The Democratic National Chairperson election 2017

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

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.

Paracaidas posted:

Can we it now or does Fans still need to hit Gaddafi Did Nothing Wrong for Internecine Bullshit bingo?

The vote is tomorrow. Important things to remember:

Any argument that it's an outsider/insider race has to account for the massive establishment support for each of the main candidates (but Buttigieg is getting hosed)

Perez, by his own count and from outside sources, claims to have a large lead. Only one source has published anything contrary to this-and that was based on responses from ~50% of delegates. His victory would thus not be a surprise, nor would it be a lastminute fuckbarreling of Ellison

The radically pro-Israel portion of the party has come out with racist bullshit against Ellison. The majority of the remainder of pro-Israel portion of the party has lined up behind Ellison, who condemns BDS.

Ellison and Perez are both progressive in rhetoric and results. Buttigieg is more progressive than either, and was Feeling the Bern long before any of you Johnny-Come-Lately motherfuckers were paying attention to politics, and has the endorsement of the only effective DNC chair of your lifetime.

Primarychat is the exclusive domain of low effort trolls and those who are incapable of seeing politics as anything other than team sports.

Bernie Would Have Won, but his loss allows him to avoid the inevitable transformation into someone who was Always Bad.

Hillary can both have run an awful campaign and been the victim of unprecedented interference by foreign governments and our own law enforcement agencies. Acknowledging or discussing one does not mean dismissing the other, and while it's possible she'd have won in the absence of the latter, it does not excuse the failures of the former.

Ellison's victory is not a capitulation to the forces of The Left nor will he usher in a golden era of Progressive Democratic Politics

Refusing to show the gently caress up in 2018 means you're a loathsome piece of poo poo and your opinions are more worthless than the rest of your pathetic life. This starts before November, and applies even if you are in a "safe" red state or district.

... this is a Burger King drive thru? Oops. Whopper Jr, please.

As always, you're a hero.

# ? Feb 24, 2017 22:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 18:16

Cease to Hope: Dec 12, 2011

The first vote is tomorrow. It may go all weekend.

Technically it doesn't even have to be resolved this weekend, but it almost certainly will be.

# ? Feb 24, 2017 22:52

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Based on the same metrics that failed Clinton! Like you're basing your supposition of "Bernie would have won" on the same metrics that showed Clinton beating Trump, and that's not even adding confounding factors for why that's bad analysis.

And here you're making the cumpletely and utterly unfounded assumption that if the metrics show candidate A and B beating canidate C then their chances of doing so are equal. This is, again, a real basic error of thought that you need to fix. The polls showed that Clinton would have won narrowly, and that Bernie would have won in a landslide. A super basic comparison of these show that Bernie was in the better position.

Also what failed Clinton was to plug those metrics into a computer simulation and then assume that the simulation overrode reality.

So at least what I and probably most everybody else who says it hope for when you hear that Bernie Woulda Won is that you reflect a bit on your own assumptions and judgement instead of assuming that you have it all figured out, because you really don't.

# ? Feb 24, 2017 22:52

MooselanderII: Feb 18, 2004

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

You argue (absent evidence) that Hillary lost because of Sanders supporters. You also say that for the Democratic Party to win, it needs the left to give up and unify with the center. You then spend a whole lot of effort telling Sanders supporters that they're piece of poo poo idiots who don't belong in the Democratic Party.

I can't figure you out.

JeffersonClay argues that Hillary didn't lose because Sanders voters didn't turn out for her, but because they complained too much about the content of the leaked emails (which he argued at the time were no big deal). We are left to assume that this complaining lost the election by _____________ (he never explains how this affected the decisions of voters, but presumably it made people vote Trump? He rejects depressed turn out theories). Also, he rejects catering to these "back biting leftists" even if only to stop their bitching in the future, except as a throwaway campaign tactic against an incumbent president with over 50 percent approval rating. He is lukewarm to the idea that it could provide any sort of coherence to party messaging.

And that doesn't even touch his idea that the political orientation of a president is evidenced by the gross amount of federal social spending, unadjusted for inflation!

# ? Feb 24, 2017 22:54

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.

