|
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 | ||
|
mcmagic posted:Biden, Brown Warren all probably beat her.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:Surprisingly, we're not rehashing the 2016 Democratic primary for President here. We're rehashing the 2006 Democratic primary for Senator from Vermont. i can't tell if this is progress or regression
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:They're not loving going to put a Clinton in anything less than a cleared field in a safe seat. Just pray it's not a senate seat. Field-clearing only works against establishment candidates, not outsider challengers. It's backroom dealing to convince potential challengers not to run, not a magic spell that bans anyone else from running - it's no threat to the left. And a safe seat is exactly the best place for a leftist challenger to run. 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? You think that's scary? Just consider the rage supernova that would occur if a Bernie-backed candidate somehow managed to lose to Chelsea Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:i can't tell if this is progress or regression
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Regression. BI NOW GAY LATER is defending the DNC's actions in the 2016 primary by claiming they did something similar for Bernie in 2006. I guess we are rehashing the 2016 primary after all, it's just a bit more abstract than usual. Nope! I am not at all defending the DNC clearing the field in the presidential election -- to the extent that this happened -- because I don't think it's a good idea to do in a national race. Really they shouldn't ever get involved with it, but it has happened and will continue to happen. I don't even *care* that Bernie had a field cleared for him in a safe senate race that assured a victory for Dems, I am simply trying to point out that when you complain about the idea of a hypothetical house seat getting cleared for Chelsea as "nepotism" that you miss that it's happened for a whole lot of people over the years, including the guy who y'all hold up as some paragon who's above the kind of shady poo poo that happens in politics. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Condiv posted:clinton was hilariously unpopular throughout the race. she started off hated and ended up loathed. Actually, she was at 47/47 the day she announced, was at 48/46 (-2) a month later when Bernie announced, and then she drops to around 56/41 (-14) in the next few months and stays there through the convention and the election. So she started off hated by republicans and she ended up loathed by republicans and Bernouts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Actually, she was at 47/47 the day she announced, was at 48/46 (-2) a month later when Bernie announced, and then she drops to around 56/41 (-14) in the next few months and stays there through the convention and the election. So she started off hated by republicans and she ended up loathed by republicans and Bernouts. Glass ceiling lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:You think that's scary? Just consider the rage supernova that would occur if a Bernie-backed candidate somehow managed to lose to Chelsea Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Nope! I am not at all defending the DNC clearing the field in the presidential election -- to the extent that this happened -- because I don't think it's a good idea to do in a national race. Really they shouldn't ever get involved with it, but it has happened and will continue to happen. I don't even *care* that Bernie had a field cleared for him in a safe senate race that assured a victory for Dems, I am simply trying to point out that when you complain about the idea of a hypothetical house seat getting cleared for Chelsea as "nepotism" that you miss that it's happened for a whole lot of people over the years, including the guy who y'all hold up as some paragon who's above the kind of shady poo poo that happens in politics. Go ahead, post another article that supports my point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Nope! I am not at all defending the DNC clearing the field in the presidential election -- to the extent that this happened -- because I don't think it's a good idea to do in a national race. Really they shouldn't ever get involved with it, but it has happened and will continue to happen. I don't even *care* that Bernie had a field cleared for him in a safe senate race that assured a victory for Dems, I am simply trying to point out that when you complain about the idea of a hypothetical house seat getting cleared for Chelsea as "nepotism" that you miss that it's happened for a whole lot of people over the years, including the guy who y'all hold up as some paragon who's above the kind of shady poo poo that happens in politics. Yes, yes, you dislike the people who are fans of Bernie Sanders. Your hatred that people to your left exist has been noted. It is worth slightly less than a selfie with Hillary Clinton as far as strategy going forward is concerned. You are in agreement that Bernie Sanders represents the brightest future for the party going forward. You could reconcile yourself to supporting a candidate whose supporters included His Majesty the King of Saudi Arabia and Hatian Child Slavery Incorporated. Time to give those muscles another workout, friend. You'll find it a less arduous strain than you fear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah, and I keep pointing out that they didn't clear any field for Bernie - he cleared the field himself and then Vermont Democrats worked within that framework to avoid splitting the ticket. That's miles apart from the hypothetical with Chelsea, and not what happened in 2016 either. Again that isn't what happened. When Jeffords retired, Sanders talked to Senate leadership about running as a Dem and then declining. They agreed to that and did not recruit a challenger to run against him -- of which there were a few people who might have been interested in running, including two former Vermont mayors and possibly Howard Dean. Ze Pollack posted:Yes, yes, you dislike the people who are fans of Bernie Sanders. Your hatred that people to your left exist has been noted. It is worth slightly less than a selfie with Hillary Clinton as far as strategy going forward is concerned. I don't think Bernie represents the brightest future for the party personally. He's a 76 year-old white guy from Vermont who gets pissy if you deign to disagree with him on anything. I am open to having him as part of the way forward and sure, send him around to campaign and talk to people. But him, personally? Nah. Find a young, vibrant person who shares his ideals and is preferable a person of color and/or a woman. