|
Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
33 | 6.38% |
| No |
|
343 | 66.34% |
| Keith Ellison |
|
54 | 10.44% |
| Pete Buttigieg |
|
71 | 13.73% |
| Jehmu Green |
|
16 | 3.09% |
| Total: | 416 votes | ||
|
hmmm guess I need to keep up with posts
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Aren't you the guy who couldn't wrap his mind around the phrase "Medicare for all"? I think he's the dude who said money in politics was a positive thing Or that might've been Iron Rose, the Hillary sell outs all seem to blur into one horrible toxic sludge monster
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
oh cool binow found the same boston globe article i did so i can just quote this bit i found hilariousquote:Ian Carleton, the chairman of the Vermont Democratic Party, said the party's efforts to secure the nomination for Sanders is a concession to political reality: Polls indicate that Sanders is so popular in Vermont that no Democrat has a real chance of beating him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:
Awww, baby's first political campaign slogan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I don't hate Bernie at all. Just pointing you guys come up with poo poo but never seem to care if Bernie broke or breaks them so long as you can complain about "Centrists" or "Clintons" or someone you disagree with. Good. Should we use him by endorsing the policies he endorses? And if not, why?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:oh cool binow found the same boston globe article i did so i can just quote this bit i found hilarious  Bernie owns
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:I think he's the dude who said money in politics was a positive thing I think money in politics is a bad thing. Keep tilting at those windmills bro. MooselanderII posted:Awww, baby's first political campaign slogan. It's a dumb slogan because it promises something it's not; but whatever you want to call it fine I am not going to waste time trying to argue over it. Ze Pollack posted:Good. Should we use him by endorsing the policies he endorses? I don't no why you think I am going to say no this given my response to the first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Wait, wouldn't this be a good thing? It's an opportunity for a centrist - a Clinton, no less - to lose to a leftist in a hilarious, humiliating fashion. The party can run Chelsea, and the party can support Chelsea, but ultimately it's up to the voters to decide who wins. And if the left can't even overcome a political nobody running entirely on the strength of their (widely-unpopular) name and connections in a safe blue district, there's not much hope for the revolution. ahahahahaha jesus christ can you even imagine the white hot ball of rage if the Bernie Bros backed a candidate to the left of Chelsea in a contested election?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:ahahahahaha jesus christ can you even imagine the white hot ball of rage if the Bernie Bros backed a candidate to the left of Chelsea in a contested election? p sure we just got done living through it
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Its not like he carpetbagged his way to a hilariously safe Senate seat like some people
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It's a dumb slogan because it promises something it's not; but whatever you want to call it fine I am not going to waste time trying to argue over it. Make America Great Again - a dumb slogan that promises something it's not
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
would jefferson clay freak out if he ever had to go to vermont? sounds like it's a state full of berniecrats. they even vote for bernie over real democrats a state full of backstabbers
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/13/party_shuns_vermont_democrats_in_race/?page=full quote:Ian Carleton, the chairman of the Vermont Democratic Party, said the party's efforts to secure the nomination for Sanders is a concession to political reality: Polls indicate that Sanders is so popular in Vermont that no Democrat has a real chance of beating him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think money in politics is a bad thing. Keep tilting at those windmills bro. If you think money in politics is a bad thing then why did you back the candidate and continue to defend the party that represents above all else, money in politics? 🤔
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:Its not like he carpetbagged his way to a hilariously safe Senate seat like some people 2000 senate seat in NY wasn't exactly safe. icantfindaname posted:Make America Great Again - a dumb slogan that promises something it's not My point was there's no reason to promise something it's not when you can just say exactly what it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:p sure we just got done living through it it'd make the presidential primary look like nothing, only excepting the slight importance of the seat
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:This is... not what you claimed at all: i think the article was written before the primary election but bernie won as the democrat candidate, declined it, and thus no one else could run as a democrat in the general
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:would jefferson clay freak out if he ever had to go to vermont? sounds like it's a state full of berniecrats. they even vote for bernie over real democrats The original racesexist state. All led by that tyrant sexist King Bernard
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:This is... not what you claimed at all: That's literally what clearing the field means in most races. I am not at all endorsing them doing it for Hillary in the presidential primary, just pointing out that they did it for Bernie (which they did.) I don't even care that they did, but y'all have these weird ideas that Bernie is some kind of politician that is "above" the game, when he's not at all. Tight Booty Shorts posted:If you think money in politics is a bad thing then why did you back the candidate and continue to defend the party that represents above all else, money in politics? 🤔 Because I don't think that's what either Hillary or the DNC represent? Raskolnikov38 posted:i think the article was written before the primary election but bernie won as the democrat candidate, declined it, and thus no one else could run as a democrat in the general Yes, and Schumer who was DSCC at the time, and Reid as leader, both tactically endorsed that plan because they were busy fighting other fires and figured that Sanders was better than splitting a vote and letting some rear end in a top hat Republican take the seat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
I guess I can put myself in a Hillary supporters shoes- I'd be pretty pissed if i learned that my opponent in the primary was the most popular and beloved politician in North and South America And my abuela was back to giving paid speeches 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:i think the article was written before the primary election but bernie won as the democrat candidate, declined it, and thus no one else could run as a democrat in the general bernie-san.. shinjirarenai.... (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's literally what clearing the field means in most races. I am not at all endorsing them doing it for Hillary in the presidential primary, just pointing out that they did it for Bernie (which they did.) Not the same. Hillary was eminently beatable in 2016. Bernie was not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I don't no why you think I am going to say no this given my response to the first. Excellent. So you're in agreement that Bernie's policies are the way forward. What, in that case, are you here to argue, beyond your personal distaste for the people who have been saying so longer than you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's literally what clearing the field means in most races. I am not at all endorsing them doing it for Hillary in the presidential primary, just pointing out that they did it for Bernie (which they did.) Tell me in one sentence what do the Clintons represent?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:2000 senate seat in NY wasn't exactly safe. When's the last time the dems haven't had at least a 10 point lead? Nixon?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Not the same. Hillary was eminently beatable in 2016. Bernie was not. That's not what I said dude. I said they cleared the field for him in a senate race. Which they did. It happens. It's part of politics. Ze Pollack posted:Excellent. So you're in agreement that Bernie's policies are the way forward. I don't think all of his policies or strategies are the way forward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