Cerebral Bore posted:

And here you're making the cumpletely and utterly unfounded assumption that if the metrics show candidate A and B beating canidate C then their chances of doing so are equal. This is, again, a real basic error of thought that you need to fix. The polls showed that Clinton would have won narrowly, and that Bernie would have won in a landslide. A super basic comparison of these show that Bernie was in the better position.

Also what failed Clinton was to plug those metrics into a computer simulation and then assume that the simulation overrode reality.

So at least what I and probably most everybody else who says it hope for when you hear that Bernie Woulda Won is that you reflect a bit on your own assumptions and judgement instead of assuming that you have it all figured out, because you really don't.

Maybe you should practice a little bit of this yourself, because you don't have it figured out and I've never claimed I did either.

# ? Feb 24, 2017 22:58

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Raskolnikov38 posted:

but...that's boring

Welcome to ~~the republican party~~ internal party political machinations.

I'm lying because I'm a plant of the establishment and want to keep you passionate people out. Real campaigns and party offices, even on the local level, are exactly like The West Wing and your local office is waiting for you to come in and be their Toby Ziegler. Definitely, Maybe is certainly not the most accurate representation of being a local campaign worker that Hollywood has ever produced

Cease to Hope posted:

The first vote is tomorrow. It may go all weekend.

Technically it doesn't even have to be resolved this weekend, but it almost certainly will be.

Given the makeup of the electorate (party functionaries), even going to Sunday is incredibly unlikely. In this case the progressiveness of each candidate is a virtue, since neither side's actual voters are likely to have a strong enough preference to turn it into a drawn out process. I think Buttigieg's main goal is to raise his profile, but with Dean supporting him he may emerge as a compromise candidate in the Adlai mold if hardliners do dig in and this poo poo gets brokered.

# ? Feb 24, 2017 23:04

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.

Paracaidas posted:

Welcome to ~~the republican party~~ internal party political machinations.

I'm lying because I'm a plant of the establishment and want to keep you passionate people out. Real campaigns and party offices, even on the local level, are exactly like The West Wing and your local office is waiting for you to come in and be their Toby Ziegler. Definitely, Maybe is certainly not the most accurate representation of being a local campaign worker that Hollywood has ever produced

Given the makeup of the electorate (party functionaries), even going to Sunday is incredibly unlikely. In this case the progressiveness of each candidate is a virtue, since neither side's actual voters are likely to have a strong enough preference to turn it into a drawn out process. I think Buttigieg's main goal is to raise his profile, but with Dean supporting him he may emerge as a compromise candidate in the Adlai mold if hardliners do dig in and this poo poo gets brokered.

I wondered about this too. Like if the Perez and Ellison camps couldn't get to a majority after the second or third ballot if they'd go "fine, here you go Pete."

# ? Feb 24, 2017 23:06

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Maybe you should practice a little bit of this yourself, because you don't have it figured out and I've never claimed I did either.

You're the one who's making super basic errors here, pal.

# ? Feb 24, 2017 23:08

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Paracaidas posted:

Welcome to ~~the republican party~~ internal party political machinations.

I'm lying because I'm a plant of the establishment and want to keep you passionate people out. Real campaigns and party offices, even on the local level, are exactly like The West Wing and your local office is waiting for you to come in and be their Toby Ziegler. Definitely, Maybe is certainly not the most accurate representation of being a local campaign worker that Hollywood has ever produced

Given the makeup of the electorate (party functionaries), even going to Sunday is incredibly unlikely. In this case the progressiveness of each candidate is a virtue, since neither side's actual voters are likely to have a strong enough preference to turn it into a drawn out process. I think Buttigieg's main goal is to raise his profile, but with Dean supporting him he may emerge as a compromise candidate in the Adlai mold if hardliners do dig in and this poo poo gets brokered.

Based on my anecdotal outside-SA experience, it's been hugely good at raising his profile.

Including with me, I've gone from "lol Butt Mayor" to "I'd be as happy with him as with Ellison or Perez".

# ? Feb 24, 2017 23:10

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.

Cerebral Bore posted:

You're the one who's making super basic errors here, pal.

