Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
B | 77 | 25.50% | |
K | 160 | 52.98% | |
M | 65 | 21.52% | |
Total: | 229 votes |
|
Ze Pollack posted:The thing that kills me about the refusal to even try here is that even if it's a pathetic failure, it gives you a testbed for your plans in 2018. You cannot buy an experimental platform like this: ridiculously pro-republican seat, ridiculously pro-republican state, phenomenally unpopular republicans above the seat in question, it's a perfect low-stakes way to try to answer the question "how can we best leverage this to our advantage." You send a signal to other would-be challengers in 2018 that the DCCC will have their backs, and you get a chance to iron out the bugs in your system as you try to do something none of the people involved i, too, have never heard of georgia-04
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:43 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 03:37 |
|
evilweasel posted:no, just no stupid criticism from idiots you really think it's stupid for the dems to try to win winnable seats?
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:43 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:Look at how the majority of the centrists in this thread can't actually offer any defense for Perez lying about having a fifty state strateg.
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:45 |
|
Condiv posted:he was 6% off. with no local support and no national support. and the repubs put $100ks up against him cause they got scared. it was winnable He was 6% off in a close race in prob the most ideal conditions in a hick red state. If he didn't win then, he wouldn't have won ever. I look forward to your next thread about Alabama.
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:45 |
evilweasel posted:they mobilized quickly last week to defend it, in a way that would have been ineffective and/or counterproductive for democrats Even if they didn't end up winning, I think putting in some money to show active support would have at least meant something and added credibility to their claims they are going to be pushing hard in 2018 and 2020. It may have been a total waste in terms of winning that specific seat but in a special election where they don't have to worry about allocating funds to other areas as much as a regular election it would have bought some good will at a small cost. As it is it just reminds a lot of people of other elections they have lost through apathy (such as a lot of Virginia state elections in 2016 where Hillary won districts they didn't even bother to run candidates in) which isn't the kind of impression they can't afford to be making when they are really struggling as a party. 6-7% is far enough that probably some more last minute support wouldn't have flipped it, but it's also close enough that you can see it as another failure of the party to predict and support possible wins. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:46 |
|
evilweasel posted:no, just no stupid criticism from idiots -evil"a pyrhiic victory beats a flat loss"weasel, speaking in defense of a democratic party that has lost the presidency, senate, house of representatives, supreme court, and the vast majority of all state legislatures to a party currently lead by Donald Trump.
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:46 |
|
Oxxidation posted:Because he doesn't have a stake in any of the politics in this country, he just uses it as a distraction while he squats in his lovely little apartment across the ocean. yeah how dare i have got a job in france years ago. really p hosed up if you think about it SSNeoman posted:He was 6% off in a close race in prob the most ideal conditions in a hick red state. If he didn't win then, he wouldn't have won ever. no, the most ideal conditions would involve support from the dem party.
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:46 |
|
evilweasel posted:i, too, have never heard of georgia-04 Walking and chewing gum at the same time is for the weak, evidently
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:47 |
|
Condiv posted:no, the most ideal conditions would involve support from the dem party. Okay so say the dems put in money into Alabama's poo poo. When they inevitably lose because it's loving Alabama will you burst into another set of histrionics?
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:51 |
|
Condiv posted:you really think it's stupid for the dems to try to win winnable seats? no, I think it was dumb of them not to toss the $20k the guy asked for, it is worth taking very low-cost fliers if for no other reason than to build goodwill i just have little patience for the people who now that they know this election wound up being close think this was always some close election that the DNC should have gone all-in on: it is one of the most securely Republican seats in the country (top third, which is saying a lot). it is a minor error, not a major one: it is very likely that no amount of investment was going to get all the way to a win, but the small amounts asked for would have been worth it to generate goodwill however it is notable that the bernie wing didn't campaign or donate any serious amount of money either: it just was completely off everyone's radar: RNC, DNC, berniecrats, tea partiers, everyone. democrats are competing hard in GA-04 which is the race that was looked at as the best shot to start winning back the house despite it being a deep red seat that usually wouldn't be competitive, so the lesson everyone is whining about has gotten through: compete in hostile territory. it just didn't get through that everywhere is now on the board, not just places that are reasonable in a 10-15% swing which would be an enormous Republican wipeout already. people whining that true liberals knew but the DNC didnt are flatly wrong and so it's not an excuse to relitigate those dumb issues the other problem is the DNC knows that its polling is off: it was very off in 2016 and they're currently trying to work out how to fix it, so even polling that showed it close (if it existed) might reasonably have been ignored as just more of the same problem until the RNC flipped out as well
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:52 |
|
Thompson was pretty clearly trying to thread the needle between Anti-Brownback and a really conservative district. He didn't have any positions that were left of the democratic mainstream, at least not on his website. His campaign actively downplayed his affiliation with the Democratic Party. It's not clear that the Democratic Party dumping a bunch of money on him would have helped his chances rather than bursting the illusion of independentness his campaign was trying to create. quote:
Why oh why didn't Nancy Pelosi paint a giant target on his back?
