|
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 | ||
|
Ytlaya posted:Literally any negative attack during a primary can feasibly have a negative impact during the general election. This is why I brought up that your argument here is basically implying that negative criticism within the party should be off-limits during the primary and general election. And what if Sanders had won the primary but lost to Trump I assume everyone would be raking Hillary over the coals for pointing out that some of his policy proposals were threadbare when it came to their meat (eg: healthcare proposal's math not working out) or that he was insufficiently clear about how he planned to marry social and economic policy, how dare she give the republicans ammunition after all It's not too late for that! The Republicans might face a democratic socialist in the next few cycles and just dust off some of Hillary's criticisms. Heaven forbid! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
NAFTA is a boogieman of the right and won't be going away under this admin anyway. The "super left" itt credit support of positions that Hillary did not take, like loving the 90s welfare reform. When this is used by a democrat (lol bernie) against democrats it instantly becomes valid for the right. I think the biggest mistake Hillary made was not attacking bernie with his inability to do a single thing in congress over such a large career.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
override367 posted:And what if Sanders had won the primary but lost to Trump No we would be going after ger for supporting Bloomburgs independent run that nabbed seven percent of the vote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
It says "no personal use" in there multiple times. Yeah if they retire and do some shenaniganry they can sidestep that a bit. Even so, Sanders is not walking away with a ton of left over money after this election for himself. He wasn't scamming you by continuing to ask for donations even when it was probably definitely done with. COMRADES fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Literally any negative attack during a primary can feasibly have a negative impact during the general election. This is why I brought up that your argument here is basically implying that negative criticism within the party should be off-limits during the primary and general election. And I replied that some attacks are more likely to do that than others, and we should prefer ones that leave us less vulnerable. For instance: WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I think they could have had a substantive debate on the practicality and the benefits of single payer vs. ACA expansion without attacking motives, maybe? It's a lot easier for the right to weaponize internecine character attacks than policy disagreement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:And I replied that some attacks are more likely to do that than others, and we should prefer ones that leave us less vulnerable. For instance: Hasn't ever stopped you hillfolk from falling back on smears as your primary primary tactic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:I think the biggest mistake Hillary made was not attacking bernie with his inability to do a single thing in congress over such a large career.  The biggest mistake Yass Kween did was run in the first place. The second biggest mistake was losing to Donald F. Trumpf.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:And I replied that some attacks are more likely to do that than others, and we should prefer ones that leave us less vulnerable. For instance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdX57Q7INe0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG7w3Oey3xs
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Like I don't know how a politician can listen and substantively respond to criticism like " you can't trust her because she supported NAFTA" without a time machine. Maybe publically reverse her position on free trade agreements and promise to oppose them? Did that work? I think you're right that criticism is good if it pushes politicians to be better. So we need to make criticisms that are malleable enough that if the politician does change in response to the criticism, the criticism isn't a drag on the candidate in the general. What you are talking about isn't 'substantively respond to criticism'. What you are talking about is 'how to avoid suffering negative repercussions due to my mistakes'. When you make a mistake in life, you apologize and take the necessary steps to solve the problem you caused. But it does not mean that things return to what they would have been if the mistake had not been made. Besides, the change you are talking about here isn't actual change. She didn't change. She just said she had. She just ran on saying 'oh I made a mistake once or twice'. Change is about accepting your issues, working on them, and actually changing them. It's not just about saying you were wrong. There is also the fundamental incompatibility between saying "I have changed" and running a campaign based on the notion that your long years of experience and accomplishment make you the better candidate. Clinton's campaign undercut its own logic. If you run on saying 'look at my CV' and then when people point to things in it and you say "yes, I was wrong back then", you just look bad. You are also giving way too much credit to Clinton with regards to free trade agreements. "Publicly reverse her position on free trade agreements and promise to oppose them" is the most charitable view of what happened. She tried to downplay having supported TPP in the first place, which made her look dishonest. At the same time, Obama was still pushing for it, she picked a VP who supported it, and Terry McAuliffe was telling the press "ah, she'll sign TPP, don't worry". She was giving a lot of signs that she really supported it. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:I think the biggest mistake Hillary made was not attacking bernie with his inability to do a single thing in congress over such a large career. It wouldn't have worked very well, since Clinton herself does not actually have a lot of accomplishments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:NAFTA is a boogieman of the right and won't be going away under this admin anyway. The "super left" itt credit support of positions that Hillary did not take, like loving the 90s welfare reform. When this is used by a democrat (lol bernie) against democrats it instantly becomes valid for the right. He's he most popular and beloved politician in modern history  Your abuela promised to put coal miners out of work and asked whether breaking up the big banks would solve racism lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:It wouldn't have worked very well, since Clinton herself does not actually have a lot of accomplishments. She did vote to build a giant barrier in the southern border. Oh, and also voted to invade Iraq. Very inspiring
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
that the truth about democratic candidates empowers the right wing is not a great argument against the truth imho
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:that the truth about democratic candidates empowers the right wing is not a great argument against the truth imho Maybe the Democrats could try to be less bad? Nah, better just suppress any dissent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
I can kind of understand the idea of being careful about criticism. You don't want dumb, silly criticism to get a life of its own. But we're talking about Clinton, someone who was already extremely well known. It's not like people's first impressions of Clinton were going to be some Sanders burns. Everyone already knew this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:The "super left" itt credit support of positions that Hillary did not take, like loving the 90s welfare reform. When this is used by a democrat (lol bernie) against democrats it instantly becomes valid for the right. It's valid for the right because it's a loving true thing that happened. Her husband and the democratic congress gutted welfare for the extremely poor with lifetime limits and work requirements. She personally helped whip support for the bill. The number of people living on less than $2 a day has doubled since it passed. She has never, ever admitted any fault in the bill. She blamed the states' implementation of it for the fact that it doubled the problem it was supposed to solve. What am I missing here? How is this in any way the fault of leftists?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Because if only we had believed I the market more this wouldn't have happened obviously