You think the guy who spent a whole bunch of money to lose by 17 points in New York would have made zero strategic errors in the general election and don't understand why it's problematic from a polling stand point to use "bernie vs trump" as a proxy for how the campaign would played out, absent the fact that Bernie never had a finger laid upon him by the Clinton campaign, while being actively signal boosted by the Republican party. So basically I am just kind of done with taking you seriously.

Like, I am not over here saying Hillary Did Nothing Wrong, and that we should change our primary process. I am just saying that OMG YOU EVIL CENTRISTS WHO VOTED FOR HILLARY NEED TO DIE, is dumb as gently caress and not helpful to anyone.

Anyway, I have poo poo to do this weekend and won't be around much -- so I hope Ellison wins, but I am fine with any of the three. Have fun y'all.

BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Feb 24, 2017

# ? Feb 24, 2017 23:14

Cease to Hope: Dec 12, 2011

Paracaidas posted:

I think Buttigieg's main goal is to raise his profile, but with Dean supporting him he may emerge as a compromise candidate in the Adlai mold if hardliners do dig in and this poo poo gets brokered.

This is extremely unlikely because, as you said, there's no much difference between Ellison and Perez.

# ? Feb 24, 2017 23:28

snyprmag: Oct 9, 2005

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

You think the guy who spent a whole bunch of money to lose by 17 points in New York would have made zero strategic errors in the general election and don't understand why it's problematic from a polling stand point to use "bernie vs trump" as a proxy for how the campaign would played out, absent the fact that Bernie never had a finger laid upon him by the Clinton campaign, while being actively signal boosted by the Republican party. So basically I am just kind of done with taking you seriously.

Like, I am not over here saying Hillary Did Nothing Wrong, and that we should change our primary process. I am just saying that OMG YOU EVIL CENTRISTS WHO VOTED FOR HILLARY NEED TO DIE, is dumb as gently caress and not helpful to anyone.

Anyway, I have poo poo to do this weekend and won't be around much -- so I hope Ellison wins, but I am fine with any of the three. Have fun y'all.

You know who else lost the New York primary by 17 points?
Also we don't want you to die, just to admit voting for Hillary in the primary was a mistake and you'll try not make it again.
Have a good weekend!

# ? Feb 24, 2017 23:29

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Alter Ego posted:

I think that while some folks in this thread aren't applying it, there is a strong case to be made that with a good campaign Bernie Sanders could very well be President right now.

He could have used the same anti-establishment rhetoric as Trump, except without all the racism and sexism. Bernie's support among card-carrying Democrats was slightly less than Hillary's, this is true--but it was orders of magnitude higher with Democratic-leaners and independents, and those are the people that are harder to convince.

In a year that was anti-establishment enough to elect Trump, Bernie Sanders could have won a general election with a sizable majority of Democrats, disaffected independents, and maybe a few Republicans who were looking for someone honest.

It's entirely possible that he could have won with a good campaign and the right messaging. However, that's kind of a pointless observation to make, since it was also entirely possible for Hillary to win with a good campaign and the right messaging.

# ? Feb 24, 2017 23:30

Fulchrum: Apr 16, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Main Paineframe posted:

The base is calling for an anti-Trump strategy, sure...but each person's preferred anti-Trump strategy is whatever they thought the best political strategy was pre-Trump, only harder. The left's preferred anti-Trump strategy is to turn left, the center-right's preferred anti-Trump strategy is to turn center-right, and so on. Trump has certainly created enthusiasm among the Dems, but all of it boils down to "the Dems should do what I've always wanted them to do, only better". It also doesn't necessarily have any staying power - sure, the base seems pumped and is able to mobilize big protests now, but where were all those anti-war protesters in 2004?

The minority. Same place they were at every period before late 2005.

Fiction posted:

Why do you think she was personally unpopular? Might it have something to do with her unceasing triangulation?

Yeah, couldn't possibly have anything to do with the 30 year long smear campaign against her - the single longest and most well funded defamation campaign in human history - that Bernie supporters started gobbling up hand over fist to the point they were sharing loving Breitbart. Must have been solely because Americans are so highly engaged and knowledgeable about politics.

