|
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: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. oh? where's the evidence that berniebros were a real phenomena? cause the tweets and facebook posts were the evidence before and it turns out all those were russian bots. so what makes you think berniebros were real other than you have to save face cause you spent the election attacking your allies based on putin's lies?  quote:The policies we ran on in 2016 do quite a lot to help voters. yeah, hillary's tax credits for entrepreneurs with student loans idea was really helpful Condiv fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Apr 5, 2017 |
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 09:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Those problems are inherent to generalizing the results of any election, though, and the argument doesn't have anything to do with the final result, just their relative performance. These comparisons are actually a lot better than, say, pointing to Obama's 2008 victory and suggesting we replicate his campaign to win, because the number of confounding factors is reduced. In comparing Clinton to Feingold in WI, the electorate is exactly the same and the timing is exactly the same. We know for a fact that more people voted for Clinton than Feingold. If your position is that more leftism = more votes, you need to actually articulate a plausible explanation for the failure of your theory to explain Feingold's relative performance. You can't have an argument about relative performance and not final result; the final result and the relative performance are tied together. The electorate is the same, and the timing is the same. But the presidential results and the senate results are not entirely independent, because the election turnout depends a lot on the top of the ticket and the national campaign. They are also running against different people; Clinton ran against Trump, and Feingold ran against Johnson. A big part of Clinton's campaign strategy was to present Trump as uniquely unacceptable and separate him from Republicans. It's entirely possible that this strategy worked at getting Clinton some voters that wouldn't vote for Feingold, by convincing Republicans and leaners to not vote for Trump, but vote for Johnson. It's also entirely possible that such a strategy would not be great for overall Democratic turnout, which would make Democratic candidates get less vote overall. Therefore, you end with a situation where Clinton outpaces the progressive candidate, and yet loses a state that Dems had done very well in for quite a while. This is, in fact, the entire problem with Clinton's strategy of painting Trump as uniquely terrible, and why many people warned against it. In fact, we can look at the numbers and try to get an inkling of what happened. Feingold got 1,380,496 votes, to Johnson's 1,479,262 votes. Clinton got 1,382,823 to Trump's 1,409,000 votes. The difference between Feingold's numbers and Clinton's numbers is 2327 votes, a very small amount. It's almost like the same people voted for the two of them. Comparatively, Johnson got 70,262 more votes than Trump. That's a much larger difference. Trump actually performed worse than Johnson. In Milwaukee, where Clinton did better than Feingold, Johnson did much better than Trump. Probably a fair amount of overlap there with Clinton/Johnson voters. But overall turnout was down for Dems, with 283,000 less votes than when Obama won in 2012. Besides all those political problems, maybe Feingold isn't a perfect candidate. He is someone who was Senator for 18 years, then lost to Johnson. Since then he's been understood to basically be in waiting to take back his seat, which is one of those things that people disliked about Clinton. We know he can win elections, and we know he can lose them. Maybe the better idea would have been to run someone new. Besides that, it's worth pointing out that candidates (even Clinton) can't escape their entire party's performance. Democrats haven't been doing well in elections. Their base was somewhat demoralized. Many people were disappointed at them after eight years of Obama. In that sense, what you say is important, but people's trust in your is weakened. In Wisconsin, in particular, I don't think the Democratic Party is particularly beloved these days. Conservatives actually succeeded at what they tried in Wisconsin, which was to get conservative voters to vote while giving them leeway to distance themselves from Trump. And Trump did what he had to do, which was flip some working-class voters from Obama to him. It's the Democrats that didn't really get liberal voters to vote, or Obama 2012 voters to vote for them. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
