|
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 | ||
|
RaySmuckles posted:1) lmao at saying this and supporting Hillary "unsecured email server" Clinton. Lol I wonder if #2 applies to all politicians and not just Hillary. If Trump starts saying that China is interfering we should just take it at face value? Problem is JC thinks Hillary is infallible and would never lie to get her way. 
Frijolero fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Apr 5, 2017 |
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:23 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:JC's point is that everyone somehow knew that Obama supported a public option even though apparently he didn't mention it on the campaign trail but it was in his literature, but somehow that kind of policy knowledge about Hillary never came out and It's Interesting Why That Is The Case I don't think if you polled people in 2008 there would be any more democrats who associated Obama with a promise of a public option than there would be democrats who associated Hillary with a promise for, say, paid family leave if polled in 2016. I think the reason so many leftists associate Obama with the public option is there's been 8 years of whining about Obama's broken promise. Which is fair, he put it on his website! But that's not why he won the election. RaySmuckles posted:1) lmao at saying this and supporting Hillary "unsecured email server" Clinton. 1) Dumb 2) I don't think we should believe all politicians. I think we should believe our nominee when we're in a loving presidential election against the fascist vanguard candidate rather than kneecapping her. Lmao at saying this when she was right and you continue to be not just wrong, but actively helping our enemies. 3) That article is from three weeks ago and since then: we learned Carter page has admitted to being a Russian intelligence asset, Manafort was paid 10 million to improve US opinion of Putin by influencing politicians and media in the 00's, Nunes has torpedoed the house investigation to protect Trump, and Trump has only retrenched with his Obama wiretapped me nonsense. Greenwald's assertion that democrats are backing off this because there's nothing there is loving laughable. 4) Cool. You don't want to have any solidarity with the democratic party. That's why you'll continue to be (rightfully) ignored.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:JC's point is that everyone somehow knew that Obama supported a public option even though apparently he didn't mention it on the campaign trail but it was in his literature, but somehow that kind of policy knowledge about Hillary never came out and It's Interesting Why That Is The Case It didn't hurt that Obama promised to strengthen the welfare state in other regards as well. Whereas Clinton hemmed and hawed during the primary and into the general, and also, by the way, had a record of supporting austerity measures/slashing the social safety net.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It didn't hurt that Obama promised to strengthen the welfare state in other regards as well. Whereas Clinton hemmed and hawed during the primary and into the general, and also, by the way, had a record of supporting austerity measures/slashing the social safety net. a record i was told repeatedly to ignore cause she really meant the progressive stuff in her platform is it a game for centrists to lie to leftists and tell them a candidate is sufficiently leftist and then turn around and call us idiots for thinking a candidate was leftist?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:But that's not why he won the election. JC, why do you think Obama won? Because in my mind, the answer is "he was charismatic as gently caress and sold people on a promise of hope and change." Which is basically the opposite of how Hillary campaigned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't think if you polled people in 2008 there would be any more democrats who associated Obama with a promise of a public option than there would be democrats who associated Hillary with a promise for, say, paid family leave if polled in 2016. I think the reason so many leftists associate Obama with the public option is there's been 8 years of whining about Obama's broken promise. Which is fair, he put it on his website! But that's not why he won the election. Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh take a look at https://youtu.be/erspfMkqLN4 Obama literally says at this debate that under his plan, people can buy into the same federal insurance program him and McCain use? These debates had a huge audience and in the clip, Obama does not mince words. So yes, voters took Obama at his word here because he loving said it during one of the most televized components of the 2008 election? Also, Obama came out and said during these debates that healthcare is a fundamental right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
But did you check Obama's website. That's where politicians have to write what they truly mean. It's part of the Illuminati Plot that governs our politics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