Fiction posted:

losses in 2018 due to poorly chosen candidates for governor hand the republicans yet another census decade

That's a funny way of saying self described leftists sabotaging it due to an ongoing tantrum of them not being handed something just cause they scream loudly about it.

Alter Ego posted:

Yeah, I can't imagine how in a system where one well-connected candidate can lock up the support of like 200 delegates before a single person has voted we could assert that the system was rigged in any way to favor the establishment.

Nope. Nothing to see here.

Is this the point where we pretend that the super delegates can't ever switch? Or ignore the Bernie campaign nakedly trying to sway super delegates to override the will of the voters?

Fiction posted:

That's only the tip of the spear, though. You still need an overarching message for the campaigns or you can't win.

No you loving do not! The entire message of Republicans for 8 years has been "Obama is a NIG-*bong*" and "Hillary is a oval office!" That strategy got them every loving thing. What exactly was their overarching message in 2010 and 2014 that led to their historic victories in your world?

WampaLord posted:

That's not nearly enough. Obama didn't run on "Fix what W broke."

The dems did in 2006. Hey, guess what happened?

Fiction posted:

Okay, and how you do that is by countering the attempted repeal of Obamacare with declaring that healthcare rights must be expanded further, you counter right-to-work by reaffirming your support for organized labor and a high minimum wage, etc. etc.

All of which falls on deaf ears because it involves 3 syllable words. The American public have shown quite clearly that they need to be treated like lobotomized chimps. If you ever even think of a multi-part answer, just loving shut up. You have one response and that response is "all bad things are the GOP's fault! gently caress them!" Don't engage. Don't try to educate. For fucks sake don't try to outline in detail- the people who disagree on one tiny part will harp endlessly on that to try to drive ranks apart while people who do agree will just say you didn't provide enough detail.

Nebulous, vague, and nonspecific as gently caress - that is the only kind of message you should be putting out. If there is any lesson that Hillary shows us, it's that a specific and detailed message will lose to a meaningless slogan every single time.

# ? Feb 24, 2017 23:43

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

I wondered about this too. Like if the Perez and Ellison camps couldn't get to a majority after the second or third ballot if they'd go "fine, here you go Pete."

I think it's more likely than not that Perez either has a majority, or a commanding enough lead he can pick off a couple stragglers on the second ballot... but yeah, the only thing that would surprise me at this stage is Ellison winning outright on the first ballot because there's no reason for him to play it close to the vest if his whip has him that close.

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Based on my anecdotal outside-SA experience, it's been hugely good at raising his profile.

Including with me, I've gone from "lol Butt Mayor" to "I'd be as happy with him as with Ellison or Perez".

He certainly seems poised to take over the mantle of America's Favorite Mayor after Booker dropped the crown to become senator. And no, De Blasio doesn't count because NYC mayor is never eligible. Rudy cheated.

Cease to Hope posted:

This is extremely unlikely because, as you said, there's no much difference between Ellison and Perez.

Whip counts are inconsistent enough I don't have a great feel for the state of the race. Brokering is always unlikely, but if there are Eternal Slapfighters among the party functionaries as well, I'm sure they're more hated than they are here. The combination of Dean's backing, hardliners not wanting to give Clinton/Bernie another win, and everyone else being loving tired of it could give Buttigieg a chance if it goes deeper than a couple ballots.

# ? Feb 24, 2017 23:51

Fulchrum: Apr 16, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Paracaidas posted:

He certainly seems poised to take over the mantle of America's Favorite Mayor after Booker dropped the crown to become senator. And no, De Blasio doesn't count because NYC mayor is never eligible. Rudy cheated.

I've even been hearing people saying that we've found America's first openly gay president.

# ? Feb 24, 2017 23:55

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

You argue (absent evidence) that Hillary lost because of Sanders supporters. You also say that for the Democratic Party to win, it needs the left to give up and unify with the center. You then spend a whole lot of effort telling Sanders supporters that they're piece of poo poo idiots who don't belong in the Democratic Party.

I can't figure you out.

