|
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 | ||
|
Khrushchev told JFK "I won you the presidency", therefore the Cuban missile crisis was an elaborate con where JFK deferred to his overlords in Moscow.
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Turns out the more racist you are the more likely you are to vote for Trump. Who knew? I guess some people were expecting a graph that showed Obama voters were actually less likely to support Trump if they were more racist, or that it made no difference? Let's see some data asking the same questions of all voters - I suspect the line will be a fair bit steeper on that one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Turns out the more racist you are the more likely you are to vote for Trump. Who knew? This graph proves God's providence is the force steering word towards harmony, as the children of Adam fall perfectly on a straight line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Turns out the more racist you are the more likely you are to vote for Trump. Who knew? Putin | | * | | | _________________ Trump
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
So, put together a platform and a message that isn't so vulnerable to attacks from a populist demagogue, and clear out the DNC of the corrupt fuckers that played right into Putin's hands in their blatantly corrupt fuckery. Problem
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:07
|
|
And the Dems need to focus on the factors they can control. They can't control Russia's interference, at least that much. They can't do much to combat voter suppression of black people or other minorities - they need to do all they can do, because it's basically the highest moral imperative, but those efforts probably aren't going to have much success until we get a new Democratic president. They certainly can't control Comey. But they can control their message, at least to a certain extent.
|
Majorian posted:They can't do much to combat voter suppression of black people or other minorities The hell they can't. You know not everyone who's interested in politics confines themselves to posting on the internet about it, right? Some people actually go out and do things. You could even do this. You could stand in front of a grocery store and register people to vote. You could give people rides to polling stations. You could dispel disenfranchising messaging Republicans put out like lying about election dates and poll taxes. You could fight. Why aren't you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:The hell they can't. You know not everyone who's interested in politics confines themselves to posting on the internet about it, right? Some people actually go out and do things. You could even do this. You could stand in front of a grocery store and register people to vote. You could give people rides to polling stations. You could dispel disenfranchising messaging Republicans put out like lying about election dates and poll taxes. You could fight. Why aren't you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:The hell they can't. You know not everyone who's interested in politics confines themselves to posting on the internet about it, right? Some people actually go out and do things. You could even do this. You could stand in front of a grocery store and register people to vote. You could give people rides to polling stations. You could dispel disenfranchising messaging Republicans put out like lying about election dates and poll taxes. You could fight. Why aren't you? Kilroy posted:I think Majorian meant more in the legislative sense, but this is still a good post. Please post more. Yes, that's what I meant. We can and should be protesting and raising hell about it, giving rides to people to polling stations, organizing groups to escort people into voting stations, etc. I know I'm planning on doing precisely that when 2018 rolls around. But the Republicans hold Congress and the Presidency, and I'm not pinning my hopes on the Dems taking back both houses in the midterms (to say nothing of the statehouses and governorships). With Jeff Sessions as AG, things are likely to get worse before they get better. Like I said, though, I do consider it to be the left's highest moral priority. We should do everything we can to combat suppression efforts; but we need to also be honest with ourselves about what we're up against.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:No one denies Russian interference, or even maybe that it swung the election - the election was close enough that a good argument can be made for lots of things swinging the election. And that's sort of the point, she did a terrible job campaigning and while the platform was good, she didn't own it and she didn't put it front and center. 2016 should have been a rout even with Russian interference, and even with James "What's the Hatch Act?" Comey running interference for Trump and Congressional Republicans. The fact that this stuff was able to bring her down is the problem, not whether it did or didn't. See that's where I think you're making the same mistake Clinton did. It was never going to be a rout. There is no candidate so terrible that Republicans won't pull the lever for them. Trump's numbers are exactly in line with every other Republican going back. And holding these mistaken beliefs leads you to making mistakes like Clinton did when she based her plan around depressing Republican turnout.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:See that's where I think you're making the same mistake Clinton did. It was never going to be a rout. There is no candidate so terrible that Republicans won't pull the lever for them. Trump's numbers are exactly in line with every other Republican going back. And holding these mistaken beliefs leads you to making mistakes like Clinton did when she based her plan around depressing Republican turnout. 2006 e: Let's also keep in mind 2006 for the "midterms favor Republicans and all is hopeless etc. etc."
