|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
SSNeoman posted:Oh good, another person with no fuckin clue how FPtP works Yes, I know how FPtP works to create only two viable parties. But US history is littered with dead political parties who found themselves without a constituency when the political winds shifted. It wouldn't be terrible for the Democrats to be interred next to the Whigs so a vigorous worker's party could take their spot. Also many states have been abandoned so thoroughly by the Dems that they are effectively a one party state. In those states nobody but the Republicans are politically relevant and everyone else, including the Dems, are a third party playing around in the kiddy pool. Why not vote third party then? Its just as effective as voting for the no-hoper Dems, except the Dems abandoned the state on purpose. E: v -( )O< /\ /\
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 11:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
Cause even if in some fever dream your dipshit third rate chucklefucks get some momentum going, they will get crushed by the two main parties. Or by one of the two main parties cause they don't have that kind of bankroll. lest we forget  Not a Step posted:Yes, I know how FPtP works to create only two viable parties. But US history is littered with dead political parties who found themselves without a constituency when the political winds shifted. It wouldn't be terrible for the Democrats to be interred next to the Whigs so a vigorous worker's party could take their spot. Well it's no libertarian free market :jerbag: jerk but drat if you're not trying
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
Why is the person who thinks that the Dems should write off everything south of the Mason-Dixon line trying to scold others for not voting D?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Cause even if in some fever dream your dipshit third rate chucklefucks get some momentum going, they will get crushed by the two main parties. Or by one of the two main parties cause they don't have that kind of bankroll. Why should I have wasted my vote on abuela? Other candidates were more closely aligned with me and hillary told me to vote my conscience...
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
I think blue candidates should generally be able to adopt positions amenable to local interests- the problem with the democratic party is moderate candidates running in solid blue areas. By the way if you abandon red states, the republicans in more contested races have more money to throw into theirs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 12:05
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Why is the person who thinks that the Dems should write off everything south of the Mason-Dixon line trying to scold others for not voting D? Because all that matters to centrism is moral superiority and the pretence of doing something even when the fact that if your only activism is only voting, you're basically at the same level as an internet slacktivist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 12:08
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:When we lived in Oklahoma last year my wife registered as a Republican so she could at least pick the least bad Republican running for local offices in their primary, since that was the only vote that really mattered. I bet there's a lot of would be Democrats in red states that the Dems have abandoned who do the same thing. sadly, doing something like that locks us out of choosing the presidential candidate. it's p hosed up :/ thankfully, the registered dems left in oklahoma saw bernie's worth. it makes me proud Condiv fucked around with this message at 13:26 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Why is the person who thinks that the Dems should write off everything south of the Mason-Dixon line trying to scold others for not voting D? I don't think any dems think that because there's a lot of safe democratic districts (AA vote getting gerrymandered into single districts lol) in the south and also pretty much every major city has democratic mayors
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:oh my loving god what a post. You are talking down to southern minorities, friend. That you don't recognize them or their misery having any kind of value is kind of the problem! You have told them that they deserve to suffer for the crime of being outvoted by southern conservatives. You have told them that you are tired of their filthy, odious failure to outvote Republicans without any support from you, and for that reason you are abandoning them to their fate. You have told every minority in the American South that the misery they will experience under a Republican-dominated government is a price you are willing to pay for the chance a couple of white conservatives will suffer along with them. What a noble support for minorities, that says "yeah, sure, you will suffer incredible agonies I refuse to lift a finger to stop, but I'm willing to trade that for the chance a white conservative will experience a fraction of your pain." Let's work the math out on this one. Five black lives destroyed worth three white lives hurt sound like a good starting point?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 16:25
|
|
worthy now.