Yeah the whole "the left is simultaneously irrelevant and also responsible for the loss" shtick is getting pretty tiresome. You can try posting the evidence that it's the moderates and the conservatives who are less reliable but he'll either ignore it or claim it's evidence that the party needs to move to the center to capture those votes (mind you, if the leftists are unreliable and the moderate vote secure, that is also evidence the party should move to the center). It's gone back and forth in this thread many times, as you're aware.

# ? Feb 25, 2017 00:07

Fiction: Apr 28, 2011

Yeah "Good Affordable Healthcare" is really gonna be difficult to sell and very technical.

# ? Feb 25, 2017 01:23

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Wrap it up, Primaliures!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...m=.d61262749967 posted:

A third DNC candidate, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, spent Friday hoping that Democrats would dodge a backlash by deadlocking and then giving him a chance. At a lunch for supporters, Buttigieg estimated that he had around 30 votes, and told reporters that scores of DNC members have told him he was their second choice if the race dragged on.

That assessment was echoed by Buttigieg�s highest-profile supporter � former presidential candidate and DNC chairman Howard Dean. At the lunch, Dean described Buttigieg as the candidate who could lead a �50-year strategy� for the party (a contrast with Dean�s own �50-state strategy�), and went further than any candidate in criticizing party leadership.

�I don�t want to say anything bad about the other candidates, because I like them all, but I think Chuck Schumer�s endorsement is the kiss of death,� Dean said. �I had to say no to Chuck Schumer when he demanded $5 million. I said, �Chuck, you�re not getting it for the [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee]� � I�m putting it into local races in Maryland, and South Carolina, and Michigan!�

Dean shouted the last words, making a joke out of the infamous speech he gave after losing the 2004 Iowa caucuses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiPXoIt3k-o

# ? Feb 25, 2017 02:23

Fulchrum: Apr 16, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Reminder that Dean is just reeeeal salty at how he was the first to put his name forward for the job and absolutely nobody supported him.

# ? Feb 25, 2017 02:30

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Unironically paging hardline Sanderistas who would be angry at a Perez win: how would you feel about Unlikely Compromise Buttigieg?

# ? Feb 25, 2017 02:51

ded redd: Aug 1, 2010

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Unironically paging hardline Sanderistas who would be angry at a Perez win: how would you feel about Compromise Buttigieg?

Cspam, at least, has a fairly positive outlook on Buttigieg.

# ? Feb 25, 2017 02:52

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Unironically paging hardline Sanderistas who would be angry at a Perez win: how would you feel about Unlikely Compromise Buttigieg?

I don't think buttigieg even really wants to win. his whole run smacks of him raising his national profile in preparation for a senate or governorship run

# ? Feb 25, 2017 02:54

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Raskolnikov38 posted:

I don't think buttigieg even really wants to win. his whole run smacks of him raising his national profile in preparation for a senate or governorship run

And that would be great, I'm just curious about the bizarro timeline result, because, well, you know.

# ? Feb 25, 2017 02:55

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

I like the guy more than Perez but him somehow winning instead of the two guys with the broader base of support would make me worry more about the party's ability to function at a basic level than a Perez win

# ? Feb 25, 2017 02:58

Confounding Factor: Jul 4, 2012; by FactsAreUseless

So I'm convinced Perez is another lying corporate Democrat bullshitter but of course the donor class for the Democratic Party will give him the chair. Last night at the debate he was straight up asked if the primary was rigged but couldn't tell the loving truth and in that sleazy mealy mouth way dodged the question. He's like a used car salesman.

Go ahead and pick him I guess, obviously Democrats have done zero self analysis on why they loving lost last year (It's Comey's fault! It's Russia!) and we'll probably get another lovely centrist neoliberal Democrat candidate again.

# ? Feb 25, 2017 02:58

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

The primary wasn't rigged and Comey and Russia had a decisive impact on the campaign.

# ? Feb 25, 2017 03:19

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

Paracaidas posted:

Wrap it up, Primaliures!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiPXoIt3k-o

Can we at least all agree that howard dean is a pretty cool/good dude?

# ? Feb 25, 2017 03:32

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

Confounding Factor posted:

So I'm convinced Perez is another lying corporate Democrat bullshitter but of course the donor class for the Democratic Party will give him the chair. Last night at the debate he was straight up asked if the primary was rigged but couldn't tell the loving truth and in that sleazy mealy mouth way dodged the question. He's like a used car salesman.