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:2006 It's a good goal to shoot for; it's certainly not impossible. I just wouldn't pin all my hopes on it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:2006 Yeah, I might have to amend my statement to "You cannot depress Republican turnout via campaigns." External sources will be disregarded based on their source. Reality kicking them in the rear end will do it sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
I don't think routs like 1964 are really possible in this era given how polarized the country is. However, this was a very winnable election, notwithstanding the hacks making a lot of noise. I don't see how you can look at the outcome and not think that a policy and communications shift by the Democrats is warranted. Pointing to the party platform as being the most progressive in recent history is incredibly cheap because the party platform itself is not something most voters read and so it's basically a "please go to my website to read my policies." Additionally, communicating those policies is hampered by the contradictions of the Democratic party, where populist messaging is blunted by the party's need to curry favor with business elites. Charismatic leaders like Obama and Bill Clinton can gloss over these contradictions through rhetoric alone, but it relies on a politician having that level of charisma and does nothing to substantively reconcile them. At a bare minimum, a leftward shift is a hell of a lot easier to sell and is objectively better for the country. I don't know why this point is so beyond the pale and horrifying it spooks people like JC into writing off huge segments of the population as irreconcilably racist (despite them having voted for Obama twice)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
For what it's worth: the realistic option unless every centrist is primaried is no. The dems know full well that they can be the most incompetent opposition party ever and still wave themselves back into power due to voter anger in 6 years. These are largely the same people who were in office during Bush II and some of them during Clinton's presidency and they were rewarded already for being gutless rent seekers with the 2006 wave bringing in democrats who actually had a conscience into office.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:For what it's worth: the realistic option unless every centrist is primaried is no. The dems know full well that they can be the most incompetent opposition party ever and still wave themselves back into power due to voter anger in 6 years. These are largely the same people who were in office during Bush II and some of them during Clinton's presidency and they were rewarded already for being gutless rent seekers with the 2006 wave bringing in democrats who actually had a conscience into office. I think you might be a little overly pessimistic here, actually. Some of the old blue dogs are left, but a lot are, thankfully, gone. There's no Joe Lieberman, or Blanche Lincoln, or Ben Nelson. DWS is out as DNC chair, and while the current DNC chair is more centrist than most of us would like, I expect the left can pressure him to make at least a few concessions. And there's certainly no Hillary Clinton on the scene anymore. The 2020 nominee is probably going to be somebody who will promise way more on the economic justice front than Obama or Clinton would ever have dared. (whether or not they follow through on that will be partially up to us) I'm confident this will be the case, because, even though there is way too much corporate influence in the Democratic Party, they do need to actually win elections occasionally, in order to keep receiving those donations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think you might be a little overly pessimistic here, actually. Some of the old blue dogs are left, but a lot are, thankfully, gone. There's no Joe Lieberman, or Blanche Lincoln, or Ben Nelson. DWS is out as DNC chair, and while the current DNC chair is more centrist than most of us would like, I expect the left can pressure him to make at least a few concessions. And there's certainly no Hillary Clinton on the scene anymore. The 2020 nominee is probably going to be somebody who will promise way more on the economic justice front than Obama or Clinton would ever have dared. (whether or not they follow through on that will be partially up to us) I'm confident this will be the case, because, even though there is way too much corporate influence in the Democratic Party, they do need to actually win elections occasionally, in order to keep receiving those donations. The Democratic Party establishment is definitely going to make attempts to shoehorn their typical neoliberal candidate through the primaries again. Of course with the superdelegate system, they just might succeed. The part that worries me though is that they're just going to take their votes for granted again under the assumption that the opposition party is just so reprehensible and frankly, insane. Defeating Trump in the 2020 general election isn't going to be near as hard as nominating the right Democratic candidate for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah it's aggravating being called unreasonable or a "dumb leftist" (and again, gently caress you Ytlaya) because people want to scream RATFUCKED until we all agree that centrism and neoliberalism are cool and good. Yeah, Putin's gonna Putin, and even if an investigation into the influence there reveals all the worst things we can imagine and more, does anyone think Russians won't gently caress around with our elections in 2018 and 2020 as well? Does anyone think Putin interfered in our election only after Trump specifically asked him to? Of course not. So go forward with the assumption that all Russian influence was affecting people totally logically and that propaganda is never based on emotion. I'm sure that the people who will cause problems next time aren't the ones who continuously say that Putin did nothing wrong and that all the propaganda they put out was totally right. Or the people who insisted for months that Russia didn't interfere with the election at all, and that anyone who said otherwise was just trying to wage a war on leftism because of an insanely contrived persecution complex.