And yeah, Russian interference should be taken seriously, but the problem JC is that you continue to use it as your primary rationale as to why Hillary lost. This ignores the reality that Hillary's campaign died from a thousand cuts, a problem compounded by the fact that over the past two decades she has taken both sides of almost every core Democratic issue. Russia had plenty of material to work with, but the genesis for the divisions, to the extent that they affected the election, lay with Hillary herself and her brazen lack of leadership on so many economic issues since she gave up that ghost back in 94. Plus, you know, neglecting rural areas and two core states. Now if Obama in 2008, when, in contrast to 2016 Hillary, he was widely seen as inspiring, clear, and direct, had somehow been kneecapped at the end by Russian interference, I would be right there with you in chanting ratfucked, as but for the hypothetical intervention, he had clearly earned victory. But 2016 was Hillary's to lose, and boy did she lose it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
To return to the topic of "we were mislead by Russians to actively pursue a smear campaign against Bernie bros" for a moment, I've remembered a thing. - Hillary did the exact same thing with Obama - was she also manipulated by Russians to act as a treacherous piece of poo poo? Putin is a master of the long con, I guess. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...oy-No-seriously
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh take a look at https://youtu.be/erspfMkqLN4 So now hopefully we can put to bed this utterly stupid idea that:
And now comes the part where I'm informed that my reading comprehension is poo poo ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:JC, why do you think Obama won? I think that was a big part of it; it had very little to do with any specific policy. MooselanderII posted:And yeah, Russian interference should be taken seriously, but the problem JC is that you continue to use it as your primary rationale as to why Hillary lost. No, I don't. The margins were close enough that quite a few things could have affected the outcome. Hillary's campaign was certainly not blameless. quote:This ignores the reality that Hillary's campaign died from a thousand cuts, a problem compounded by the fact that over the past two decades she has taken both sides of almost every core Democratic issue. Russia had plenty of material to work with, but the genesis for the divisions, to the extent that they affected the election, lay with Hillary herself and her brazen lack of leadership on so many economic issues since she gave up that ghost back in 94. Plus, you know, neglecting rural areas and two core states. So it doesn't matter that we got ratfucked because Hillary should have won anyway? gently caress that. I don't give a poo poo about exonerating her campaign, I give a poo poo about using this to tar Trump and the republicans, and learning from it as a party so this poo poo doesn't happen again. I cannot for the life of me understand how people that claim to be democrats or allies of the democratic party could possibly want to diminish this other than dumb pride about admitting that Hillary was right about something once.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So it doesn't matter that we got ratfucked because Hillary should have won anyway? gently caress that. I don't give a poo poo about exonerating her campaign, I give a poo poo about using this to tar Trump and the republicans, and learning from it as a party so this poo poo doesn't happen again. I cannot for the life of me understand how people that claim to be democrats or allies of the democratic party could possibly want to diminish this other than dumb pride about admitting that Hillary was right about something once. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 07:59
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Thanks for posting this - I looked for it earlier today and was starting to wonder if maybe I had imagined him talking about a public option during one of the debates, or if perhaps he'd said it in one of the Democratic primary debates which obviously "wouldn't count" if you're a centrist weasel shithead. First, congress is covered by a private insurance plan so he's not describing a public option here, but regardless, if mentioning it during the debates counts, then Hillary campaigned on a lot of progressive policies like paid family leave, raising taxes on millionaires to fund social security and expand benefits, substantial investment in green energy, community policing and implicit bias in police forces, overturning Citizens United, ending the exploitation of undocumented workers, nonproliferation, raising the minimum wage, debt-free college... And now comes the part where that doesn't matter because you've forgotten what we're actually talking about. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 08:08 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
We found JC's new avatar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Shouting Russia for four years isn't going to fix all the other problems with Hillary's campaign. But, it might push a few more suburban Republicans away from Trump so we can run Hillary again in 2020, win the popular vote by 3.5 million this time, and squeak out a narrow victory in the rust belt state that delivers us the EC and yet another Republican house and senate. And then finally we can get that Grand Bargain to cut social security and balance the budget.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
