|
JeffersonClay posted:Never. But I'm on board with a GMI and I can understand the economics behind it so it's probably not a good idea to use me as a proxy for the average moderate democrat. So, JeffersonClay, why in the world are you trying to push back against genuine and sustained outrage and political engagement from a shitload of working-class people? Like I have nothing against you aside from transient squabbles on a dying message board, and ostensibly we want the exact same things -- so why argue for shrewd centrism? Leave that up to the politicians, and make clear calls for what you and we want, and let them try to live up to our demands. That's how the system should work, how it was set up to work.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:Except the primaries had their exact intended effect in moving the party to the right all the while seeing massive electoral gains... The Republicans have never controlled more of the government at every level as they do now. They had the chance to unseat Harry loving Reid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:They had the chance to unseat Harry loving Reid. If they hadn't been so active in primaries they would've lost many races they won because their base was energized and saw results and because they were able to enforce votes from squishy members.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
I don't know which party Keith is talking about... winning at the ballot box?mcmagic posted:If they hadn't been so active in primaries they would've lost many races they won because their base was energized and saw results or because they were able to enforce votes from squishy members. Yeah but they targeted people largely in safe seats. I am all for putting the fear of god in people in party, just being smart about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:They had the chance to unseat Harry loving Reid. It's about numbers, not a hit list of specific names. Republicans understand this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:It's about numbers, not a hit list of specific names. Republicans understand this. It's about getting a few heads on spikes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Except the primaries had their exact intended effect in moving the party to the right all the while seeing massive electoral gains... The Republicans have never controlled more of the government at every level as they do now. Even if we're going to assume correlation equals causation and generalize their strategy to our situation, there's no more reason to think the republicans won because they got more extreme than because they got more conservative. Thus it's ambiguous whether we should go right or left to copy their winning strategy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It's about getting a few heads on spikes. Putting Cantor's head on a spike was pretty big.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Even if we're going to assume correlation equals causation and generalize their strategy to our situation, there's no more reason to think the republicans won because they got more extreme than because they got more conservative. Thus it's ambiguous whether we should go right or left to copy their winning strategy. You think there is a difference?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Oh boy the democrats would have been hosed without the powerful Harry Reid - a senator who accomplished nothing during that time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:So, JeffersonClay, why in the world are you trying to push back against genuine and sustained outrage and political engagement from a shitload of working-class people? Like I have nothing against you aside from transient squabbles on a dying message board, and ostensibly we want the exact same things -- so why argue for shrewd centrism? Leave that up to the politicians, and make clear calls for what you and we want, and let them try to live up to our demands. That's how the system should work, how it was set up to work. Because I don't think drinking your own kool-aid is good for you and I know having just supported Hillary Rodham Clinton. We agree on the goals. If you don't want to argue about strategy then by all means stop discussing strategy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
if this debate has any influence whatsoever on the election tmmrw then ellison is a shoo-in. the others are forgettable and perez is frankly repulsive
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:You think there is a difference? I mean, its semantic, but in some ways yes. There are plenty of things that conservatives supported for decades that they no longer support because Liberals also supported them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Oh boy the democrats would have been hosed without the powerful Harry Reid - a senator who accomplished nothing during that time. Harry Reid was a terrific senator.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:You think there is a difference? There is if we're going to copy their strategy, obviously. If they won because they moved right, we should move right. If they won because they got more extreme, we should get more extreme. You need a much more robust examination of what happened to make that determination. The argument you're making isn't sufficient for the claims.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Harry Reid was a terrific senator. And built a machine in the state of Nevada that kept his Senate seat and flipped a House race.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:You think there is a difference? He's hinting that America is electing more republicans because Americans are warming towards conservative policy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:He's hinting that America is electing more republicans because Americans are warming towards conservative policy. I apologize for calling you dumb earlier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:He's hinting that America is electing more republicans because Americans are warming towards conservative policy. That isn't what is happening based on any empirical data.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
oh perez just say no and stop stepping on this rake
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
ugh look at this stage full of paranoid bernouts. none of them pass my purity test
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:He's hinting that America is electing more republicans because Americans are warming towards conservative policy. Gerrymandering. Democrats have more support across the board, both Presidential and congressional.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:He's hinting that America is electing more republicans because Americans are warming towards conservative policy. It helps republicans to have actual semblance of organization down to the school board level. Trump's approval ratings are in the gutter and the tea party is nationally loathed. There's just no organization on the democratic side capable of turning that into electoral victory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:That isn't what is happening based on any empirical data. SKULL.GIF posted:Gerrymandering. Democrats have more support across the board, both Presidential and congressional.  I was just explaining JC's reasoning.Personally, I don't think Americans really give a poo poo about the nitty gritties of policy. For the most part they vote based on cultural resentments and tastemakers, which is part of the reason why this DNC Chair election really matters- even when it's between two people with similar platforms The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Gerrymandering. Democrats have more support across the board, both Presidential and congressional. Yes, there are an endless number of confounding factors, as well. mcmagic posted:That isn't what is happening based on any empirical data. We can argue about that, but if you think "Look, the republicans moved right, therefore we must move left to win" is obvious on its own, you've got a big blind spot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
The guy from South Carolina basically voicing the stupidity of saying it's "rigged."
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
I have no idea who this woman is but shes great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Greene was great on superdelegates and process in general.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
lol Hillary 2020
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
Big Hillary supporter here, I don't want her near the race in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:lol Hillary 2020 Why even ask? Honestly? It's like they're trying to suss out political opinions to sway the outcome here. Edit: I mean, no poo poo, but it's just so blatant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Big Hillary supporter here, I don't want her near the race in 2020. yeah but theres no way to answer "gently caress no" to this question and not have the moderators slam you with a billion follow ups
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
yeah you have to make a nod to the hillfolk centrists if you want to pass their purity test
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:yeah but theres no way to answer "gently caress no" to this question and not have the moderators slam you with a billion follow ups oh yeah
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
"how are you going to protect us from hacking" by not letting john podesta nearing a loving computer ever again
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
All these questions and I don't think Perez has ever tried to directly engage any one of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:All these questions and I don't think Perez has ever tried to directly engage any one of them. I think he's a good guy, but he's not good at this kind of thing -- which again, why Ellison is just much better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Like that right there is why Ellison is better for this job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think he's a good guy, but he's not good at this kind of thing -- which again, why Ellison is just much better. I don't know. I think this does both Ellison and Perez a disservice. Ellison because if he is elected Party Chair, policy isn't really going to matter. Perez because the party chair position isn't really something you can have a debate about. It's like debating with someone on purely administrative work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
The Mayor of South Bend should probably run for congress or does he think a gay man can't get elected in Indiana?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 05:33
|
|