|
SSNeoman posted:This isn't an Electorial College. The majority chose this. They can live out the consequences. I'm done having pity for these people. I think you underestimate how easy it is to get inundated with a specific narrative when literally every single person you know personally shares and supports that narrative. Think of it this way - if political views were solely the result of someone being born with a "dumb and/or evil" gene you'd see people with such views uniformly distributed throughout the country, but instead we see more people with dumb views in more rural areas, which implies that a person's environment and upbringing contribute greatly to the views they end up having. Obviously on an individual level this isn't universal, but it's an obvious trend and I think it's a pretty dangerous mindset to just say "welp these people are just intrinsically more evil and dumb than I am." I mean, if you think about this for more than a minute it should be really obvious that "conservatives are intrinsically lovely bad people" is loving stupid and that (when looking at general populations) people are a product of their environment. Another element to this is that I find a lot of liberals attribute way too much intelligence to your average Democratic voter. Like, they think that the average Democrat is voting because they also have good, well-informed opinions, when in reality most people, Democrat or Republican, just vote based upon what their environment (people, media they're exposed to, etc) informs them is the "correct" choice. Most Democrats would be just like Republicans if they were exposed to the same environment and experiences, they are not some sort of intelligent ubermensch. edit: One thing I should add is that, despite saying this, I don't think that all of these people are necessarily redeemable. Often the damage done through a person being raised in a certain way and inundated with certain views is more or less irreversible, but opinions can still change over the course of generations. Even if you think that conservatives are trash who deserve to die in poverty, their children are not inherently evil simply by virtue of being born to a conservative parent. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think you underestimate how easy it is to get inundated with a specific narrative when literally every single person you know personally shares and supports that narrative. The results of the 2016 democratic primary prove this to be true. People vote for what they know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Why should I have wasted my vote on abuela? Other candidates were more closely aligned with me and hillary told me to vote my conscience... To be fair, so did Ted Cruz.  (but given that you live in a deep red state that the Dems seem determined to ignore, I think you did the right thing)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:We don't live in shouldland, as much as I hate having to quote everyone's dad. These people chose what they wanted in spite of all evidence, and in the end there is nothing we can do to stop them. I'm not even sure what point you're making here other than to keep the moral high ground, and, well, look how great that turned out for democrats. Even if you think that every Republican voter is trash that should literally suffer and die, not every single person who lives in Republican areas is Republican themselves. Many are also children (or other dependents like the mentally disabled). Why am I even having to poitn this out. Jesus loving Christ there there is nothing worse than liberals when they get into one of their "trashing the poor rural untermensch" moods
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Think of it this way - if political views were solely the result of someone being born with a "dumb and/or evil" gene you'd see people with such views uniformly distributed throughout the country, but instead we see more people with dumb views in more rural areas, which implies that a person's environment and upbringing contribute greatly to the views they end up having. Obviously on an individual level this isn't universal, but it's an obvious trend and I think it's a pretty dangerous mindset to just say "welp these people are just intrinsically more evil and dumb than I am."  Again, education was the strongest predictor for how people voted in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Even if you think that every Republican voter is trash that should literally suffer and die, not every single person who lives in Republican areas is Republican themselves. Many are also children (or other dependents like the mentally disabled). It justifies them not trying, though, which is always a much-sought-after coin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Even if you think that every Republican voter is trash that should literally suffer and die, not every single person who lives in Republican areas is Republican themselves. Many are also children (or other dependents like the mentally disabled).
