|
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 | ||
|
JeffersonClay posted:Then it follows that they'll blame trump for conditions getting worse under his tenure and these voters will inevitably return to the democrats, who need change nothing to win the next election. Haven't you completely undercut your original point here? Voters can't be punishing Dems for bill Clinton's welfare policies if they don't understand policy and just retaliate against the party in power when they don't like present conditions. eh, indirectly if Clinton's policies set up the conditions under Obama... but that's an argument for breaking poo poo when Republicans are in charge
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Then it follows that they'll blame trump for conditions getting worse under his tenure and these voters will inevitably return to the democrats, who need change nothing to win the next election. Haven't you completely undercut your original point here? Voters can't be punishing Dems for bill Clinton's welfare policies if they don't understand policy and just retaliate against the party in power when they don't like present conditions. Kilroy fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Mar 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No, you need to give people reasons to vote FOR you and not just AGAINST your opponent. Good policy accomplishes this. Name a single thing Majorian listed that the Democratic platform and Hillary's proposed policies didn't address. Or are we still pretending that if the news didn't cover it as much as emails, it didn't really happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Name a single thing Majorian listed that the Democratic platform and Hillary's proposed policies didn't address. Other things that didn't cover the democratic platform much: democratic party ads.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Other things that didn't cover the democratic platform much: democratic party ads. So what you're saying is that messaging was the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 09:51
|
|
|
If you'll just check my website at https://www.deak.com ...
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 10:53
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Then it follows that they'll blame trump for conditions getting worse under his tenure and these voters will inevitably return to the democrats, who need change nothing to win the next election. Haven't you completely undercut your original point here? Voters can't be punishing Dems for bill Clinton's welfare policies if they don't understand policy and just retaliate against the party in power when they don't like present conditions. People will definitely start blaming Trump for the state of the country eventually, and many of these people will desert them and vote for the Democrats. Democrats can and will achieve some electoral victories by doing nothing and changing nothing. The question is whether that's a good thing for the country or not. The answer is pretty simple: it isn't. Way earlier in the thread, someone asked why Clinton's defeat couldn't just be chalked up to 8 years of incumbency. I think a better question to ask is why a mere 8 years of incumbency would be enough for voters to get tired of any political project. Why is that a reasonable amount of time for people to get tired of a political party's hold on power? Why is this the natural flow of things? As for voters' punishment / retaliation / lack of understanding of policy, I think that's a very loaded framework to look at things. First, I don't think voters are really 'punishing' or 'retaliating' against anyone. They simply didn't vote for the Democrats because, after having voted for them in the past, they were disappointed by the results. This is perfectly reasonable and it's the precise reason why weak policies are bad: because if they make 1 out of 10 people who should be voting for you decide to not vote (or give the other candidate a chance), you're screwed. Second of all, I don't really think it's fair to say that most people 'don't understand policy'. Most people actually have to live through the consequences of policy, in a way that most "experts" don't. They are able to experience things, and thus make assessments of the impact of these policies, that others might not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 11:15
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Name a single thing Majorian listed that the Democratic platform and Hillary's proposed policies didn't address. What the Democratic platform said doesn't matter. What matters is whether people found Clinton (and the Democrats as a whole) credible and willing to fight for them and for this 'platform'. The results of the election (and the tenor of post-election life) suggest that enough people didn't find Clinton credible to cost her an election. The polls showed that vast numbers of people found Clinton untrustworthy. The image of Clinton as a not-very-credible, bad politician comes from her many years as a politician and public figure (and Bill's). It's not an unearned reputation. The same is true of the Democratic Party as a whole. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Mar 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah, and the Democratic leadership you're so keen to suck off at every opportunity has done next to nothing for them either, and there is no reason to think that will change next time they're up, especially if you're any indication of where their collective head is at. So best case scenario is we keep going back and forth between two broken parties with nary an inspiring much less realistic vision for the future among them. Keep going, that is, until one of them seizes power in a way that the other can't wrest it back anymore which may have already happened and still you're over here hemming and hawing about how much change is too much change like a gibbering idiot, which even then wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that it's people like you who are going to get the rest of us killed. Seriously, you don't live near a cliff or a bridge or something? Have a look around, would you? The whole goal for both parties right now is to do the exact same thing that the "job creators" did to the rust belt to he majority of jobs and professions in this country. Neither democrat or republican want to help get good paying jobs with benefits. And it all boils down to this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
