|
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 | ||
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Sorry, the side you're playing Dipshit's Advocate for or whatever. You're claiming she didn't need more votes. She clearly, demonstrably did. That's a real stupid position to take. I didn't say she didn't need more votes. I said that she needed specific votes. More votes in Cali clearly would not have helped her, agreed? 
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:You show a startling lack of ability to judge when you're wasting your time. That may be, but it's my time to waste, not yours. I'm enjoying my discussion with JC. If you don't like it, you're free to put me on ignore. quote:I'm trying to help you, spend less time arguing with the smug idiot and more time learning lessons about how leftists should take over the party. Oh terrific. What lessons would those be?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I didn't say she didn't need more votes. I said that she needed specific votes. More votes in Cali clearly would not have helped her, agreed? You know there were Bernie supporters in every state in the country? Including the ones she lost? Hmm. If she didn't get the votes she needed to win, that means that MORE of those votes would be required for victory. So what is your point besides idiotic pedantry?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Most Bernie voters voted for Hilary. This is settled. I doubt it's as settled as you think. Could you post the data?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:I doubt it's as settled as you think. I don't have it handy, but I got it from Bernie supporters in one of these threads. Maybe Frijo has it frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Hmm. If she didn't get the votes she needed to win, that means that MORE of those votes would be required for victory. So what is your point besides idiotic pedantry? That just saying "more votes = win" is stupid, shallow analysis you stupid, shallow Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
All the available data shows that the overwhelming majority of those who voted for Bernie in the primaries also voted for Hillary. However, this is not the problem here because hardcore Bernie supporters certainly weren't the only group who were turned off by the high-handedness of Clinton's campaign and fanclub.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I don't have it handy, but I got it from Bernie supporters in one of these threads. Maybe Frijo has it Um do you think it's more or less likely that no Sanders voters in those states stayed home The best part is how angry you're getting at the assertion that Hillary Clinton, bad Presidential candidate who lost the election, needed votes she did not receive. Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Um do you think it's more or less likely that no Sanders voters in those states stayed home What action do you take to get them out to vote? How does that action affect the rest of voters? Why does it matter if there aren't enough to swing those states? I'm not angry, you are just dense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:What action do you take to get them out to vote? How does that action affect the rest of voters? Why does it matter if there aren't enough to swing those states? Turn left, DNC! Turn leffffffffft!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Turn left, DNC! Turn leffffffffft! People keep saying that, yet not providing evidence it would do any good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:People keep saying that, yet not providing evidence it would do any good. You're right, banks have such high approval ratings there's no need to turn left there, just as a start Mmm, check out the Criminal Justice System, and Big Business too. America sure loves that hot centrism that treats those industries as flawless beacons of American exceptionalism
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:You're right, banks have such high approval ratings there's no need to turn left there, just as a start And congress has a 20% approval rating yet somehow they mostly keep getting reelected. Edit- that same source shows organized labor even lower than banks.  Nevvy Z posted:People keep saying that, yet not providing evidence it would do any good. Sorry, to be clear by good I mean win elections for the Democratic party. I'm all for full communism now in the sense of things that would be morally good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:And congress has a 20% approval rating yet somehow they mostly keep getting reelected. Why do you think that is?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
The other real problem with Hillary's smear campaign is that it killed off a lot, if not most, of the enthusiasm among Sanders supporters and thus cost the Democrats a lot of potential young and eager activists who could have been utilized in campaign work. But hey, Friend Computer says that Hillary will sweep the Rust Belt, so who the gently caress needs those goddamn lefties? Nevvy Z posted:People keep saying that, yet not providing evidence it would do any good. The New Democrat approach has been the biggest disaster ever for the party, and running further right isn't going to work because people always prefer actual rightwing bastards to rightwing bastards with a human face (and furthermore there is no evidence that it would do any good either). So you're kinda out of options here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:And congress has a 20% approval rating yet somehow they mostly keep getting reelected. Hmm. You know which groups Trump bitched about a lot on the campaign trail?  Spoiler alert: A lot of the same ones Bernie did Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Exit polls can tell you that people who voted for Sanders in the primaries also voted for Clinton, but that doesn't take into account anyone who didn't vote. Exit polls are also not super accurate. Regular polling can tel you Sanders' supporters intention, but they can also be wrong, plus we're talking about a small subset of all the people polled. It's hard to really make any definitive statements about whether Clinton got the Sanders vote. Regardless, people who supported Sanders would rightly argue that the point isn't "people who voted for Sanders in the primary", but rather "general election voters who would have been interested in Sanders' message". Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Exit polls can tell you that people who voted for Sanders in the primaries also voted for Clinton, but that doesn't take into account anyone who didn't vote. Exit polls are also not super accurate. People have become way too reliant on polls in general. They are supposed to be a set of data used to plan a strategy, or read a pulse. They are not meant to be predictors of future events.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Going further left would definitely get more leftists to vote for democrats. The question is if those gains would outweigh the losses among moderates who would no longer vote for democrats. For those who assert that moderate voters are a myth, how do you explain the Wisconsin voters who voted for Hillary and against Feingold, or the NY voters who voted for Hillary and against Teachout, or the voters who voted for Hillary in CA and CO but voted against prop 69 and prop 61?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Going further left would definitely get more leftists to vote for democrats. The question is if those gains would outweigh the losses among moderates who would no longer vote for democrats. For those who assert that moderate voters are a myth, how do you explain the Wisconsin voters who voted for Hillary and against Feingold, or the NY voters who voted for Hillary and against Teachout, or the voters who voted for Hillary in CA and CO but voted against prop 69 and prop 61? "Moderate" is not mutually exclusive with "chooses the least poo poo candidate of two choices"
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:That just saying "more votes = win" is stupid, shallow analysis you stupid, shallow
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:"Moderate" is not mutually exclusive with "chooses the least poo poo candidate of two choices" Er... doesn't that support his point? They voted for the Republican in local races, but Trump was so terrible that they voted for Hillary instead of the Republican? (FWIW I think the Democrats can pick up more voters by going left than by going right, but those are votes they would lose)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Clearly there were not many more votes to be had for her in Michigan, which is why she won that state handily in the primary.  This sure proves everything!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Going further left would definitely get more leftists to vote for democrats. The question is if those gains would outweigh the losses among moderates who would no longer vote for democrats. For those who assert that moderate voters are a myth, how do you explain the Wisconsin voters who voted for Hillary and against Feingold, or the NY voters who voted for Hillary and against Teachout, or the voters who voted for Hillary in CA and CO but voted against prop 69 and prop 61? I don't think anyone is denying that moderate voters exist, but I do think it's unlikely that very many of them would refuse to vote D if the Democrats called for Medicare for all, or something similar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Maybe the bigger problem, which the Clintonista attitude towards Bernie supporters is indictive of, is that you're not supposed to be gripped by hubris to such a degree that you start to write off entire voting blocs as unnecessary. I mean, I was wrong as gently caress, too. I thought she would win. In fact I thought it would be a pretty convincing win and that we'd take the Senate and possibly the House. I was also happy to compromise with centrists since I bought into the demographic collapse theory about the GOP, and that centrist Democrats can win national elections. I mostly ignored the problems at the state level or attributed them more to Debbie Schultz than to the party as a whole. (Don't get me wrong she's terrible, but so is the party for allowing her to be DNC chair for so long.) So yeah, this election moved me to the left ideologically for sure, but more than that it moved me to the left politically in terms of whose poo poo I'm willing to put up with, and centrist shitheads got crossed off the list. What you're supposed to do after a humiliating loss like this is change your opinions, and if you come out of it thinking "more of the same will do" then you're irresponsible and possibly defective. Even more so if you rub your hands together with glee thinking about what a high-handed patronizing dickhead you get to be now to other factions of the party. Kilroy fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Er... doesn't that support his point? They voted for the Republican in local races, but Trump was so terrible that they voted for Hillary instead of the Republican? No, I'm saying that doesn't necessarily tag the voter as a Dem or a Republican because Trump was an extraordinarily bad candidate
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Going further left would definitely get more leftists to vote for democrats. The question is if those gains would outweigh the losses among moderates who would no longer vote for democrats. For those who assert that moderate voters are a myth, how do you explain the Wisconsin voters who voted for Hillary and against Feingold, or the NY voters who voted for Hillary and against Teachout, or the voters who voted for Hillary in CA and CO but voted against prop 69 and prop 61?  Note that this is exactly the poo poo you insist you never said and continued to insist you never said after I quoted you the posts where you said it. And now you're saying it again. Gaslighting has got to be about the lowest form of argumentative strategy, you poo poo-eating little weasel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:You're the one insisting that emphasizing more the parts of her platform inspired by Sanders' campaign would not have won her the states that matter, ignoring that she suffered narrow losses in exactly those states where Sanders kicked her rear end in the primary. That's actually not what I'm doing at all. And that Sanders beat Clinton in MI and then clinton lost MI doesn't mean that clinton lost MI because sanders supporters didn't vote for her.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:You're the one insisting that emphasizing more the parts of her platform inspired by Sanders' campaign would not have won her the states that matter, ignoring that she suffered narrow losses in exactly those states where Sanders kicked her rear end in the primary. Also ignoring that HRC didn't even bother for the most part to campaign in them. Instead she was off at Donors parties in NYC and SF. If this election proved anything money matters less than being able to actually campaign around the country at all times . Which HRC did not do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:That's actually not what I'm doing at all. And that Sanders beat Clinton in MI and then clinton lost MI doesn't mean that clinton lost MI because sanders supporters didn't vote for her. Lol All the people who stayed home were?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