It's funny, that cartoon was published a month ago and the revelations that Russia had sockpuppet Bernie Bros broke this week.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:First, congress is covered by a private insurance plan so he's not describing a public option here, but regardless, if mentioning it during the debates counts, then Hillary campaigned on a lot of progressive policies like paid family leave, raising taxes on millionaires to fund social security and expand benefits, substantial investment in green energy, community policing and implicit bias in police forces, overturning Citizens United, ending the exploitation of undocumented workers, nonproliferation, raising the minimum wage, debt-free college... or rather, a dem did that last time too and we got burned cause he was just lying seriously, why do you think people should keep falling for the bait and switch obama pulled?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's funny, that cartoon was published a month ago and the revelations that Russia had sockpuppet Bernie Bros broke this week. and yet, people were telling you the "berniebros" phenomena was a lie all election centrists sure are patting themselves on the back alot about being wrong all the time. they seem to be proud they were fooled by russians and tore a rift in their own party
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's funny, that cartoon was published a month ago and the revelations that Russia had sockpuppet Bernie Bros broke this week.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
Condiv posted:or rather, a dem did that last time too and we got burned cause he was just lying Is it just about projecting sincerity? 'cause it's not like President Sanders would have passed single-payer health care, a $15 federal minimum wage, or tuition-free college
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
As a human being jeffersonclay seems pretty loving despicable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's funny, that cartoon was published a month ago and the revelations that Russia had sockpuppet Bernie Bros broke this week. It didn't stop being relevant though. I deeply enjoy that the new narrative is THE RUSSIANS DID IT so that Democrats never have to reflect on their own colossal gently caress ups. Its a solid catchall for everything. The left doesnt have many supporters, it was all a Russian botnet! The DNC did nothing wrong, it was all a Russian con job! Hillary isn't an unpalatable power broker so out of touch she actually ran with the campaign slogan 'America is Already Great', its all Red propaganda! And she didn't run one of the dumbest 'data driven' campaigns in memory that somehow forgot to campaign in core battleground states, the Russians hacked her supercomputer! And then those Russians used their time machine to set up the Electoral College to cheat her out of the win even though she won the popular vote! Like, is your living room just a network of cork boards and red string all leading back to THE RUSKIES?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Is it just about projecting sincerity? 'cause it's not like President Sanders would have passed single-payer health care, a $15 federal minimum wage, or tuition-free college it's more about actually trying and pushing for these things. we need a dem who uses the bully pulpit to agitate for our causes obama did not even try to pass the public option, or march with unions when scott walker was busting them, etc. etc. i gave him the benefit of the doubt for a long long time, but you can only do that till your "democratic" president tries to gut social security and is only stopped because of idiot republicans
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
oh, now centrists are trying to pretend that all bernie supporters were russian bots (or mostly so?) cause between the two candidates, we saw more bernie supporters in the flesh than hillary supporters. maybe putin hired people to attend bernie rallies?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I think that was a big part of it; it had very little to do with any specific policy. But I think that's what most of us are saying: it's not about a specific policy, so much as it is being able to convince voters that you feel their pain, you care about their well-being, you want to enact policies to help them personally and their local community, etc. Supporting policies that are popular with those constituencies are a good way of convincing them that you care about them, but you have to run on them with conviction and enthusiasm. Bill Clinton was good at that; Hillary Clinton, alas, was not. quote:So it doesn't matter that we got ratfucked because Hillary should have won anyway? gently caress that. I don't give a poo poo about exonerating her campaign, I give a poo poo about using this to tar Trump and the republicans, and learning from it as a party so this poo poo doesn't happen again. I'm with you on that, but it's important to remember that it may (and probably will) take years to find the fire in the middle of all this smoke. The Dems can't pin their hopes on a smoking gun appearing between now and 2018; they have to have a strategy. The intelligence community, and the Dems on the House and Senate intelligence committees, will handle the investigation. The rest of us have our own work to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Is it just about projecting sincerity? 