poo poo, when I first said that the long-term plan of the JeffersonClays is to let the GOP burn the country down every four to eight years so that the dems can win the presidency by default I was half-joking, but apparently it's what they literally believe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:What the Democratic platform said doesn't matter. A huh. Tell me, what'd she do in her political career to show she won't fight to help people? Was it her time as first lady, going through sleepless nights trying to get a better healthcare? Was it her fighting tooth and nail, battling multiple government agencies to get 9/11 first responders the treatment they needed? Maybe when she managed to walk back Israel and Palestine from all out war? Or might it have something more to do with the decades long all out propaganda war that has been waged on her that dumbasses kept greedily gulping up over and over, doing everything they could to legitimize it? Maybe, just maybe, the problem is we have idiots who gleefully do Republicansjobs for them and attack Democrats by saying ludicrous poo poo like this: Tight Booty Shorts posted:The whole goal for both parties right now is to do the exact same thing that the "job creators" did to the rust belt to he majority of jobs and professions in this country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:A huh. Tell me, what'd she do in her political career to show she won't fight to help people? Was it her time as first lady, going through sleepless nights trying to get a better healthcare? Was it her fighting tooth and nail, battling multiple government agencies to get 9/11 first responders the treatment they needed? Maybe when she managed to walk back Israel and Palestine from all out war? Dude, under both Clinton and obama the amount of good jobs and wages we bled out of the middle class was staggering
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
Attack the Billionaires. Demonize them. Make the voters hate them and make the GOP choose a side.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So what you're saying is that messaging was the problem. The messaging is the platform.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Attack the Billionaires. Demonize them. Make the voters hate them and make the GOP choose a side. But then Democrats won't have Oprah, Cuban and Zuckerberg in the '20 primaries!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Attack the Billionaires. Demonize them. Make the voters hate them and make the GOP choose a side. I like how you're admitting that doing this is gonna require magically changing Americans minds just cause we want them to, but you still haven't figured out it would be smarter to just make them hate Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
Americans would gobble that poo poo up. They just don't realize yet how much they hate billionaires because nobody in politics or media is brave enough to denounce them. Nobody except the most popular politician in America.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Americans love billionaires. It's the millionaires they don't like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Americans would gobble that poo poo up. They just don't realize yet how much they hate billionaires because nobody in politics or media is brave enough to denounce them. Nobody except the most popular politician in America. Mark Zukerberg?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
NancyP oughta hold a press conference to denounce Elon Musk as little homie gay-rear end
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Americans would gobble that poo poo up. They just don't realize yet how much they hate billionaires because nobody in politics or media is brave enough to denounce them. Nobody except the most popular politician in America. "Hmm, why doesn't every single American agree with me? It must be they just have never heard the good news about socialism before! I'm sure all it will take is one speech on the means of production and they'll be converted easily!" You know, at least Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses are commanded to be this annoying and delusional. What's your excuse?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
If the democrats really want to save their party they'll have to play the dirtiest most underhanded card that exists. A card that hasn't been played in modern American history. The democrats should introduce class consciousness into the American proletariate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:"Hmm, why doesn't every single American agree with me? It must be they just have never heard the good news about socialism before! I'm sure all it will take is one speech on the means of production and they'll be converted easily!" Social security is socialism. Try taking that away and see how happy people will be
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:If the democrats really want to save their party they'll have to play the dirtiest most underhanded card that exists. A card that hasn't been played in modern American history. The democrats should introduce class consciousness into the American proletariate. Yes, they could do a thing America loudly rejected as class warfare in 2014. I'm sure THIS time it'll work, because REASONS!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