In a match up between Hitler and Goring most people showed a preference for Goring, proving once and for all that the moderate voter identifies fully with Goring and would not accept a candidate with more liberal values.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think anyone is denying that moderate voters exist, but I do think it's unlikely that very many of them would refuse to vote D if the Democrats called for Medicare for all, or something similar. "Muh taxes will go up if I have to pay for poor people's healthcare  I'm voting republican from now on" Totally the people we want on our side
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Lol I don't know. I'm not the one making really specious claims without evidence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:That just saying "more votes = win" is stupid, shallow analysis you stupid, shallow We do have evidence, though: a candidate who ran partially on an economic justice platform, and ran to the left of his opponents on strengthening the welfare state, won those communities handily, two elections in a row. That was four and eight years ago, respectively. poo poo hasn't changed THAT much since then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:That's actually not what I'm doing at all. And that Sanders beat Clinton in MI and then clinton lost MI doesn't mean that clinton lost MI because sanders supporters didn't vote for her.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:"Muh taxes will go up if I have to pay for poor people's healthcare Unfortunately just as moderates need to become adults and own up to the need to work either with progressives or hard republicans, progressives need to accept that they can't antagonize the moderates (the voters, not the current party leaders). The goal must be a rapprochement under a new, rebuilt party purged of corrupt idiots, not a culture war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:
No, this is the poo poo I've been saying all along, but you think it means the same thing as "I hate leftists and don't want them to have any influence in the party", which is wrong. And you continue to conflate the two despite repeated attempts to explain the difference to you, which is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think anyone has denied that there are a handful of sexist dickheads who supported Bernie; it's pretty clear that Hillary diehards seriously overstated their number and their influence, though. Also, it's important to note that most people tend to be heavily, heavily biased against non-status quo stupidity, while status quo stupidity receives a pass. For every dumb "Bernie bro" there were probably at least 4-5 casually racist baby boomer Clinton supporters who voted for her because they liked the 90's or something*. Ideas outside of the mainstream are treated far more harshly and critically than ideas that aren't as critical of the status quo. The above is a large reason why I consider mainstream Democrats who focus disproportionate effort on criticizing and making fun of leftists to be very off-putting, even if the specific people they make fun of are sometimes wrong. I believe it isn't motivated by any genuine desire to accomplish anything good, and is instead motivated by some vague sense of "I saw some campus communists once and ugh those dumb naive fuckers, they're so immature and irrational." Even if they thought leftists would be genuinely harmful, there is currently little threat of them acquiring more power than mainstream Democrats, so it is very bizarre to be so preoccupied with pointing out how dumb and wrong a tiny minority of relatively fringe Democrats/leftists are, especially given that most of the people in question more or less share (or at least claim to share) the same overall goals (while the same can't be said for, say, Republicans or libertarians). (I say this partly because I used to be on the "criticizing dumb leftists" side of these arguments until I did some introspection and realized that the reasons I was doing so didn't really align with what should have been my stated goals.) * Further distorting perceptions is the fact that most of the people participating in these arguments primarily interact with other young (20-35 or so) people online, so they tend to see leftists (and thus dumber leftists as well) over-represented relative to the general population. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:In a match up between Hitler and Goring most people showed a preference for Goring, proving once and for all that the moderate voter identifies fully with Goring and would not accept a candidate with more liberal values. Bad analogy, because the people who voted for Clinton but not Feingold are not secret leftists. They're either Republicans who couldn't deal with a candidate as awful as Trump, or moderates; either way, they won't vote for "a candidate with more liberal values." The question is whether we can motivate enough people who didn't vote at all by moving left. I think that's literally the only reasonable thing to try, because everything else either means stagnation or is unethical, but it is an open question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
This discussion is still limited to the presidential election, where I think there were non-policy things about Clinton (Wall St. speeches, emails) that provide the necessary margin for her loss
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 21:28
|
|