|
https://twitter.com/emmaroller/status/852012264282480640
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:38 |
|
|
dems manage to gently caress it up so badly that "dem" is an insult now and thats a lmbo repair your image thanks in advance
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Because it's the first special election after a DNC chair election in which all candidates promised to support state parties aggressively. It's about showing the base that you meant it and showing the flag in some of these high-profile elections. Even a pittance would avoid the stories about the DNC abandoning the race. An investment that would have paid off in the long run. Concerned Citizen posted:i mean yes, if the purpose of a symbolic gesture is to appease people, and it fails to do so, then it is best not to do the symbolic gesture because money is actually valuable. it's the elections equivalent of gifting someone a "i'm with stupid" shirt - sure, you gave a gift but it was kind of poo poo. literally no one is gonna praise the dccc for buying a $20k mailer in a red district, for good reason. Kids, you didnt try at all, and failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
"The fifty state strategy is so dumb, all the candidates for dnc chair couldn't stop talking about it." -- a certified piece of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
ex post facho posted:Kids, you didnt try at all, and failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. hey hillary tried to win georgia and arizona, i don't see any thread praise for that
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:hey hillary tried to win georgia and arizona, i don't see any thread praise for that ~*~two of these things are not like the other~*~
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:hey hillary tried to win georgia and arizona, i don't see any thread praise for that i am glad that she considered georgia competitive. shows that we're making some slow, painful progress at least
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:if you aren't spending a ton, you are wasting money. moving a race a few percentage points is really expensive. you don't just go in with $50k and say, ok here's our investment let's hope that's enough - maybe that'll win you 300 votes. if you aren't spending enough to win, you're lighting that money on fire. If you spend some money trying to win the seat, even if you don't spend enough, even if you don't win, you're showing the local Dems there is a reason you should exist, you are demonstrating that you are to some extent an ally, you are legitimizing their efforts and promising future dems in other districts that if they too work hard they will have your support. Instead, you are advocating telling them to gently caress off because nothing they do will matter. You are literally arguing the logic that it is not worth engaging with Dems in red districts, it is not worth them becoming politically active, because it's just not enough, you know? Sure, we could spend some money, give some local campaigners some dollars to work with, maybe some contacts and resources. We could do active fundraising and see if we can get anyone else to care and maybe even raise a lot of money while looking like we genuinely support the locals and their races. But no, no. Would that solve racism? Sexism? If we don't win, it's all just pointless because every race and event, especially newsworthy special elections in the middle of a really unpopular administration where we've seen big swings in other areas towards the D side, exists purely in isolation and there could be no possible greater impact! You are a joke. Joementum posted:Because it's the first special election after a DNC chair election in which all candidates promised to support state parties aggressively. It's about showing the base that you meant it and showing the flag in some of these high-profile elections. Even a pittance would avoid the stories about the DNC abandoning the race. An investment that would have paid off in the long run. (And they probably could have raised a lot more than a pittance, considering more effort was put into fundraising for a purely internal election supporting Perez than was dropped into a race for real office) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Just wanted to say I really like the new thread title
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
The same DNC that is judging races as 'winnable' is the same one that thought Hillary Clinton was a lock for the Presidency
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:hey hillary tried to win georgia and arizona, i don't see any thread praise for that Spending in political campaigns has been shown to have diminishing returns. Dumping millions on top of millions is not a smart strategy, but allocating the tens of thousands needed to make Congressional races competitive can be. It's why Democrats are wrong about campaign finance reform and should focus on public funding floors rather than unconstitutional spending caps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
its almost like it was very stupid of hillary to campaign in states during a national election that democrats havent traditionally won, while simultaneously ignoring clear and present vulnerabilities in dem strongholds (more like dumb strongholds amirite haha), and a different but equally stupid situation where the dpa refuses to support a Bernie-endorsed candidate in a state level race showing clear signs of GOP vulnerability, shortly after promising to support races in "every zip code"! 🤔 conclusion: the party is bad, its leadership is worse, and 2018 is going to be a bloodbath woth Perez at the helm
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Also worth noting the State Dem party seems to have done almost nothing to help either. This guy was pretty much operating completely on his own in regards to support from official apparatuses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
These peoples' twitter histories are going to be very handy over the coming months/years https://twitter.com/mattmfm/status/792721289932836864
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Why would this candidate need funding if the purity of his Berniecrat message is actually the only elixer needed to win elections?! I thought the people were ready for full communism in Kansas
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
I think the real strategy now is to get the endorsement of the national party as a "centrist", use the money to get elected, thrn change party affiliation to DSA i mean, Id still caucus with dems, but obviously couldnt expect the support of the national party in any other way if id done anything but run as the most tim kaine-esque party line NL schlub
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:If you spend some money trying to win the seat, even if you don't spend enough, even if you don't win, you're showing the local Dems there is a reason you should exist, you are demonstrating that you are to some extent an ally, you are legitimizing their efforts and promising future dems in other districts that if they too work hard they will have your support. the committees can and should engage with dems in red districts, but that doesn't mean it needs to be a financial engagement. and it doesn't need to revolve around specific races. would it be good to signal boost them on social media and encourage people to donate/volunteer? absolutely. would it be good to send staff down and help them with targeting, fundraising, etc? yes. these are things the dccc doesn't do that they should, and i agree in that sense. should the dccc spend hard earned dollars and run ads in the district? no, not unless they're going big. the party will face a big shortfall trying to play in every competitive seat next year, so every dollar is very valuable. quote:Sure, we could spend some money, give some local campaigners some dollars to work with, maybe some contacts and resources. We could do active fundraising and see if we can get anyone else to care and maybe even raise a lot of money while looking like we genuinely support the locals and their races. i mean the result of this election was very, very good. the chances of flipping the seat even with very significant dccc funding was very low, but thompson made the gop sweat it out. the gop is legitimately afraid to lose the house in 2018 and that's going to seriously impact trump's ability to pass his agenda through congress. what is counter-productive is the circular firing squad going on. it's one thing to legitimately disagree with dccc on spending priorities, it's another for usual suspects to use it as yet another opportunity to bash the party in order to transparently push agenda. quote:You are a joke. rude