In 2014, Americans rejected milquetoast centrist liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Social security is socialism. Americans are hypocritical idiots. What an astounding shocker. How does this deliver the house and the Senate again? Hey, Jesus also said we need to give money to the poor. I bet if you just point that out to a Republican, they'll instantly flip and start saying welfare needs to be funded higher!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
"Billionaires like the Charles and David Koch want to privatize your social security so they can make another billion or two gambling with your retirement"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:"Billionaires like the Charles and David Koch want to privatize your social security so they can make another billion or two gambling with your retirement" Meanwhile, non-billionaires like Paul Ryan and Marci Rubio both totally oppose them doing this. Oh, wait. Gee, what a the common thread between these for men we could attack?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Billionaires in the medical insurance industry want to make sure they stay rich off of American's medical bills.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Meanwhile, non-billionaires like Paul Ryan and Marci Rubio both totally oppose them doing this. Oh, wait. They are stooges who work for the billionaires. Attacking them for being republicans is RETARDED. Like half of America is a republican. Nobody gives a poo poo about it and nobody wants to hear one political party denounce the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
There is a thread that runs through almost every single one of the GOP's policies that is in some way opposed to the interests of their middle-class base. Cui bono?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Hey guys, we've lost every branch of government, nearly every state government, and now the Supreme Court is gonna get stacked with republicans Let's TRIPLE down on our failed strategy! - a really smart centrist democrat
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
You guys, it's no use, the Republican party is already too popular, we can never beat them or change anyone's minds despite the heinous poo poo they do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You guys, it's no use, the Republican party is already too popular, we can never beat them or change anyone's minds despite the heinous poo poo they do. - a really smart centrist democrat
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:There is a thread that runs through almost every single one of the GOP's policies that is in some way opposed to the interests of their middle-class base. Cui bono? Alright dumbfuck, I'll indulge you. Opposing stem Cell Research, opposing gay marriage, opposing abortion and opposing immigration. Please tell me how these are part of some sinister billionaire conspiracy
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:- a really smart centrist democrat Did you just manage to call yourself a centrist? I have to read your moronic posts, the least you could do is read your posts as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Way earlier in the thread, someone asked why Clinton's defeat couldn't just be chalked up to 8 years of incumbency. I think a better question to ask is why a mere 8 years of incumbency would be enough for voters to get tired of any political project. Why is that a reasonable amount of time for people to get tired of a political party's hold on power? Why is this the natural flow of things? Because it's impossible for a party to make everything wonderful for everyone all the time for multiple decades with absolutely no problems, mistakes, or controversies? The only time in the last half-century that a single party controlled the presidency for more than eight years in a row was Reagan-Bush, not exactly a socialist paradise. It was more common in the first half of the century, but political shifts in the sixties and seventies (like the modern military-industrial complex and Civil Rights Act) destroyed the political alignments that had made that possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Alright dumbfuck, I'll indulge you. Omfg You're too dumb to put two and two together lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Did you just manage to call yourself a centrist? Dude you're not even trying to be coherent You're just meeting down because your smart strategy has failed us time and time again
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah, and the Democratic leadership you're so keen to suck off at every opportunity has done next to nothing for them either, and there is no reason to think that will change next time they're up, especially if you're any indication of where their collective head is at. So best case scenario is we keep going back and forth between two broken parties with nary an inspiring much less realistic vision for the future among them. Keep going, that is, until one of them seizes power in a way that the other can't wrest it back anymore which may have already happened and still you're over here hemming and hawing about how much change is too much change like a gibbering idio, which even then wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that it's people like you who are going to get the rest of us killed. Seriously, you don't live near a cliff or a bridge or something? Have a look around, would you? The bolded thing shows how these people are more comfortable with being conservatives when they unironically live the Bill Buckley life style of standing athwart history and shouting no, no change
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 15:08
|
|