clinton was hilariously unpopular throughout the race. she started off hated and ended up loathed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:i think the article was written before the primary election but bernie won as the democrat candidate, declined it, and thus no one else could run as a democrat in the general And of course it completely blows out of the water BI NOW GAY LATER's claim that there were some heavy-hitting Vermont Democrats who were totally going to take that seat from Bernie, but chose not to because the DNC asked them for a favor. So thanks for posting that BI NOW GAY LATER!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:When's the last time the dems haven't had at least a 10 point lead? Nixon? In 1998 Patacki had just won something like every county in New York in the governor's race and Rudy Guliani was a still fairly popular figure. Both of them would have likely tossed their hat into that senate seat race if HRC hadn't. Kilroy posted:Yeah I noticed that and what I gather is that Sanders announced he would run as an independent, and the Democrats in Vermont were like "gently caress" because they don't want to split the ticket but they also can't just not run anyone. So they convinced Sanders to run in the Democratic primary and pinky-swore that if he won and then declined the nomination to run as an independent, they wouldn't run someone else in his place. Like I've said I think this is all pretty dumb, but on the other hand he ran in the primary and even if didn't have the (D) next to his name on the ballot, the fact remains he was the guy Vermont Democratic primary voters wanted on it. I don't see the problem here. That's again, not what I said. I said there were people who would have ran. Is it this hard for you to admit Bernie isn't perfect and has been the beneficiary of the same party politics you hate so much?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Condiv posted:clinton was hilariously unpopular throughout the race. she started off hated and ended up loathed. Everyone loates mealy mouthed corporate welfare policies and wage slavery for everyone else, who woulda thought
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's literally what clearing the field means in most races. I am not at all endorsing them doing it for Hillary in the presidential primary, just pointing out that they did it for Bernie (which they did.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:In 1998 Patacki had just won something like every county in New York in the governor's race and Rudy Guliani was a still fairly popular figure. Both of them would have likely tossed their hat into that senate seat race if HRC hadn't. Giulani didn't run because his campaign was crashing and burning hard and would have been a complete shitshow if he'd actually gone the whole nine yards, not because he was being nice and fair-play. He was in the middle of a divorce by the time he withdrew.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It's really not and anyone could have run in that primary against Bernie if they'd wanted. There is nothing in your article to indicate that Vermont Democrats, or national Democrats, were keeping people off the primary ballot in favor of Bernie - there was simply no one who could have won the primary against Bernie. They didn't because Schumer and Reid made it clear that he was their preferred candidate. Agnosticnixie posted:Giulani didn't run because his campaign was crashing and burning hard and would have been a complete shitshow if he'd actually gone the whole nine yards, not because he was being nice and fair-play. That wasn't my implication. Only that there was more than enough reason for Dems to be concerned about that seat at the time she announced she was running for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's not what I said dude. I said they cleared the field for him in a senate race. Which they did. It happens. It's part of politics. The part where he has any, at all, does appear to be a sticking point with most centrists, yes. Look at it this way. Sometimes- and I know this is hard for Hillary supporters to hear- you have to do things you find personally distasteful in the name of winning elections. Right now, one of those things is "listen when the most popular politician in America talks." Your way was tried. It was a failure so abject that it made Donald Trump the President of the United States. A little self-doubt is probably in your best interests right now, strategically speaking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's again, not what I said. I said there were people who would have ran. Is it this hard for you to admit Bernie isn't perfect and has been the beneficiary of the same party politics you hate so much? BI NOW GAY LATER posted:They didn't because Schumer and Reid made it clear that he was their preferred candidate. Note that I'm not talking about whatever Democrat would have run in the general had Bernie not participated in the Democratic primary. I'm asking specifically for the name of this mystery person who totes would have beaten Bernie and secured the nomination for the general, but didn't because Kilroy fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's not what I said dude. I said they cleared the field for him in a senate race. Which they did. It happens. It's part of politics. But they did it because they didn't think they could beat him. Kilroy posted:In the primary? Who was going to run in the primary but didn't because the Democratic party asked nicely? The very article you posted claimed there were no Vermont Democrats capable of defeating Bernie. Biden, Brown Warren all probably beat her.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:But they did it because they didn't think they could beat him. Guess why no one ran against Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
you know who would've really won though..... . bernie sanders
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:The part where he has any, at all, does appear to be a sticking point with most centrists, yes. I am not a "centrist." Kilroy posted:In the primary? Who was going to run in the primary but didn't because the Democratic party asked nicely? The very article you posted claimed there were no Vermont Democrats capable of defeating Bernie. You're like talking to a log. Like Bernie benefited from the political system of power and money to have an easier road to his senate seat. This isn't difficult to imagine, but apparently impossible for you to even consider without a written note from Chuck Schumer saying they didn't want a contested primary in Vermont and were perfectly fine letting Bernie do his thing if it meant getting a senate seat. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I am not a "centrist." Lmao at this
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:24
|
|