|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Condiv posted: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. That isn't how democrats think and it's not why Hillary Clinton won the primary.
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:That isn't how democrats think and it's not why Hillary Clinton won the primary. then a lot of people who were pro-hillary on these forums weren't democrats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
you're mentally ill. I will embrace your views of me and vote to ensure you can never get the mental health you so desperately need. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:you're mentally ill. I will embrace your views of me and vote to ensure you can never get the mental health you so desperately need. um ok
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:you're mentally ill. I will embrace your views of me and vote to ensure you can never get the mental health you so desperately need.  I see someone is engaging in projection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Condiv posted:then a lot of people who were pro-hillary on these forums weren't democrats. The pro-Hillary folks here weren't exactly representative of her voting base.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The pro-Hillary folks here weren't exactly representative of her voting base. Upper East Side parasites don't post on here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Upper East Side parasites don't post on here? Oh, they do, but I was referring more to working class folks, and particularly people of color. They didn't vote for Clinton just to make conservatives mad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Oh, they do, but I was referring more to working class folks, and particularly people of color. They didn't vote for Clinton just to make conservatives mad. no, they didn't. but there were a lot of those "vote for hillary to piss off republicans types" on here. it was frequently their first argument when you'd bring up that hillary wasn't really doing anything to fix anything
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no, they didn't. but there were a lot of those "vote for hillary to piss off republicans types" on here. it was frequently their first argument when you'd bring up that hillary wasn't really doing anything to fix anything Yeah, that was a really flippant and stupid argument on their part. Her pissing off Republicans is only good if it happens AFTER the election, not BEFORE. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
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? When did I ever say that? I said we can write off Kansas, not red states that can be taken. Stop jumping at centrists in the shadows and chill. 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. Alright fine. Let's say for a moment that having to shut down schools isn't enough of a wake-up call because your culture is that strong. What will be? Incrementalism is all well and good, but at the end of the day Republicans will break things, dems will try and fix them (somewhat haphazardly, though good economic policy wasn't made in a day) and the voters will blame Dems. We can come back to that tire fire next time. Maybe by 2018 they'll learn Ytlaya posted: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. We just had a guy defend his sub 100k vote party choice, so yeah I agree. Ytlaya posted: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. Agreed, and come 2018 or 2020 they'll be much more likely to pull the blue lever now. We can try again next time. It's just in this two year period I want them to understand what they've wrought. Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:When did I ever say that? I said we can write off Kansas, not red states that can be taken. Stop jumping at centrists in the shadows and chill. so, red states that can be taken are what? +2 D?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Condiv posted:so, red states that can be taken are what? +2 D? +10 +15 R. Any higher and it's a gamble. +20 is a gamble. +30 is a waste. You will now respond to me with the usual point you made already, but you have the gift of hindsight on this. Two weeks ago you would have been screaming at Dems for being idiots in investing in the KAnsas election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Nope I would say the only time a state should be missed is when its a reelection for someone with high likability scores and constituent satisfaction like those two Wyoming senators.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:+10 +15 R. Any higher and it's a gamble. +20 is a gamble. +30 is a waste. That is a lie, and you know it. People have been arguing very consistently and passionately for a disciplined utilization of the 50 state strategy since before the presidential election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:+10 +15 R. Any higher and it's a gamble. +20 is a gamble. +30 is a waste. except people were screaming at the dems to invest BEFORE the election. when the repubs were bringing in the big guns to keep the seat cause they were panicked. besides, i'm for a 50 state strategy where we're fighting in every state. i mean, if excuses are made cause the elections are hard, my state's the first that would lose out, so it only makes sense for me to support a 50 state solution despite the headcanon you've built up around me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That is a lie, and you know it. People have been arguing very consistently and passionately for a disciplined utilization of the 50 state strategy since before the presidential election. Oh it's a lie? That's news to me. I can name three people who would be in histrionics if the DNC ever announced that. I actually remember people being in histrionics about it back during the presidential election. Alright fine. I'll extend you an olive branch since y'all seem to love the white yokels so much. If Kansas is not an outlier, then yeah. Dems should invest in hard red states to see if there's a response. If there isn't, give them two years to stew on their decision and see how much they like states rights. If there is, yay. Now how much do I hate MLK by posting that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Oh it's a lie? That's news to me. I can name three people who would be in histrionics if the DNC ever announced that. Name them right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Also I think you miss the point. The idea of the 50 state strategy isn't to get immediate results, even though right now is a unique situation to actually get immediate returns. It's. by its original reasoning, designed to slowly rebuild the party and get measurable results in the long term horizon, because you can't counteracts literally decades of Republican conditioning and Democratic absence in two fiscal years. Your reasoning is the same as when lovely CEOs keep dissecting and liquidating their companies when they fail to completely reverse long term trends in a single quarter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Alright fine. Let's say for a moment that having to shut down schools isn't enough of a wake-up call because your culture is that strong. It's not that they don't hear the wakeup call; they don't know who to blame. They're constantly inundated with the lies Ytlaya alluded to: "It's NAFTA that killed your community! It's illegal immigrants! It's black people getting uppity and raising hell that broke down law and order! It's ISIS! It's Obamacare!" Then when someone comes by and actually seems to speak to those grievances that are actually legitimate (joblessness, drug epidemics, insufficient health coverage, etc), they perk up and listen. Particularly when that person is offering them explanations and solutions that are, in fact, too easy, simple, and/or reductive. And even then, they've at least learned to attribute some of this poo poo to Brownback, albeit too late in the game. e: quote:Alright fine. I'll extend you an olive branch since y'all seem to love the white yokels so much. If Kansas is not an outlier, then yeah. Dems should invest in hard red states to see if there's a response. If there isn't, give them two years to stew on their decision and see how much they like states rights. If there is, yay. The Dems need to start doing the legwork now if they want to succeed statewide in 2018 though. Majorian fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