Sanders' appeal wasn't just that he was 'progressive', it's that he had the credibility (as an independent) to criticize the Democrats and the establishment. His campaign was not really a Democrats-centered campaign. That's a pretty big difference between him and many other progressives. So simply looking at whether candidates are saying "progressive" things isn't enough. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Clinton's campaign was legitimately to the left of Obama's 2008 campaign, the difference was in messaging and charisma. Her campaign was marked by an inability to adapt to the new political reality. In contrast to the "hope and change" message, voters got "more of the same, but less inspiring, and with more corruption". Her campaign couldn't be meaningfully 'to the left of Obama 2008' when she was running as the continuation of Obama 2009-2016. The issue is not merely messaging. It's not about what the party and candidates say. It's about what they do. It's not the same for Dems to run on a public option in 2016, after the public option didn't happen in 2009-2010, as it is for Dems to run on it in 2008. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 11:55
|
|
|
Yeah it's just too bad people wanted a continuation of Obama the person, not Obama the president.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
so this thread is JC vs bernie bros who still hate all PoC since they didn't fall in line? Keep ratfucking that chicken, the dem party is not going to rally behind loving white populism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Anyone who 'fell in line' for Clinton marched off a cliff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:so this thread is JC vs bernie bros who still hate all PoC since they didn't fall in line? Keep ratfucking that chicken, the dem party is not going to rally behind loving white populism. What the gently caress are you talking about? You have literally invented imaginary people you are raging against.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
No, I recall most posters itt from pre primary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
As with almost everything related to Hillary Clinton, her past makes her defenders' arguments dubious.quote:In what appear to be the New York senator's most blunt comments to date regarding a racial division in the Democratic presidential race, Hillary Clinton suggested Wednesday that "White Americans" are increasingly turning away from Barack Obama’s candidacy. This person, who eight years ago was bragging about how the white vote was hers and that made her a stronger candidate than Obama, tried to paint herself as the true minority candidate in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:the dem party is not going to rally behind loving white populism. Hillary Clinton, on non-college white voters posted:"These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election," she said. "Everybody knows that."
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Her campaign couldn't be meaningfully 'to the left of Obama 2008' when she was running as the continuation of Obama 2009-2016. She certainly was on social issues, but that's not too interesting because it's more of a function of the country or at least the democratic party being more to the left on many social issues like gay marriage and transgender rights. But I think she probably was on most issues as well-- she ran as a continuation but it's not like Obama was talking about a 15 dollar min wage to the degree she did. Something that people discount was that although most of Obama's positions weren't super progressive, he was a skillful enough politician that he could make people believe he was align with their beliefs and in perception is all that really matters in elections. All of his messaging around hope and change was pure marketing genius and expert salesmanship. I could buy the argument that Hillary ran to Obama's left on most issues, but that simply doesn't matter when she was completely unable to shake things like the wall street speeches.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Are you making an argument or just grabbing select quotes ranging from 2007-today. Please, repeat the same "you will get yours too" that bernouts repeated nonstop after super tuesday despite obviously being lip service. Also: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/326820-sanders-defends-trump-voters-i-dont-think-theyre-racists what a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:so this thread is JC vs bernie bros who still hate all PoC since they didn't fall in line? Keep ratfucking that chicken, the dem party is not going to rally behind loving white populism. Nice projection you loving partisan hack. Parachuting into a thread and calling a dozen people* racist is gonna work real well for you. * People who ultimately voted for Hillary and are truly trying to make positive impact on the party. The real ratfuckers are centrist hacks like JC who keep dividing progressive independents from the party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
woke up this morning sighing... if only we hadnt been ratfucked by russia, things would be p. great right now...