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
*zegermans kickslides into thread* "hey guys, let me prove your point about the dems being loving useless turds because some candidates winning primaries dont adhere completely to party orthodoxy, helping revive idiot conspiracy theories about collusion against Bernie supported candidates (or maybe they arent so idiotic now)! welp, see ya on the next bad post!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
ex post facho posted:*zegermans kickslides into thread* you forgot to kickflip out
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
I prefer surfs
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:well is it "someone will complain" or is it "literally everyone will complain" because i suspect it's a heck of a lot more of the latter than the former! Can't be the latter, because I can think of at least one person who isn't complaining zegermans posted:Why would this candidate need funding if the purity of his Berniecrat message is actually the only elixer needed to win elections?! He probably would've still lost even with funding But telling people in red states that they're not gonna get any support at all from the party isn't a very good way to get strong candidates or a strong local party in red states
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
He never left
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/emmaroller/status/852155002428719105
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Spending in political campaigns has been shown to have diminishing returns. Dumping millions on top of millions is not a smart strategy, but allocating the tens of thousands needed to make Congressional races competitive can be. yes spending has diminishing returns but it is still incredibly expensive to measurably move an electorate. tens of thousands isn't gonna do jack poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
listen, its not like the party chair made a loud and repeated point about campaigning in every zip code,
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
I think opening and closing every statement with "bernie would have won" would do wonders for democrat messaging.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
ex post facho posted:listen, its not like the party chair made a loud and repeated point about campaigning in every zip code, yeah but where else would the consultants get their money. something's gotta give here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
the dude did raise a few hundred thousand dollars for his campaign, and he had organizational assistance, so he wasn't exactly penniless. im curious about what his own take on the extreme carnage internet war over those 20k dollars is, though. if he thinks it would have measurably helped, hell, i'd believe him
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:yes spending has diminishing returns but it is still incredibly expensive to measurably move an electorate. tens of thousands isn't gonna do jack poo poo. ~*optics*~
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:the committees can and should engage with dems in red districts, but that doesn't mean it needs to be a financial engagement. and it doesn't need to revolve around specific races. would it be good to signal boost them on social media and encourage people to donate/volunteer? absolutely. would it be good to send staff down and help them with targeting, fundraising, etc? yes. these are things the dccc doesn't do that they should, and i agree in that sense. should the dccc spend hard earned dollars and run ads in the district? no, not unless they're going big. the party will face a big shortfall trying to play in every competitive seat next year, so every dollar is very valuable. dollars don't matter as much as you think lighting a few tens of thousands on fire us a small price to pay to keep the grassroots energized
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
its pretty fun having crossed that LNM threshold, now watching the party continue its same shortsighted tone deaf leadership that has resulted in the democratic party being more marginalized than at any point since reagan
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
so for the kansas race that just ended and was really really close, was it a case of increased voter turnout or people switching. the dems need to really look into that race and why it was so close, and start going after "safe" red districts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:"please, all i want is to correct the serious ills in this society, where the top 1 tenth of one percent get 90% of all economic growth" he cried as i ruthlessly cut his funding and directed to a moderate candidate running in a deep blue district Would be funnier if it weren't true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:dollars don't matter as much as you think i mean the bottom line is the party is going into 2018 and needs to compete in the same number of seats as 2016 but with midterm-level funding, while the opposition has an incumbent president to help fundraise. they don't have the money to compete right now, so they have to draw the line somewhere. there's no dccc money tree, every decision has costs. and does spending $50k keep the grassroots energized? would it make a difference? i seriously doubt it, i think the same people would be saying the dccc abandoned ks-04 because in truth that amount of money isn't significant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
zegermans posted:I prefer surfs you listen here
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
financially racist posted:so for the kansas race that just ended and was really really close, was it a case of increased voter turnout or people switching. seems pretty clear it was turnout. dems were at like 70% 2014 level, gop was at like 40%. the dems got rinsed in rural areas just as badly or worse than usual, but managed to flip sedgwick, home of wichita.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
financially racist posted:so for the kansas race that just ended and was really really close, was it a case of increased voter turnout or people switching. they should hire analysts to extrapolate national trends in voting patterns and establish a data-driven funding stream for maximal electoral synergy in 2018
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:i mean the bottom line is the party is going into 2018 and needs to compete in the same number of seats as 2016 but with midterm-level funding, while the opposition has an incumbent president to help fundraise. they don't have the money to compete right now, so they have to draw the line somewhere. there's no dccc money tree, every decision has costs. and does spending $50k keep the grassroots energized? would it make a difference? i seriously doubt it, i think the same people would be saying the dccc abandoned ks-04 because in truth that amount of money isn't significant. dude they came within 6 points of winning the koch brothers' home district with no funding at all they need to throw money at every single fuckin race in 2018
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
financially racist posted:dude they came within 6 points of winning the koch brothers' home district with no funding at all if they could throw money at every single race in 2018, i would support them throwing money at every single race in 2018. in reality they will only be able to fund 30-40 seats with national committee and the rest will have to be up to outside groups
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:38 |
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:i seriously doubt it, i think the same people would be saying the dccc abandoned ks-04 because in truth that amount of money isn't significant. Please tell me that no one is basing any real-world decisions on "what the CSPAM Bad Dems Thread would complain about" or, for that matter, on "what the electric complaining machine, otherwise known as the internet, would complain about".
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:04
|
|