No, I'll get slapped by mods for importing drama, and rightfully so. Find em yourself if it concerns you so much. I'll even give you a date: a month after the election in the post-election thread. They were all pissed at Hillary for campaigning and buying ad space in Texas despite the fact that the state is actually pretty politically balanced and it could have worked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:No, I'll get slapped by mods for importing drama, and rightfully so. Find em yourself if it concerns you so much. I'll even give you a date: a month after the election in the post-election thread. They were all pissed at Hillary for campaigning and buying ad space in Texas despite the fact that the state is actually pretty politically balanced and it could have worked. You are making poo poo up. The only anger at Hillary was that she spent so much money in blue states and robbed resources from states that were reporting they could use additional resources to tip the balance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Oh it's a lie? That's news to me. I can name three people who would be in histrionics if the DNC ever announced that. I actually remember people being in histrionics about it back during the presidential election. Well, you still seem to be missing that the minorities in those states suffer as a result of you writing them off as a lost cause, but grudging acceptance that trying to help them is a good idea beats the hell out of your previous stance! Evidently there -is- a number of gay people being electrocuted at which point you concede punishing them for their neighbors voting Republican is loving stupid, who knew.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You are making poo poo up. The only anger at Hillary was that she spent so much money in blue states and robbed resources from states that were reporting they could use additional resources to tip the balance. Eh, I think I remember some people making fun of Hillary for spending money in Texas. But I think there's a difference between investing at least some money in most places just to make sure Democrats have some presence and allocating money in transparently stupid ways. Like, even under a 50 state strategy Democrats should still probably invest more money in swing states than in solid blue/red states. I also think there's a difference between the presidential election and trying to improve Democratic presence in state legislatures, etc. I think the main issue with Hillary (or rather her campaign) spending money in Texas is that it was reflective of them being too confident and not putting more resources into places they thought were secure (which turned out not to be).
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Oh, they do, but I was referring more to working class folks, and particularly people of color. They didn't vote for Clinton just to make conservatives mad. That's very true. Though enthusiasm for her among those groups did leave much to be desired.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
State parties should be empowered, unless it's Virginia, in which case we should let Obama ex-staffers just parachute in their preferred candidate
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:State parties should be empowered, unless it's Virginia, in which case we should let Obama ex-staffers just parachute in their preferred candidate Uhhhhh...not sure you want to be using Virginia as an example, when their governor is Clinton's bff and '08 campaign chair. KomradeX posted:That's very true. Though enthusiasm for her among those groups did leave much to be desired. It certainly did. Even so, economic populists need to start thinking now about how they're going to win the primary in 2020. Gotta make sure they engage those minority communities as much as humanly possible. Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It certainly did. Even so, economic populists need to start thinking now about how they're going to win the primary in 2020. Gotta make sure they engage those minority communities as much as humanly possible. Hopefully they'll have learned how to do this from some of the early Bernie stuff. But it's going to be hard to do of the Centrist wing of the party keeps screeching that raising minimum wage makes you a secret rascist/ sexist
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Uhhhhh...not sure you want to be using Virginia as an example, when their governor is Clinton's bff and '08 campaign chair. The rest of the party isn't tho and they lined up just as hard
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The rest of the party isn't tho and they lined up just as hard Wait, which candidates are we talking about that got parachuted in?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
The one endorsed by Obama staffers and Sanders, not the one endorsed by every state party official
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Texas and Arizona were talked about, but California is where most people agree she overspent. I recall specific discussion of LA, for example. But you can find a post or two saying just about anything, who you noticed saying what in x thread is a really useless anecdote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
here's an op-ed piece from the guardian about how much of a waste the dems were in this most recent race: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/13/progressive-democratic-candidates-james-thompson-loss#comments quote:In defending their decision, party mouthpieces have taken the absurd line that giving Thompson money would have actually hurt his chances of winning, because then everyone would have known he’s a Democrat, and Kansans hate Democrats. (Let’s take a moment to appreciate these are the same people who keep saying the party doesn’t need a new direction.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
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? no they've now entered the "you idiots actually believed that he would do X? you just projected what you wanted on him" stage of explaining away dem terribleness
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:something to be said about supporting lost causes so ardently   SSNeoman posted:They were all pissed at Hillary for campaigning and buying ad space in Texas despite the fact that the state is actually pretty politically balanced and it could have worked. quote:the state is actually pretty politically balanced and it could have worked.  The "50 State Strategy" does not mean running one lovely candidate( ) in all fifty states forums poster SSNeoman, it means recruiting and supporting local candidates who have got a shot at winning seats in those states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:it means recruiting and supporting local candidates who have got a shot at winning seats in those states. but what if they're "centrists"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:but what if they're "centrists"? There's a way to make progressive policies attractive to flyover country without having to go 'i'm a republican but i guess fags can marry or something  ' like we get from most (D) "centrists"
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:There's a way to make progressive policies attractive to flyover country without having to go 'i'm a republican but i guess fags can marry or something (once we have determined it has become popular enough to not be seen as a political liability) Fixed
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
The thing about the d team centrists is that they're in deep blue areas like NY and CA. They have easy elections and have absolutely no need to bother but go centrist anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
The Insect Court posted:The "50 State Strategy" does not mean running one lovely candidate( hire only the people who win elections poo poo thats brilliant thread over man OP seems to have chilled out so guess we're gonna listen to stuff like The Beach Boys instead of Bullet for my Valentine. Wise choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 19:25
|
|