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted: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. You keep saying you don't care, which I totally believe. I believe you've got no problem with Democrats ratfucking popular candidates off the ballot in favor of technocrats - but that's not what happened in 2006 so your attempts to tu quoque your way to legitimacy don't work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Actually, she was at 47/47 the day she announced, was at 48/46 (-2) a month later when Bernie announced, and then she drops to around 56/41 (-14) in the next few months and stays there through the convention and the election. So she started off hated by republicans and she ended up loathed by republicans and Bernouts. and just about everyone. that's why she couldn't beat a racist orange goblin. or was she just too lazy to beat him? in any case she sucks and was the second most disliked pres candidate in history and she was so incompetent she lost to the most disliked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
The large majority of Bernie supporters did not have their brains broken so it's perfectly possible to like them generally while still disliking the ones who post in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and just about everyone. that's why she couldn't beat a racist orange goblin. or was she just too lazy to beat him? in any case she sucks and was the second most disliked pres candidate in history and she was so incompetent she lost to the most disliked. But...but...the popular vote 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:So "no one" then. Your own source points out that Democrats believed there was no one capable of beating Sanders in the Democratic primary. They weren't worried about a contested primary they were worried about Bernie splitting the ticket with a Democrat in the general. You keep putting words in my mouth, so I don't know why I even bother. I am sorry that you can't accept that Bernie has benefited from the political system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Well considering how that went down with the DNC chair election, I'd say a lot of rage would probably be justified. This is an odd change of subject.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I don't think Bernie represents the brightest future for the party personally. He's a 76 year-old white guy from Vermont who gets pissy if you deign to disagree with him on anything. I am open to having him as part of the way forward and sure, send him around to campaign and talk to people. But him, personally? Nah. Find a young, vibrant person who shares his ideals and is preferable a person of color and/or a woman. Goodness. Someone who gets pissy if you disagree with him. I can see that would definitely never win any voters' support. You will not find the young, vibrant woman/PoC who shares his ideals if you do not make it clear those ideals are the way forward for the Democratic Party. You will especially not find them while the people who think Hillary's issue was that her campaign was "too pluralistic" are the voice of the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:You keep putting words in my mouth, so I don't know why I even bother. I am sorry that you can't accept that Bernie has benefited from the political system. Man, the goalposts did a lot of moving from "the DNC cleared the floor for Bernie," didn't they.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Again that isn't what happened. When Jeffords retired, Sanders talked to Senate leadership about running as a Dem and then declining. They agreed to that and did not recruit a challenger to run against him -- of which there were a few people who might have been interested in running, including two former Vermont mayors and possibly Howard Dean. Good luck finding a young vibrant woman of color that is a socialist and willing to go through what Bernie went through
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Again that isn't what happened. When Jeffords retired, Sanders talked to Senate leadership about running as a Dem and then declining. They agreed to that and did not recruit a challenger to run against him -- of which there were a few people who might have been interested in running, including two former Vermont mayors and possibly Howard Dean. It seems to me there's a pretty big difference between "clear the field" in this sense, and what other posters are talking about in the case of the Clintons. Namely, that Chelsea Clinton would be the recruited challenger with the institutional weight behind her, and not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Just ignore BIGL and all the other liberal shills. They clearly aren't actually interested in solving any problems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Goodness. Someone who gets pissy if you disagree with him. I can see that would definitely never win any voters' support. Because that's what it's all about. Ze Pollack posted:You will not find the young, vibrant woman/PoC who shares his ideals if you do not make it clear those ideals are the way forward for the Democratic Party. And there are plenty of ways to do that without putting Bernie up as some sort of saint, you know. Ze Pollack posted:You will especially not find them while the people who think Hillary's issue was that her campaign was "too pluralistic" are the voice of the Democratic Party. I don't believe I have, at any point, said that. Again, I am not a centrist whatever you might think. If anything I think the campaign could have been more pluralistic. Ze Pollack posted:Man, the goalposts did a lot of moving from "the DNC cleared the floor for Bernie," didn't they. That was always my point. That Bernie benefited from collusion to make sure that there was little to no official competition and that they didn't recruit a challenger against him, while allowing him to run for the Dem spot knowing he was going to decline it. Kilroy posted:Okay so for you "clear the field" means "does not actively recruit challengers against so-and-so and throw institutional weight behind them". Like what the Democrats did for Tom Perez, for example. That was very clearly not what they said about Chlesea. They said 'run in a safe house seat that is open.' [Actually the original post, several pages ago was 'safe senate seat,' which I found entirely laughable.] BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:
You project a lot