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:53 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:Thompson was pretty clearly trying to thread the needle between Anti-Brownback and a really conservative district. He didn't have any positions that were left of the democratic mainstream, at least not on his website. His campaign actively downplayed his affiliation with the Democratic Party. It's not clear that the Democratic Party dumping a bunch of money on him would have helped his chances rather than bursting the illusion of independentness his campaign was trying to create. Yeah, but he was the one who asked for the $20k so presumably he believed it was worth having. But he definitely didn't want the sort of bigwig response the Republicans mounted.
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:55 |
|
SSNeoman posted:We're not. It was a stupid thing to say. There's no way in hell Dems are winning certain states, Kansas was one of them. Also lol@ JC now trying to turn the guy into some moderate for using good old day rhetoric about compromise. Its great seeing you literal loving cowards and sociopaths trying to defend this. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Apr 12, 2017 |
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:56 |
|
oh lol we are gonna be in for the long haul with you aren't we OPCondiv posted:Yep. Don't give money to state parties either cause the DNC will just hoover it up and spend it on Lena Dunham g af posts in D&D
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:56 |
Yeah I think the mistake was not giving him the $20 grand. It would have met what the candidate himself thought was appropriate, proved they supported long shot but possible races (which I think they are really going to need), and isn't really that much to just blow on the off chance that it tips the election. Going all in on a quixotic dream would have been bad as well since it is Kansas and it was a long shot. The Democrats are having a big problem with trust right now and this was a chance to build some for not much capital and they really blew it.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:56 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:Thompson was pretty clearly trying to thread the needle between Anti-Brownback and a really conservative district. He didn't have any positions that were left of the democratic mainstream, at least not on his website. His campaign actively downplayed his affiliation with the Democratic Party. It's not clear that the Democratic Party dumping a bunch of money on him would have helped his chances rather than bursting the illusion of independentness his campaign was trying to create. Your defense of the Democratic Party refusing to support a winnable seat is "if the Democratic Party tried to support its candidate it would only hurt them." If you genuinely believe this, what, then, is the DNC even for?
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:57 |
|
evilweasel posted:no, I think it was dumb of them not to toss the $20k the guy asked for, it is worth taking very low-cost fliers if for no other reason than to build goodwill i agree with you on the first part, but disagree with you on the second.this was a major error. the dems need to build trust after they lost a poo poo ton of it after 2016. and this makes people lose trust in them because they gave $0. also, ourrevolution did in fact endorse him and he was happy for that endorsement. so your claims the bernie wing was absent are patently false. quote:democrats are competing hard in GA-04 which is the race that was looked at as the best shot to start winning back the house despite it being a deep red seat that usually wouldn't be competitive, so the lesson everyone is whining about has gotten through: compete in hostile territory. it just didn't get through that everywhere is now on the board, not just places that are reasonable in a 10-15% swing which would be an enormous Republican wipeout already. people whining that true liberals knew but the DNC didnt are flatly wrong and so it's not an excuse to relitigate those dumb issues the lesson was compete in all hostile territory. try to break into red states. we are almost completely locked out of power as a party so expanding our power would be a really good idea asap, and throwing elections like in ks-04 by refusing to support democrats is only hurting us. i just want tom perez to abide by his 50-state strategy and not let possible wins like this one wither from lack of dem support. Condiv fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Apr 12, 2017 |
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:57 |
|
Condiv posted:i agree with you on the first part, but disagree with you on the second.this was a major error. the dems need to build trust after they lost a poo poo ton of it after 2016. and this makes people lose trust in them because they gave $0. They endorsed him. They then gave him $900. The DNC endorsed him as well, endorsements aren't spending resources to help elect him.