'cause it's not like President Sanders would have passed single-payer health care, a $15 federal minimum wage, or tuition-free college He would have tried, which counts. Hillary told America she absolutely wouldn't try, over and over during the primary, and that trying was dumb to begin with. Its no surprise no one took her seriously when she suddenly decided to change her platform. And because Bernie was sincere about wanting to try, I also trusted that he wouldn't poo poo away what progress we already had in the name of Third Wayism compromise, which is not something I believed of Pragmatic Hillary. Like, Obama would have cut social security in the name of compromise if the Republicans hadn't stepped on their own dick. I don't think Hillary would do any better. Plus I'd like to see a President publicly poo poo on banks for a change. You can talk about the legal intricacies of Obama and Wall Street and how they couldn't be charged because they technically didn't break any laws and thats not the Presidents job etc etc, but it would have been nice for Obama to go on national television and announce to America that Wall Street had knowingly hosed them but the current political system precluded punishing them in any meaningful way so it was time to vote in people to change the system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
here i am, in the year of our lord 2017, getting ratfucked by a russian berniebro sockpuppet and loving it
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
The super dumb thing about JC's attempted gaslighting is that he's went with the narrative that "we" all got "ratfucked", as if there could be no other reason for Sanders supporters to dislike Hillary besides the DNC email hacks. This is dumb because everybody with even half a brain can see that the actual explanation for most of that dislike is that Hillary & co willingly ran a vile and absurd smear campaign against Bernie and in particular against his supporters, falling entirely for Russian psyops in order to get a temporary political advantage. So to save his ego both sides have to be guilty here, and not the one that first ran with russian disinformation and alienated a huge group of supporters in the process, thus making them more inclined to get mad when the DNC emils were leaked. It would be funny if it weren't so blatantly obvious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:He would have tried, which counts. Hillary told America she absolutely wouldn't try, over and over during the primary, and that trying was dumb to begin with. Its no surprise no one took her seriously when she suddenly decided to change her platform. Actually I believe you'll find that Russia hacked Hillary's operating system and made her say all that stuff during the debates. Not a Step posted:Like, Obama would have cut social security in the name of compromise if the Republicans hadn't stepped on their own dick. No that was Russia who did that. And before you bring up any other problems with the Democratic party — Russia. Russia Russia Russia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:First, congress is covered by a private insurance plan so he's not describing a public option here, but regardless, if mentioning it during the debates counts, then Hillary campaigned on a lot of progressive policies like paid family leave, raising taxes on millionaires to fund social security and expand benefits, substantial investment in green energy, community policing and implicit bias in police forces, overturning Citizens United, ending the exploitation of undocumented workers, nonproliferation, raising the minimum wage, debt-free college... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But I think that's what most of us are saying: it's not about a specific policy, so much as it is being able to convince voters that you feel their pain, you care about their well-being, you want to enact policies to help them personally and their local community, etc. Supporting policies that are popular with those constituencies are a good way of convincing them that you care about them, but you have to run on them with conviction and enthusiasm. Bill Clinton was good at that; Hillary Clinton, alas, was not. I don't disagree at all. But at that point we don't need to move left on policy to win, we just need better messaging for the policies we have now. quote:I'm with you on that, but it's important to remember that it may (and probably will) take years to find the fire in the middle of all this smoke. The Dems can't pin their hopes on a smoking gun appearing between now and 2018; they have to have a strategy. The intelligence community, and the Dems on the House and Senate intelligence committees, will handle the investigation. The rest of us have our own work to do. What post are you reading that makes you think I want all the democrats to drop everything and start investigating Trump themselves? Using Russia to delegitimize Trump has been remarkably effective so far, so democrats should keep talking about it. And those among us who just won't believe it until there is a smoking gun (or even then) need to cram the "this is a distraction from democrats being terrible" noise. Cerebral Bore posted:The super dumb thing about JC's attempted gaslighting is that he's went with the narrative that "we" all got "ratfucked", as if there could be no other reason for Sanders supporters to dislike Hillary besides the DNC email hacks. This is dumb because everybody with even half a brain can see that the actual explanation for most of that dislike is that Hillary & co willingly ran a vile and absurd smear campaign against Bernie and in particular against his supporters, falling entirely for Russian psyops in order to get a temporary political advantage. The Russians didn't create bernie