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:You project a lot That's a hell of a mirror.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The large majority of Bernie supporters did not have their brains broken so it's perfectly possible to like them generally while still disliking the ones who post in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:When's the last time the dems haven't had at least a 10 point lead? Nixon? Al D'amato was among the last of the Rockefeller Republicans because those types all went and either became Democrats or just vote Republican out of habit. But Hillary beating the racist pizza shop owner from Do the Right Thing isn't really that hard fought of seat 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. Rudy Guliani was the most hated man in New York City on September 10th 2001 KomradeX fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Because that's what it's all about. I know, pragmatism is a harsh road sometimes. The American voter is just the kind of uncultured swine who prefers knowing a politician is willing to fight for them to knowing a politician will sell them up the river the second it becomes politically expedient. Sometimes you have to do something as distasteful as Actually Fighting For Something You Believe In to convince them of that. See? Already you are learning so much from Bernie's example. quote:And there are plenty of ways to do that without putting Bernie up as some sort of saint, you know. Who's asking for sainthood? This is a simple matter of taking strategic advice from someone who is currently the most popular politician in America, in a system where popularity is a very useful thing to have in elections. quote:I don't believe I have, at any point, said that. Again, I am not a centrist whatever you might think. If anything I think the campaign could have been more pluralistic. Nor am I accusing you of doing so. That the democratic establishment panicked and rolled out a panic-challenger to Ellison on the grounds that he was Too Minority-y is, unfortunately, uncontroversial at this point. Can't have a Muslim in high office at the DNC, after all. Quoth Haim Saban, that might upset major donors. How's that for a policy of minority engagement, eh? quote:That was always my point. That Bernie benefited from collusion to make sure that there was little to no official competition and that they didn't recruit a challenger against him, while allowing him to run for the Dem spot knowing he was going to decline it. The DNC not recruiting a challenger against Bernie is your proof the DNC colluded to clear the field for Bernie. Neat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Isn't there some tinpot dictator somewhere or a weapons manufacturer you're trying to get a consulting gig with? Go focus on that.   (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Isn't there some tinpot dictator somewhere or a weapons manufacturer you're trying to get a consulting gig with? Go focus on that. Arent you one of the leftists who think Dems should drop gun control and Qaddafi did nothing wrong?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:The DNC not recruiting a challenger against Bernie is your proof the DNC colluded to clear the field for Bernie. "The Democrats are so awful that this one time they just acted like a normal political party looks shady as gently caress." You know what, BI NOW? I agree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Arent you one of the leftists who think Dems should drop gun control and Qaddafi did nothing wrong?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Gun control is a losing issue and dropping it would allow Democrats to go further left on the rest of their agenda.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Nor am I accusing you of doing so. That the democratic establishment panicked and rolled out a panic-challenger to Ellison on the grounds that he was Too Minority-y is, unfortunately, uncontroversial at this point. Can't have a Muslim in high office at the DNC, after all. Quoth Haim Saban, that might upset major donors. How's that for a policy of minority engagement, eh? And they instead backed a fairly left, first-generation son of Dominican immigrants with a long history of achieving leftist policy victories who was considered "too left" to be AG instead of Lynch or Holder and who was filibustered twice by Republicans; but go ahead with your head cannon that Tom Perez is apparently some white guy in the pocket of Haim Saban.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Well I don't know wtf you're talking about with Qaddafi, but you've got me pegged on gun control! Smart leftists remember: shoot the rich first, then eat them. So has it crossed your mind that dropping gun control would be a massive boon to arms manufacturers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
You want to know how we know that the NY Senate seat is the safest Democrat seat in all of history? Because Hillary Clinton won it, twice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So has it crossed your mind that dropping gun control would be a massive boon to arms manufacturers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:And they instead backed a fairly left, first-generation son of Dominican immigrants with a long history of achieving leftist policy victories who was considered "too left" to be AG instead of Lynch or Holder and who was filibustered twice by Republicans; but go ahead with your head cannon that Tom Perez is apparently some white guy in the pocket of Haim Saban. At no point did I denigrate Perez. That Haim Saban's stated reason for bankrolling him was that Ellison was the Bad Kind of Minority is, unfortunately, uncontroversial.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:And they instead backed a fairly left, first-generation son of Dominican immigrants with a long history of achieving leftist policy victories who was considered "too left" to be AG instead of Lynch or Holder and who was filibustered twice by Republicans; but go ahead with your head cannon that Tom Perez is apparently some white guy in the pocket of Haim Saban. Tom's allegiance lies in Obama and his corporate cabal of cronies and capitalist criminals, not the working class, hth
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:Considering how weapons sales go up whenever Democrats start thinking about dying on the gun control hill again, no not really. I guess it requires an unbroken brain to understand that a rush of arms sales before an expected ban implies the ban actually stops people from buying arms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:28
|
|