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:59 |
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:he had to lock the last thread as his veil of leftism rather than fygm was uncovered a bit.
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 17:59 |
|
I'd be more sympathetic to the DNC's viewpoint if it looked like they had any loving clue which districts are winnable. Fair is fair, I wouldn't have expected a race in Kansas to be close either. Then again, I also don't have the logistics and data analysis they're supposed to have perfected. Which is kind of the takeaway in all this: if Perez doesn't have a good answer for how they missed it, and what they plan to do to avoid missing opportunities in the future, then the DNC--and by extension, the rest of us--are proper hosed.
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:01 |
Like the story here should be "Democrats almost take a heavily leaned Republican seat, let's get motivated for 2018" but instead it's now "Democrats fumble and ignore a seat they could have won" because they wanted to save $20k for some nebulous future race which is bad optics for a party that is struggling to win elections in every part of the US government.
|
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:01 |
|
evilweasel posted:They endorsed him. They then gave him $900. The DNC endorsed him as well, endorsements aren't spending resources to help elect him. so you're saying the bernie wing was infinitely more supportive of him than the DNC was. despite tom perez promising to fight for every zip code. the DNC found the money for extremely expensive wasteful ads in 2016, the least they can do is throw a campaign like this $20k to try to help him win
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:03 |
|
I'd usually defer to the candidate in terms of strategy but Thompson had never run a serious campaign before, right? This was the republican messaging when he won the nomination.quote:Yet again, Kansas Democrats nominate a Nancy Pelosi rubber stamp more concerned with obstruction, massive spending increases, retaining failed Obamacare, and weakening national security than serving the people of the Fourth District I agree that spending 20K would have been well worth it just to stop the whining, but it wouldn't have bought him seven points. He got 200K from small donors.
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:03 |
|
Rangpur posted:I'd be more sympathetic to the DNC's viewpoint if it looked like they had any loving clue which districts are winnable. Fair is fair, I wouldn't have expected a race in Kansas to be close either. Then again, I also don't have the logistics and data analysis they're supposed to have perfected. Which is kind of the takeaway in all this: if Perez doesn't have a good answer for how they missed it, and what they plan to do to avoid missing opportunities in the future, then the DNC--and by extension, the rest of us--are proper hosed. the DNC is currently aware its polling is poo poo because it was poo poo in 2016, and polling hasn't ever been very good for special elections in the first place because its so hard to predict turnout however with this datapoint and (hopefully) the GA-04 datapoint, they now have a much better idea that every district is winnable, even one of the most solidly republican districts in the country, so to take the flier next time: if someone wants to compete, give them at least some token money he shouldn't have gotten, like, a few million, but $20k for even the longest shot of long shots seems worth it given the apparent evidence that there's a massive backlash against Republicans building
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:04 |
|
Radish posted:Like the story here should be "Democrats almost take a heavily leaned Republican seat, let's get motivated for 2018" but instead it's now "Democrats fumble and ignore a seat they could have won" because they wanted to save $20k for some nebulous future race which is bad optics for a party that is struggling to win elections in every part of the US government. Let's see if the Centrists here in anyway try to counter this. You know then engage in more personal attacks, fallowed by trying to downplay Berniecrats contributuions and turning Thompson into a bluedog.
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:04 |
|
Condiv posted:so you're saying the bernie wing was infinitely more supportive of him than the DNC was. despite tom perez promising to fight for every zip code. the DNC found the money for extremely expensive wasteful ads in 2016, the least they can do is throw a campaign like this $20k to try to help him win here's a hint: anytime you, a moron, think that you can rephrase something anyone else says, stop because you can't what i was saying is what i said, not your moronic interpretation of it
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:05 |
|
OP just wants to blazt sum bizket while shitposting. let him have this. this is a safe space
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:06 |
|
evilweasel posted:here's a hint: anytime you, a moron, think that you can rephrase something anyone else says, stop because you can't don't pretend the bernie wing was absent if you know they weren't.