Go ahead and pick him I guess, obviously Democrats have done zero self analysis on why they loving lost last year (It's Comey's fault! It's Russia!) and we'll probably get another lovely centrist neoliberal Democrat candidate again.

i think you're right... the democrats will learn nothing and continue to lose by rigging the system for crusty centrists like shillary

# ? Feb 25, 2017 03:35

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Confounding Factor posted:

So I'm convinced Perez is another lying corporate Democrat bullshitter but of course the donor class for the Democratic Party will give him the chair. Last night at the debate he was straight up asked if the primary was rigged but couldn't tell the loving truth and in that sleazy mealy mouth way dodged the question. He's like a used car salesman.

Go ahead and pick him I guess, obviously Democrats have done zero self analysis on why they loving lost last year (It's Comey's fault! It's Russia!) and we'll probably get another lovely centrist neoliberal Democrat candidate again.

All this business is why I grudgingly favor Ellison (or Butt Mayor) and that annoys me.

# ? Feb 25, 2017 03:37

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Can we at least all agree that howard dean is a pretty cool/good dude?

Best DNC chair in a long time.

# ? Feb 25, 2017 03:37

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

More spry centrists like Obama IMO.

# ? Feb 25, 2017 03:38

Confounding Factor: Jul 4, 2012; by FactsAreUseless

Yeah keep telling yourself that. It had nothing to do with the Democrats had no vision, no ideas, no strategy. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

What was Hilary's vision for America? "Well uh you can check out my website!"

No wonder Trump won. You guys made it too easy. He had ideas, even if you disagree with them, that got people excited. Hilary and the Democrat establishment had loving nothing, how do you "energize the party" (as someone on the DNC debate said) with that? And then try to get Bernie supporters to vote for Clinton as the anti-Trump vote, it's not going to work.

But again and again during the DNC debate it's all about setting up to be that "anti-Trump" vote but offering no loving alternative.

And then you got idiots like this guy from the debate last night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkP2eiS0aw8&t=694s

:lol:

Hear this guy fumble around on what "the case" is for the Democrats and he's a lawyer! Hey if the Democrats had a case it would be pretty easy for a lawyer to argue it, right?

All of these answers on what the Democratic Party should be is so loving cringeworthy bad. Bernie Sanders made it so loving easy here it goes:

Single payer Healthcare
Affordable College
Taxes on Wall St
Stop bad trade deals
Infrastructure

So simple and you repeat that poo poo ad nauseum. Have some bold ideas like that!

Jesus enough with the loving double speak. If you are really for $15 mininum wage then campaign on it and don't backtrack or skirt around it for gently caress's sake. Single payer would change people's lives more than anything. You have people going loving broke trying to pay for healthcare everyday.

So loving sick of the apologies for this party.

# ? Feb 25, 2017 03:39

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

JeffersonClay posted:

More spry centrists like Obama IMO.

Who are you even talking to?

# ? Feb 25, 2017 03:39

Cease to Hope: Dec 12, 2011

spry?

# ? Feb 25, 2017 03:40

Uncle Wemus: Mar 4, 2004

Really tho i just don't want Perez so butt would be fine.

# ? Feb 25, 2017 03:42

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

As opposed to crusty. Bernie's spry.

# ? Feb 25, 2017 03:43

Cease to Hope: Dec 12, 2011

it's ellison's gumption versus perez's moxie, and buttigieg is gonna have a gay old time if it

# ? Feb 25, 2017 03:43

Fados: Jan 7, 2013; I like Malcolm X, I can't be racist!

Put this racist dipshit on ignore immediately!

JeffersonClay posted:

The primary wasn't rigged and Comey and Russia had a decisive impact on the campaign.

Hillary was more of the same centrist corporate welfare so that her winning would at best perpetuate and most likely worsen the conditions that allowed for Trump to be a popular candidate.

# ? Feb 25, 2017 03:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 18:16

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

Yikes.

# ? Feb 25, 2017 03:48

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

«‹›156 »