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:NAFTA is a boogieman of the right and won't be going away under this admin anyway. The "super left" itt credit support of positions that Hillary did not take, like loving the 90s welfare reform. When this is used by a democrat (lol bernie) against democrats it instantly becomes valid for the right. They can't all carpetbag safe seats This pearl clutching over Bernie saying mean things about abuela is hilarious when you consider that Trump had like 8 or 9 dudes constantly making GBS threads all over him on his own team during the primary, and even up to like a few days before election day his entire party was dumping on him. But yeah dude, Bernie dunking rightfully on Hillary during the primary was way more damaging lol Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:They can't all carpetbag safe seats While pushing aside the woman who wanted to run for the seat, facing no real primary vetting, and then running a massively expensive mudslinging campaign that results in under performing Al Gore by 5 points even after Giuliani imploded and dropped out to be replaced at the last second by an unknown.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:While pushing aside the woman who wanted to run for the seat, facing no real primary vetting, and then running a massively expensive mudslinging campaign that results in under performing Al Gore by 5 points even after Giuliani imploded and dropped out to be replaced at the last second by an unknown. Yeah but the REAL story is an Independent honest to God socialist couldn't get "anything" done in Congress
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
edit: fart i don't understand what happened how did I get here edit2: vvv both? Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Its about Hillary Clinton and her Senate bid. And either you are extremely dumb or I have no ability to detect sarcasm. Could be both.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:It's valid for the right because it's a loving true thing that happened. Her husband and the democratic congress gutted welfare for the extremely poor with lifetime limits and work requirements. Republican congress
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Republican congress Democratic President with veto power?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Republican congress With a majority of Democrats voting yes for it. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/s262 Try again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
also hillary clinton described it in her memoir as “a historic opportunity to change a system oriented toward dependence to one that encouraged independence.” also: “I agreed that he should sign it and worked hard to round up votes for its passage” which sounds rather like "loving it" to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Most progressive candidate indeed
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
WJ in typical partisan hack mode blames the GOP for everything bad. How do you square Obama's do nothing tenure and the huge loss in 2010? How do you square the crime bill and the crack down on immigration under Slick Willie? How do you square Obama's total lack of transparency and his crack down on whistleblowers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
The stupid GOP got in the way of Obama's Grand Bargain
Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Not to defend welfare reform, but it was, surprisingly, a bit more complicated than "the Clintons hate poor people" MooselanderII posted:Democratic President with veto power? He vetoed the first two, in an election year, after campaigning in part on welfare reform, in an era when bipartisanship still existed and still seemed like a decent idea. Dr. Fishopolis posted:also hillary clinton described it in her memoir as “a historic opportunity to change a system oriented toward dependence to one that encouraged independence.” Those Clinton quotes are worth looking at in context. It's a lot more nuanced than "loving it," but she did work to get it passed, and it is really one of the perfect examples of the way she thinks about politics. Like even if you read this and think "okay, and she's totally loving wrong about everything" it's still very enlightening. https://books.google.com/books?id=H...epage&q&f=false
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Not to defend welfare reform, but it was, surprisingly, a bit more complicated than "the Clintons hate poor people" nothing about hillary is worth looking at, with or without context. she's absolutely shameful and has no ability to self-reflect after flubbing an election she should've had no problem winning. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-explains-why-she-really-lost-trump-n743581
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
So, uh, looks like Hillary called for bombing Syria just in time for Trump to start bombing Syria
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/randygdub/status/850121765699244032
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
glad to see Democratic unity at time like this. https://twitter.com/ericbradner/status/850164822067089408 WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
roundup of Dem reactions: https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/850169650382077952 https://twitter.com/RepBarbaraLee/status/850164891482718212
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:It wouldn't have worked very well, since Clinton herself does not actually have a lot of accomplishments. Tight Booty Shorts posted:She did vote to build a giant barrier in the southern border. Oh, and also voted to invade Iraq. Very inspiring It's very telling that this is the response, rather than a list of things Bernie has actually accomplished. I like what Bernie says, but my concern is that he is would not be successful in actually accomplishing his goals since he would be utterly unwilling to compromise on anything. Hillary was maybe too far in the other direction (too willing to compromise principles), but when the response to "Bernie hasn't accomplished anything in this long career" is "gently caress Hillary" it's just sad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Not to defend welfare reform, but it was, surprisingly, a bit more complicated than "the Clintons hate poor people" Yeah, I mean, on the one hand, I get that this was in the immediate post-Reagan era and everyone had a big dumb boner for cutting the social safety net and sticking it to those indolent welfare queens. But I have to wonder, if all of her primary voters knew that she supported this poo poo, would they still have voted for her in the primaries?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:glad to see Democratic unity at time like this. Bernard Sanders chooses to work with the DNC chair to revitalize the party, putting aside his personal feelings over the defeat of Keith Ellison. Yes, Bernie is a good man. He even campaigned for months for Hillary. Meanwhile, Hillary emerged from the woods today to give a talk where she, uh, blamed everyone else for her loss. And also called for the bombing of Syria.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
yeah we really dodged a bullet there i'm glad her political career is over
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:He vetoed the first two, in an election year, after campaigning in part on welfare reform, in an era when bipartisanship still existed and still seemed like a decent idea. I'm not so sure that "there was an expectation that he was supposed to do this thing" is a good justification for passing legislation that caused a massive amount of harm/suffering. edit: It basically makes a bad thing "marginally more understandable but still really bad" which isn't much of a defense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 03:43
|
|