bros, they just amplified them with sockpuppets after super Tuesday when it was clear Bernie couldn't win. But acknowledging the Russians actually interfered with the election and that we should care is progress! JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't disagree at all. But at that point we don't need to move left on policy to win, we just need better messaging for the policies we have now. At some point, good messaging and charisma only get you so far. You have to have a bedrock of good policies that people want. Remember, we don't just want a Democrat in the White House; we want left-Dems dominating the entire government, pushing the agenda leftward. quote:What post are you reading that makes you think I want all the democrats to drop everything and start investigating Trump themselves? Using Russia to delegitimize Trump has been remarkably effective so far, so democrats should keep talking about it. And those among us who just won't believe it until there is a smoking gun (or even then) need to cram the "this is a distraction from democrats being terrible" noise. The Dems should keep talking about it, but they need to talk about other things too. I don't think it's all they're talking about, obviously - Gorsuch, Trump's healthcare fuckups, the Muslim ban, and other things all get plenty of attention. But the Dems can't get too comfortable just being the opposition party. If they want to truly take power, they need a new left-populist economic agenda, paired with steadfast support of antiracism and voting rights. Majorian fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But I think that's what most of us are saying: it's not about a specific policy, so much as it is being able to convince voters that you feel their pain, you care about their well-being, you want to enact policies to help them personally and their local community, etc. Supporting policies that are popular with those constituencies are a good way of convincing them that you care about them, but you have to run on them with conviction and enthusiasm. Bill Clinton was good at that; Hillary Clinton, alas, was not. Majorian posted:The Dems should keep talking about it, but they need to talk about other things too. Russia can be part of the icing, but it can't be the cake. The cake has to be a new left-populist economic agenda, paired with steadfast support of antiracism and voting rights. It's not about a specific policy, it's about being able to connect with voters. So why does our strategy have to be a new left-populist economic agenda?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
You won't get better messaging for the current policies because the New Democrats who run the party don't actually believe in most of the message. EDIT: JeffersonClay posted:The Russians didn't create bernie bros, they just amplified them with sockpuppets after super Tuesday when it was clear Bernie couldn't win. But acknowledging the Russians actually interfered with the election and that we should care is progress! lol, look at this weak-rear end attempt to save face. And he's still trying to be smug about it. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
So we need to replace the new democrats and not the policies themselves? Was Obama a new democrat? Was Bill Clinton? They had no problem messaging in a way that connected with voters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's not about a specific policy, it's about being able to connect with voters. So why does our strategy have to be a new left-populist economic agenda? Because ultimately, if the policies you're proposing don't do anything for the voters, that connection can only be a limited one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
The policies we ran on in 2016 do quite a lot to help voters. Cerebral Bore posted:lol, look at this weak-rear end attempt to save face. And he's still trying to be smug about it. Sorry, Russian interference can explain why there were so many bernie bros on social media but you can't say they invented the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Sorry, Russian interference can explain why there were so many bernie bros on social media but you can't say they invented the whole thing. No, the idea that "Bernie bros" were some kind of significant phenomenon and problem was invented by your ilk because you willingly fell for russian psyops, and then you went on to yell at the people you alienated with your smears that they were "ratfucked" becuse they didn't like the people who smeared them. EDIT: This is why you're such a slimy fucker, BTW.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The policies we ran on in 2016 do quite a lot to help voters. Not enough, and this was not messaged effectively.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 09:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:23 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So we need to replace the new democrats and not the policies themselves? Was Obama a new democrat? Was Bill Clinton? They had no problem messaging in a way that connected with voters. In point of fact, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats The goal of the New Democrats was expressly to get a conservative southerner into the White House, and they succeeded with Bill. Obama later declared himself to be a New Democrat. The New Democrats needs to be wiped from the earth and their policies and ideas purged.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 09:37
|
|