and i blame you for our country's current political problems, you racist piece of poo poo. please vote for my candidate, tia"

Suggesting that certain actions are ethical or unethical isn't name calling.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:15

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

Kilroy posted:

For what it's worth I don't like it at all that Bernie quit the Democratic party after his run yet is still invested in its politics e.g. promoting Keith Ellison to DNC chair - he should have done that as a member of the loving party and not as an outsider. So to answer your question (and in fact I was not aware that these two get DSCC money), no I don't think they should get funding.

Yeah they both get DSCC money, and we cleared the field for both of them to run for Senate. The truth is that democratic party and liberalism writ large are more accepting of a wide number of view points.The problem isn't entirely people like Manchin or Heiditkamp, it's people in blue states who do dumb poo poo, and not running people who can win in states we should compete in. And also just not showing up in some of the red states.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:17

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Fulchrum posted:

In case you hadn't noticed, EVERY party tried and failed to stop Trump. The difference with the Republicans was that the FBI and Russia didn't help, and that he didn't win against Cruz by a lovely technicality, he won by a large margin.

That came before Perez entered the race.

It's amazing how according to the numbers, zero Republicans agree with this sentiment. Almost like not thinking of a vote as something you have to purity test endlessly and instead just do, gives them what they want. What an amazing concept.

Unless what you want is purity and no amount of political gains on earth will ever mean as much to you as that feeling of smug self satisfaction.

*loses 900 seats*

See, I shouldn't feel any obligation to vote at all.

So you mean in the same way they were right to blame the failure of the left in the 80s?

They were not right to blame us at all. Carter ran as a moderate and lost to Reagan. Mondale could only promise higher taxes. While Dukakis could only promise a balanced budget. Also now explain what your thoughts about properly regulating and cutting down the banks are. Also if you keep pushing poo poo candidates you will lose. Just like you did in the 80s but that's liberal centricism for you.

Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Feb 16, 2017

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:21

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

Condiv posted:

oh, so you want these unethical people to vote for dems? then why are you calling them unethical for not voting instead of trying to entice them to vote democrat?

Because what I say on a message board isn't going to be national democratic messaging. The national messaging that appeals to ethical people will also appeal to a number of unethical people.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:21

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Yeah they both get DSCC money, and we cleared the field for both of them to run for Senate. The truth is that democratic party and liberalism writ large are more accepting of a wide number of view points.The problem isn't entirely people like Manchin or Heiditkamp, it's people in blue states who do dumb poo poo, and not running people who can win in states we should compete in. And also just not showing up in some of the red states.

Yeah if we didn't run actual Democrats against them I can sort of see the logic although I don't entirely agree. In the case of both the party should be asking them what would make them join formally, and then seeing if the party can do it. And if the party can't, or if the answer from them is "there's nothing you can do" then they need to run Democrats for those seats. That's what a fifty-state strategy is, after all.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:23

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

Nevvy Z posted:

Suggesting that certain actions are ethical or unethical isn't name calling.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Bad news. They're Nazis.

hmm, yes, do go on

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:23

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Kilroy posted:

Oh god drat it gently caress off with this poo poo. The only lesson you can possibly take from this is that going forward we can't even have a primary in the first place, because doing so will damage whatever precious snowflake candidate does wind up competing in the general. Of course the opposing party is going to try to gently caress with you - the Democrats did it to the Republicans as well and it probably got Trump nominated. Certainly Hillary's camp was delighted by the fact and we have documentation of that.

Actually the lesson we should take from it is the next time we have the republicans and a foreign government colluding to ratfuck us we shouldn't fall for it. I don't care that Russia wanted Bernie to win, and I don't hold it against him or think it was his fault. I care that after Bernie had decisively lost his dumbest supporters guzzled down naked ratfucking like it was ambrosia.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:24

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Fulchrum posted:

*loses 900 seats*

See, I shouldn't feel any obligation to vote at all.

You seem to be conflating a person who has voted Democratic and is angry that they keep losing, with someone who doesn't vote, or doesn't vote Democratic, and is nonetheless angry that they're losing. You seem unable to accept that people to the left of you want the Democrats to win elections and that moving to the left is part of the strategy to do that. Instead, for you it is a given that moving to the left will lose elections, so the only reason anyone could support it is out of a desire for ideological purity over and above results. In fact it is precisely that "ideological purity" (as you would call it) that we believe is a means to win more elections.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:28

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

JeffersonClay posted:

Actually the lesson we should take from it is the next time we have the republicans and a foreign government colluding to ratfuck us we shouldn't fall for it. I don't care that Russia wanted Bernie to win, and I don't hold it against him or think it was his fault. I care that after Bernie had decisively lost his dumbest supporters guzzled down naked ratfucking like it was ambrosia.

And yet they voted for Hillary in the general in greater proportion than did Hillary supporters for Obama in 2008.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:29

Fulchrum: Apr 16, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Crowsbeak posted:

They were not right to blame us at all. Carter ran as a moderate and lost to Reagan. Mondale could only promise higher taxes. While Dukakis could only promis a balanced budget. Also now explain what your thoughts about properly regulating and cutting down the banks are. Also if you keep pushing poo poo candidates you will lose. Just like you did in the 80s but that's liberal centricism for you.