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:The problem with cutting the South loose is the same it's always been, there are huge populations of minority people who live there and the majority wants to gently caress them over. If it wasn't for that, I'd be all for the State's Rights you get what you vote for train. This is what really makes it clear that, to many liberals, seeing conservatives "get what's coming to them" is more important than actually helping people. And - surprise surprise - this is very much the same sort of motivation many conservatives have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Who was it again that argued that DNC chair didn't matter and that even if it did Perez was the best equipped to implement a 50 state strategy anyway? Haven't caught up to every thread but have any of these posters recanted?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This is what really makes it clear that, to many liberals, seeing conservatives "get what's coming to them" is more important than actually helping people. And - surprise surprise - this is very much the same sort of motivation many conservatives have. I don't want them to suffer. But democracy is democracy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This is what really makes it clear that, to many liberals, seeing conservatives "get what's coming to them" is more important than actually helping people. And - surprise surprise - this is very much the same sort of motivation many conservatives have. I don't agree with this. I don't want any GOP voter to get whats coming to them. I want them to improve their situation with higher taxes, spending on social programs, development, etc. The problem is, THEY DON'T WANT TO loving DO IT. When you try and rationally explain hy its a good idea, you get called a libtard or something else stupid. You're acting like there is some magic words we can use to make people see the world the way we want them to. It doesn't work like that. You can't use reason to get someone out of a position they didn't use reason to get to in the first place. If the majority of people in these places want to run their government in a way they literally destroys their own communities, I am not able to stop them. I will continue to put my efforts where they are worth it, and can actually make a difference. This doesn't mean I am abandoning the ~ 30% - 40% of people in those places that didn't vote for the horribleness. It means i am powerless to change it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
^^^ But you're (or rather Democrats in general) not powerless to change it. Maybe you can't change the result in the next few elections, but you can still gradually influence some of the people in those areas. And it's not like conservatives don't live in blue states; we're often talking about maybe a 10-20% difference between a state being solid blue and solid red. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I don't agree with this. I don't want any GOP voter to get whats coming to them. I want them to improve their situation with higher taxes, spending on social programs, development, etc. The problem is, THEY DON'T WANT TO loving DO IT. When you try and rationally explain hy its a good idea, you get called a libtard or something else stupid. Most actual Republican voters are not the people who post online comments calling people libtards. My dad's side of my family, minus my dad himself, are very stereotypical Southern conservatives, and they don't really think about this stuff. They just feel that they identify more with Republicans because of the various cultural identifiers conservative politicians throw out there (plus cultural inertia). It really isn't possible to understate how much of an impact it has if someone spends their entire life surrounded by people and exposed to media telling them "these guys are good and looking out for you and these other guys are terrible." Even if they start to realize that maybe the Republicans aren't looking out for them, they've been invested for so long in the idea that Democrats are terrible that they ultimately still vote R in the end. Most people, Democrat or Republican, do not vote based upon facts/information. And of course there's the aforementioned point that it's an obvious fact that conservatives aren't intrinsically dumber and more evil than their liberal counterparts, because if they were you would see conservatives evenly distributed regardless of location, demographics, etc. It is an inescapable conclusion that the environments people are exposed to drive their voting behavior and unequivocally wrong that a bunch of people just arbitrarily make worse decisions in conservative regions. While it's probably too late to change the minds of most of these people, change has to start somewhere and ideally the next generation will be a little less conservative if you put more effort into improving conditions and education for people in those areas. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Who was it again that argued that DNC chair didn't matter and that even if it did Perez was the best equipped to implement a 50 state strategy anyway? Haven't caught up to every thread but have any of these posters recanted? These posters are the same ones right now saying it was good that Kansas was left to twist and turn in the wind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
trump voters aren't rural, they're petit bourgeois the rural poor don't vote
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:^^^ But you're (or rather Democrats in general) not powerless to change it. Maybe you can't change the result in the next few elections, but you can still gradually influence some of the people in those areas. And it's not like conservatives don't live in blue states; we're often talking about maybe a 10-20% difference between a state being solid blue and solid red. Yeah but then you get young liberals who move out for college and never go back because they're still dying hellholes at the end of the day