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:07 |
|
Ze Pollack posted:Your defense of the Democratic Party refusing to support a winnable seat is "if the Democratic Party tried to support its candidate it would only hurt them." I'm not sure this seat was actually winnable. Once the seat looked somewhat competitive the GOP started dropping money and charismatic white men on the race, and they've got more of both. It's entirely possible for the DNC to have the power to affect the outcomes of some races and not others, and one example of the latter does not mean that it's useless. Crowsbeak posted:Let's see if the Centrists here in anyway try to counter this. You know then engage in more personal attacks, fallowed by trying to downplay Berniecrats contributuions and turning Thompson into a bluedog. Thompson wouldn't have been a blue dog, but he ran a campaign that was pretty drat centrist. Healthcare is completely absent from his website other than for veterans and seniors, for instance. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Apr 12, 2017 |
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:08 |
|
evilweasel posted:here's a hint: anytime you, a moron, think that you can rephrase something anyone else says, stop because you can't "The path to majorities is not in indulging these idiots": man defending the strategic decisions of a party that has lost any voice in government beyond the strongly-worded tweet.
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:11 |
|
The left in 2016: We need to primary anyone who even looks at a republican and remove all money from politics The left in 2017: Holy poo poo elect centrists and throw money at everything, stat. They should have dropped 20k on this race, but they weren't going to win it. They probably won't win in Georgia either, but Im sure that will be because of poor messaging on economics or whatever bullshit you nutters think is real. Organize and fight back against the dumbshit apathy that so many non voters have, fight back in the courts over gerrymandering and voter suppression.This poo poo will take time.
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:12 |
|
https://twitter.com/emmaroller/status/852012264282480640 centrists can't help but be terminally wrong it seems
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:12 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm not sure this seat was actually winnable.
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:13 |
|
YodaTFK posted:The left in 2016: We need to primary anyone who even looks at a republican and remove all money from politics This wasn't a primary. The left supported Hillary too in the general
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:15 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm not sure this seat was actually winnable. Once the seat looked somewhat competitive the GOP started dropping money and charismatic white men on the race, and they've got more of both. It's entirely possible for the DNC to have the power to affect the outcomes of some races and not others, and one example of the latter does not mean that it's useless. Oh lol. Now because the GOP actually tried to win it the democrats had every right to do nothing. I just love the idiocy of sociopaths like you. Also LOL about the website again. NO ONE READS THE loving WEBSITE BESIDES YOU loving CENTRISTS.
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:15 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm not sure this seat was actually winnable. Once the seat looked somewhat competitive the GOP started dropping money and charismatic white men on the race, and they've got more of both. It's entirely possible for the DNC to have the power to affect the outcomes of some races and not others, and one example of the latter does not mean that it's useless. If only there was some strategy to bleed an enemy of resources asymmetrically... some sort of technique by which you cause them enough problems in enough places with relatively low investment that they can't protect them all... some sort of "large-number-of-places" tactic... Sadly to the knowledge of the DNC no such technique exists.
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:16 |
|
Condiv posted:don't pretend the bernie wing was absent if you know they weren't. the bernie wing gave a token $900, which is being effectively absent but if you want to be a moron, the DNC gave $3k on March 13th but you don't see anyone saying that was important
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:17 |
|
SSNeoman posted:oh lol we are gonna be in for the long haul with you aren't we OP if i'm going to throw money at an organization that will just spend it on eating rear end, might as well directly pay someone and skip the middlemen
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:17 |
|
Ze Pollack posted:If only there was some strategy to bleed an enemy of resources asymmetrically... some sort of technique by which you cause them enough problems in enough places with relatively low investment that they can't protect them all... some sort of "large-number-of-places" tactic... as you see by the copy of sun tzu's the art of war on my bookshelf...
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:18 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 03:37 |
|
evilweasel posted:the bernie wing gave a token $900, which is being effectively absent Didn't he get a bunch of money from Dailykos? Which "wing" do they represent?
|
# ? Apr 12, 2017 18:19 |