Ah, I see, NEVER, EVER your fault and you can always say that you should take some blame. What a kooky coincidence, and not a complete delusion.

Kilroy posted:

You seem to be conflating a person who has voted Democratic and is angry that they keep losing, with someone who doesn't vote, or doesn't vote Democratic, and is nonetheless angry that they're losing. You seem unable to accept that people to the left of you want the Democrats to win elections and that moving to the left is part of the strategy to do that. Instead, for you it is a given that moving to the left will lose elections, so the only reason anyone could support it is out of a desire for ideological purity over and above results. In fact it is precisely that "ideological purity" (as you would call it) that we believe is a means to win more elections.

And that is why the candidate with the most progressive platform in us history won.

Oh wait.

Little monkey wrench in your theory.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:35

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

JeffersonClay posted:

I care that after Bernie had decisively lost his dumbest supporters guzzled down naked ratfucking like it was ambrosia.

Bernie's dumbest supporters are annoying, but I don't get how they're statistically significant enough to generate as much outrage as you seem to harbor. The vast, vast, vast majority of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:35

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

Fulchrum posted:

Ah, I see, NEVER, EVER your fault and you can always say that you should take some blame. What a kooky coincidence, and not a complete delusion.

And that is why the candidate with the most progressive platform in us history won.

Oh wait.

Little monkey wrench in your theory.

This was not the most progressive platform in US history... At least not economically.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:36

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Fulchrum posted:

Ah, I see, NEVER, EVER your fault and you can always say that you should take some blame. What a kooky coincidence, and not a complete delusion.

And that is why the candidate with the most progressive platform in us history won.

Oh wait.

Little monkey wrench in your theory.

But it wasn't our fault. You guus ratfucked Jackson. Both times. I guess maybe Ted should not have run against a sitting president but to suggest Carter, Mondale or Dukakis were lefties is delusional. Also that was certainly not the most progressive platform in us history. FDRs and LBJ had far more progressive platforms.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:37

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Kilroy posted:

And yet they voted for Hillary in the general in greater proportion than did Hillary supporters for Obama in 2008.

You have no idea if that's true or not, and it doesn't matter in any case. The PUMA bullshit was GOP ratfucking too.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:41

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

mcmagic posted:

This was not the most progressive platform in US history... At least not economically.

It was the most progressive platform since Reagan got elected, which is the earliest you can reasonably compare to the present.

The problem was actually that people didn't believe Hillary would implement that, rightly or wrongly. Which is a problem fixed by getting somebody whose political history is more in line with the platform. I.e. Keith Ellison.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:41

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Fulchrum posted:

And that is why the candidate with the most progressive platform in us history won.

Oh wait.

Little monkey wrench in your theory.

Yeah the candidate from the political family that reinvented triangulation and elevated it to a (grotesque) art form, adopted portions of her primary opponent's platform. I suppose that's good as it shows the left has influence, but her support of those planks was hardly credible. Had she not adopted them she'd have probably lost the popular vote as well, so chew on that.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:43

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

JeffersonClay posted:

You have no idea if that's true or not, and it doesn't matter in any case. The PUMA bullshit was GOP ratfucking too.

The numbers bear it out and if it doesn't matter then why are you complaining about "dumb" Bernie supporters?

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:45

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

Lightning Knight posted:

It was the most progressive platform since Reagan got elected, which is the earliest you can reasonably compare to the present.

The problem was actually that people didn't believe Hillary would implement that, rightly or wrongly. Which is a problem fixed by getting somebody whose political history is more in line with the platform. I.e. Keith Ellison.

I don't think the reason she lost had anything to do with her platform or if people thought she was going to implement it or not. This was about her personally.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:45

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

mcmagic posted:

I don't think the reason she lost had anything to do with her platform or if people thought she was going to implement it or not. This was about her personally.

Well, probably that too, yeah.

Either way those are mostly problems unique to Hillary Clinton.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:46

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

mcmagic posted:

Because what I say on a message board isn't going to be national democratic messaging. The national messaging that appeals to ethical people will also appeal to a number of unethical people.

It didn't last time, why would it this time?

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:48

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Kilroy posted:

The numbers bear it out and if it doesn't matter then why are you complaining about "dumb" Bernie supporters?

They don't, because we don't actually have the vote totals by party ID data yet. It doesn't matter because falling for ratfucking is still bad in 2016 even if some people fell for it in 2008.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:51

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Support for free trade rise to new highs!

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 09:04

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

JeffersonClay posted:

They don't, because we don't actually have the vote totals by party ID data yet. It doesn't matter because falling for ratfucking is still bad in 2016 even if some people fell for it in 2008.

Believing that the magnitude by which people "fell for the ratfucking" isn't important, is incredibly dangerous because it leaves you vulnerable to focusing on the wrong problem. The numbers matter.

# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:54

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Democratic National Chairperson election 2017

«‹›156 »