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:The Democratic Party establishment is definitely going to make attempts to shoehorn their typical neoliberal candidate through the primaries again. Of course with the superdelegate system, they just might succeed. They'll try, but they won't succeed. The progressive base is mobilized now, and it's only going to get more mobilized. A lot of elder statesmen will back progressive candidates, because they know they're seen as dinosaurs and they don't like it (Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama early in the '08 primary serves as an example). And corporate donors will support more progressive candidates than they have before, because they know the wind is at their backs and they want influence with the candidate who's going to win. 2020 is more likely to look like 2008 than 2016, at least at this rate. That's barring another 9/11 or something similar, of course. quote:The part that worries me though is that they're just going to take their votes for granted again under the assumption that the opposition party is just so reprehensible and frankly, insane. Defeating Trump in the 2020 general election isn't going to be near as hard as nominating the right Democratic candidate for it. My understanding is that even a lot of the most establishment DNC members are quite reasonably and justifiably embarrassed by their failure in 2016. They may talk a big game for neoliberalism, but privately they know they can't back the same old candidates in 2020. If you want a good example, look at that Priorities USA memo that I posted earlier. They might not MEAN any of it, of course, and might be planning to put precisely none of their nice words into action once in office. But the platform that they proposed is likely a winning one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
You mean like the most progressive platform in history was a winner, right up til it wasn't and you needed to find any excuse possible?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You mean like the most progressive platform in history was a winner, right up til it wasn't and you needed to find any excuse possible? The '16 Democratic platform was a very good one. It's too bad that's not what Clinton ran on, with anything resembling conviction or enthusiasm, in critical states that would have been receptive to it. Just saying "Look at my website! Look at the platform! Now let's talk more about Trump!" doesn't really sell your message.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
See? Any excuse. Including admitting that people do not care about progressive policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I mean I don't know why you expect a national party to have to parachute in to a state to save a local party... maybe the local party does because not enough locals gave a poo poo either? Oh come the gently caress on you're not this dumb WJ.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You mean like the most progressive platform in history was a winner, right up til it wasn't and you needed to find any excuse possible? Hillary would have had to campaigned on that platform in some capacity for it to count. She ran one of the most personal attack driven campaigns in modern history despite trying to portray herself as competent at policy. Hilariously, Donald loving Trump ran a more policy oriented campaign than Hillary. Hillary was uniquely bad and probably the only candidate who could have lost to Trump. The problem wasn't her platform - which she didn't really campaign on - it was that she was a uniquely garbage person. A turnip painted blue would have won the Presidency over Trump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:See? Any excuse. Including admitting that people do not care about progressive policy. If you're not communicating it to them, how are they supposed to know? It's not an excuse, it's a fact. Most Americans aren't policy nerds like we are. This is something you need to come to terms with, like, pronto.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:See? Any excuse. Including admitting that people do not care about progressive policy. I too am bitter over Hillary losing states that she barely campaigned in. Really, whats your problem?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:If you're not communicating it to them, how are they supposed to know? See? Just claim the platform was a total and complete mystery that was never elaborated, and that people were constantly asking about it but she refused to ever discuss it. And try desperately to ignore that she have a speech on bringing new green energy jobs to west Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the only thing coal miners took away from it was that she said she'd put mines out of business.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The '16 Democratic platform was a very good one. It's too bad that's not what Clinton ran on, with anything resembling conviction or enthusiasm, in critical states that would have been receptive to it. Just saying "Look at my website! Look at the platform! Now let's talk more about Trump!" doesn't really sell your message. I keep seeing this and it is always taken as a given. But when I actually sit and read through her transcripts, she does quite a bit of attacking Trump and playing up her own policies. Also, the argument doesn't really come together considering Trump ran on repealing the ACA, and you had those same exact supporters getting really upset at him doing what he promised to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Fulchrum is mad that what he thought was a sure deal to prove those drat leftists wrong lost to the orange reality show man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Hillary would have had to campaigned on that platform in some capacity for it to count. She ran one of the most personal attack driven campaigns in modern history despite trying to portray herself as competent at policy. Hilariously, Donald loving Trump ran a more policy oriented campaign than Hillary. Hillary was uniquely bad and probably the only candidate who could have lost to Trump. The problem wasn't her platform - which she didn't really campaign on - it was that she was a uniquely garbage person. A turnip painted blue would have won the Presidency over Trump. Did you manage to miss the part where the entire combined efforts of the Republican party lost to Trump? Like, in your mind, did he just turn up to end headquarters, say he wanted to be their nominee, and they just cancelled their entire primary and gave it to him? And if Hillary is so uniquely bad, then that old guy who lost to her and his iseaoogy must be awful at this. You're also confusing empty bluster and bragging for policy. So much winning is not a loving policy. Trump fired his policy people halfway through the primary and never got anyone new. This really didn't matter since the voters never cared about policy. But of course, gotta cling to progressivism cannot fail, it can only be failed. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:See? Just claim the platform was a total and complete mystery that was never elaborated, and that people were constantly asking about it but she refused to ever discuss it. And try desperately to ignore that she have a speech on bringing new green energy jobs to west Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the only thing coal miners took away from it was that she said she'd put mines out of business. Why are you being so dense? We all acknowledge that the platform listed good policies, but Hillary ran on a series of generic platitudes and not-Trumpism. She didn't do nearly enough on retail politicking good green jobs because her ground presence sucked and she could barely commit to any economic policy with certainty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Wow Bernie lost in the closed primary which failed to pick the winning candidate for the election anyway? Your candidate was a pile of centrist dogs hit, just admit it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Did you manage to miss the part where the entire combined efforts of the Republican party lost to Trump? Like, in your mind, did he just turn up to end headquarters, say he wanted to be their nominee, and they just cancelled their entire primary and gave it to him? Also, when are you going to understand the difference between primaries and general elections?