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Who was it again that argued that DNC chair didn't matter and that even if it did Perez was the best equipped to implement a 50 state strategy anyway? Haven't caught up to every thread but have any of these posters recanted? I argued that it wasn't a big deal that Perez got selected over Ellison. Unless you have some sort of evidence that Ellison as chair, rather than his current position as deputy chair, would have won this race, I don't see any reason to recant. Why should anyone recant support of Perez because some of you disagree with a single decision he made?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Who was it again that argued that DNC chair didn't matter and that even if it did Perez was the best equipped to implement a 50 state strategy anyway? Haven't caught up to every thread but have any of these posters recanted?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Who was it again that argued that DNC chair didn't matter and that even if it did Perez was the best equipped to implement a 50 state strategy anyway? Haven't caught up to every thread but have any of these posters recanted? That would require some degree of self-reflection and shame, and a functional moral compass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I argued that it wasn't a big deal that Perez got selected over Ellison. Unless you have some sort of evidence that Ellison as chair, rather than his current position as deputy chair, would have won this race, I don't see any reason to recant. Why should anyone recant support of Perez because some of you disagree with a single decision he made? Because he lied. But then I know that you don't care about him not keeping the promise odf the 50 state strategy because you think everyone in red states are irredeemable monsters. What with you being an admitted petulant child.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I don't agree with this. I don't want any GOP voter to get whats coming to them. I want them to improve their situation with higher taxes, spending on social programs, development, etc. The problem is, THEY DON'T WANT TO loving DO IT. When you try and rationally explain hy its a good idea, you get called a libtard or something else stupid. You're acting like there is some magic words we can use to make people see the world the way we want them to. It doesn't work like that. You're ignoring the fact that a significant number of them, particularly in swing states, voted D not so long ago. Clearly their opinions can be changed, if they are engaged in the right manner. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Yeah but then you get young liberals who move out for college and never go back because they're still dying hellholes at the end of the day Yeah, I'm not sure what the solution to that is. I do know, though, that the Dems shouldn't be losing Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Michigan. Centrists trying to handwave that away as "just the way political realignment goes" is really distasteful to me. These states aren't West Virginia or Kentucky. These are states that can still be won, fairly easily.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Centrists trying to handwave that away as "just the way political realignment goes" is really distasteful to me. Where is this happening? Obviously there's way more to it than that. We can definitely take those states back, we just need a candidate that excites voters. And visits them. Kilroy posted:Apparently the 50-state strategy doesn't include red states. If money was not spent in Kansas now, but is spent in Kansas later, does the strategy include Kansas?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:If money was not spent in Kansas now, but is spent in Kansas later, does the strategy include Kansas?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Its fun that the Democratic line towards red states really seems to boil down to 'Let them pull themselves up by their bootstraps, then we'll help'. Its weird how much rhetorical crossover there is between centrist Dems and Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:trump voters aren't rural, they're petit bourgeois the typical trump supporter is a white dude in an area with $50k-$70k median income but is surrounded by poverty and opoid addiction neighborhoods and is afraid they are next
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Typo posted:the typical trump supporter is a white dude in an area with $50k-$70k median income but is surrounded by poverty and opoid addiction neighborhoods and is afraid they are next That or sees them on TV all the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Where is this happening? Throughout the previous iteration of this thread. It's...just an unbelievably  argument.Typo posted:the typical trump supporter is a white dude in an area with $50k-$70k median income but is surrounded by poverty and opoid addiction neighborhoods and is afraid they are next Well-put.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Where is this happening? Obviously there's way more to it than that. We can definitely take those states back, we just need a candidate that excites voters. And visits them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Its weird how much rhetorical crossover there is between centrist Dems and Republicans. ...is it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:...is it? I would think by definition moderate dems and moderate republicans would be fairly close, possibly even overlap based on local politics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Easy fix- legally change each democratic candidate's last name to have a "(R)" at the end of it to encourage people to vote for them in red states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This is what really makes it clear that, to many liberals, seeing conservatives "get what's coming to them" is more important than actually helping people. And - surprise surprise - this is very much the same sort of motivation many conservatives have. this was real evident during the election and it was p disgusting. the centrists were all more interested in picking someone who would "drive republicans crazy" than actually help people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:05
|
|