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Nice projection you loving partisan hack. positive impact for whom?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Everyone except the rich
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:positive impact for whom? Hmm, who benefits from $15 hour pay, expanded Medicare, transparency, and a party with credibility among the working class? Literally everybody
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:hacks like JC who keep dividing progressive independents from the party. This is a very interesting line of thought. What has JC done to progressive independants? Have you considered that anyone who changes their voting patterns because of JC is a worthless loving idiot?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This is a very interesting line of thought. What has JC done to progressive independants? I'm the first one to admit that even though I was a "BernieBro" I voted for Hillary. But there are thousands of people (my girlfriend included), who refused to vote for Hillary because of the attacks they received from Hillary, her team, and her garbage supporters. You can't ridicule a whole movement and then expect them to rally behind you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
My sister also refused to vote for Hillary, even though after she was officially nominated I shilled for her nonstop and probably ended up giving her more money than Bernie by the end because I was desperately afraid of Trump. I still have her merch all over my house and it makes me mad every day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
i was physically attacked by a hillbot outside of a wawa's and i STILL voted for her. but enough is enough. JC and his centrist ilk need to stop throwing ice cubes at me
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Hmm, who benefits from $15 hour pay, expanded Medicare, transparency, and a party with credibility among the working class? Frijolero posted:I'm the first one to admit that even though I was a "BernieBro" I voted for Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
"Someone called me a "breeder" and I don't want to get gay married, so why should I care?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Everyone literally loves chocolate too. Will you also do me the favor of listing policies that disproportionately help the white middle to upper middle class with absolutely no regard to minority access? If you think expanded Medicare and higher minimum wage disproportionally helps white middle class people I don't know what to tell you. The people who need a higher minimum wage and Medicare aren't middle class. They already have good wages and decent employer provided insurance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's funny, that cartoon was published a month ago and the revelations that Russia had sockpuppet Bernie Bros broke this week. Of course Bors (BernieBors?  ) is keyed in by his employers ahead of time. BTW, you are being monitored and we are preparing a body double to assume your identity in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Are you making an argument or just grabbing select quotes ranging from 2007-today. Please, repeat the same "you will get yours too" that bernouts repeated nonstop after super tuesday despite obviously being lip service. Also: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/326820-sanders-defends-trump-voters-i-dont-think-theyre-racists what a piece of poo poo. The argument is that, as always, Clinton's previous statements show the current-day argument is made in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
"Higher minimum wages predominantly benefit middle class white people" is definitely an interesting take. Did you, by any chance, work on Gingrich's campaign in 2012?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
considering the body size of your average goon i would recommend at least a body triple
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
parallelodad posted:If you think expanded Medicare and higher minimum wage disproportionally helps white middle class people I don't know what to tell you. The people who need a higher minimum wage and Medicare aren't middle class. They already have good wages and decent employer provided insurance. I think higher minimum wage disproportionally helps people who have jobs or access to jobs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I think higher minimum wage disproportionally helps people who have jobs or access to jobs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I think higher minimum wage disproportionally helps people who have jobs or access to jobs. Good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Everyone literally loves chocolate too. Will you also do me the favor of listing policies that disproportionately help the white middle to upper middle class with absolutely no regard to minority access? I'm not gonna aid you in your lovely loving crusade. gently caress you and your dead you ratfucking prick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
People have access to jobs. They don't have access to full time jobs. A higher wage will help them regardless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Everyone literally loves chocolate too. I like this rhetorical technique of dismissing serious leftist policy options as "candy for babies."
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
What the gently caress even is this. "Minimum WAGE DISPROPORTIONALLY helps people who have WAGES". Yeah, no poo poo, that's who it's supposed to help. "THIS BILL TO ABOLISH SLAVERY DISPROPORTIONALLY BENEFITS SLAVES"!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:I'm not gonna aid you in your lovely loving crusade. gently caress you and your dead you ratfucking prick. your gf literally decided that her feelings being "hurt" is more important than the lives of PoC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I think higher minimum wage disproportionally helps people who have jobs or access to jobs. Should we lower minimum wage to make jobs easier to get? Have a right to work, perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:your gf literally decided that her feelings being "hurt" is more important than the lives of PoC. The logical extension of this argument is that if Clinton personally goes to your house and rapes you, you should still vote for her otherwise you're a racist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:your gf literally decided that her feelings being "hurt" is more important than the lives of PoC. Hmm yes, my progressive Mexican girlfriend is racist. Please keep digging that hole you piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:37
|
|