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Why are you being so dense? We all acknowledge that the platform listed good policies, but Hillary ran on a series of generic platitudes and not-Trumpism. She didn't do nearly enough on retail politicking good green jobs because her ground presence sucked and she could barely commit to any economic policy with certainty. As I said before, I am going through several of her speech transcripts that they lay out her plans for different things. It's not all just Trump attacks. Fiction posted:Wow Bernie lost in the closed primary which failed to pick the winning candidate for the election anyway? Your candidate was a pile of centrist dogs hit, just admit it. So what does that make Bernie Sanders? Worse than dog poo poo? MooselanderII posted:Also, when are you going to understand the difference between primaries and general elections? I think he does understand it, but I think there is something to be said about the dynamics of the primary compared to the dynamics of the general election and the people involved with both and how that relates to the future of the Democratic party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Also, when are you going to understand the difference between primaries and general elections?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Wow Bernie lost in the closed primary which failed to pick the winning candidate for the election anyway? Your candidate was a pile of centrist dogs hit, just admit it. Truly the vast swathes of independent voters who self describe as 'moderate' or 'conservative' would have swung the primary for Bernie Sanders, if they could have voted in the closed primaries, yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Why are you being so dense? We all acknowledge that the platform listed good policies, but Hillary ran on a series of generic platitudes and not-Trumpism. She didn't do nearly enough on retail politicking good green jobs because her ground presence sucked and she could barely commit to any economic policy with certainty. Right, this is an excuse you use to explain away the defeat of the most leftist platform ever, despite the platform being typical of presidential runs for it's focus. And trying to argue both that Trump was the most easily beatable candidate ever, and that focusing on him in any way was always obviously the wrong thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:As I said before, I am going through several of her speech transcripts that they lay out her plans for different things. It's not all just Trump attacks. I'm not saying she didn't have economic plans, she did, but they are broad platitudes that didn't connect in the two states described. as I also stated, this was compounded further as she didn't put the work in to get these messages out. I don't know why you guys keep drawing absolute conclusions from the primaries when as you acknowledge, they are distinct. I hope these obvious differences don't have to be described to the both of you in more detail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I keep seeing this and it is always taken as a given. But when I actually sit and read through her transcripts, she does quite a bit of attacking Trump and playing up her own policies. She did, to a certain extent, but her message came out kind of confused and garbled. She said she was "going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business," which reinforced the (unfair but strong) narrative that she was cold and uncaring towards people who had until not too long ago been strong union supporters and enthusiastic Democratic voters. She supported TPP, then was mealy-mouthed about it until way too late in the campaign for her to make a proper 180. And, of course, she had been sold, very explicitly, as a real, genuine "partner" in her husband's administration. So, fairly or unfairly, she is always going to be associated with some of the bad things that happened in the 90's. The name "Clinton' is always going to be associated, to some degree, with NAFTA. And in the Rust Belt, a lot of voters are always going to associate NAFTA with the end of their livelihoods and the downfall of their communities. If Clinton wanted to counter all of the baggage that she had coming into the campaign, she really needed to have a clear message geared at turning out the full Obama coalition. Focusing on her competence and the breadth of her public service was important for her to do, but it was only part of the equation. quote:Also, the argument doesn't really come together considering Trump ran on repealing the ACA, and you had those same exact supporters getting really upset at him doing what he promised to do. Trump promised to repeal the ACA and replace it with something better, that would make their premiums and copays lower, though. One can say, "Well, anybody could have told that was a lie," and my instinct at the time was to think exactly the same thing. (you can go back and look at my posting history - I also foolishly thought that no one could believe something so dumb) But the fact that so many of his supporters seem genuinely outraged by the AHCA suggests to me that these were not exactly "informed" customers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:I'm not saying she didn't have economic plans, she did, but they are broad platitudes that didn't connect in the two states described. as I also stated, this was compounded further as she didn't put the work in to get these messages out. Are you seriously gonna try to claim that between the two, it was Hillary who spoke in broad, unrefined platitudes and an undifferentiated message?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Right, this is an excuse you use to explain away the defeat of the most leftist platform ever, despite the platform being typical of presidential runs for it's focus. Wrong, it ignores the reality on the ground that Hillary ran a poo poo campaign that had severe messaging problems. Your analysis of these issues is pretty simplistic to the point where you are either arguing in bad faith or you are basically the DNC equivalent of those Trump supporters that label anything that challenges their world view as fake news. To address your point, of course slamming Trump is the right thing to do. But the problem was Hillary used Trump attacks as a crutch and spent too many of her resources stating something everyone already knew.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:11
|
|