|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Majorian posted:Not a terrible idea. I've been reading Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal, and one of his big points is how too much emphasis on meritocracy has hurt the Dems. Rich people go to Ivy League schools, Ivy League schools pump out politicians, those politicians swim in the same schools as other Ivy League alums, rinse and repeat. well, dems treating said institutions as meritocratic even when idiot clowns who can't work a poncho like GWB could get in speaks volumes about their delusions
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
Condiv posted:well, dems treating said institutions as meritocratic even when idiot clowns who can't work a poncho like GWB could get in speaks volumes about their delusions Yeah, but those idiot clowns went to Harvard and Yale, y'see.  (as did GWB!)So yeah, point is, I think we can all agree that the Dems' barometer for "merit" needs, uh, a little tweaking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Not a terrible idea. I've been reading Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal, and one of his big points is how too much emphasis on meritocracy has hurt the Dems. Rich people go to Ivy League schools, Ivy League schools pump out politicians, those politicians swim in the same schools as other Ivy League alums, rinse and repeat. Agreed, the first thing I look for in Democrats are the bona fides, like "killed them a bar when they were only three."
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:Agreed, the first thing I look for in Democrats are the bona fides, like "killed them a bar when they were only three." Couldn't hurt in those purple states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/328405-clinton-campaign-plagued-by-bickeringquote:“That’s not very good,” Sullivan corrected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/328405-clinton-campaign-plagued-by-bickering I loving can't wait for the Game Change book about her campaign, it must have been a dumpster fire internally. What a loving terrible human being. Like, there's no need to be an rear end in a top hat in that scenario, they're literally trying to help you win. Realize that you're stressed out, ask for a break, don't loving snap at your staffers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/328405-clinton-campaign-plagued-by-bickering Why did we have a petulant whiny child as presidential candidate? e: she probably spent all night throwing a temper tantrum when she lost. That's probably why she just told her fans to get lost Condiv fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
??? Sullivan's criticisms, and her defeat at the hands of sanders in michigan, are both clearly the result of a very malevolent strain of misogyny. I think its inspiring how she humiliated that sexist rear end when he tried to poo poo on her. What else was she supposed to do, stop being a woman?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/328405-clinton-campaign-plagued-by-bickering already have that book pre-ordered; hope it delivers because I need some Clinton campaign gossip injected directly into my eyeballs like smack
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:her defeat at the hands of sanders in michigan ... clearly the result of a very malevolent strain of misogyny unless misogyny means "being a terrible politician and person" i think you may have confused yourself a bit
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:unless misogyny means "being a terrible politician and person" i think you may have confused yourself a bit Don't feed the troll.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Are the DNC/DCCC doing anything to support Quist or are they still a waste? asking for a friend
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Don't feed the troll. Calibanibal is the best poster in this entire forum right now, actually
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Calibanibal is the best poster in this entire forum right now, actually Don't worry, I'm back.  GlyphGryph posted:Are the DNC/DCCC doing anything to support Quist or are they still a waste? asking for a friend Not finding anything. Obviously the smart thing to do would be to throw some resources that way, since the Kansas thing was not particularly a good look for the DNC. So that means...  nope.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Not finding anything. Obviously the smart thing to do would be to throw some resources that way, since the Kansas thing was not particularly a good look for the DNC. That's why this attitude of never admitting fault and constantly trying to spin your obvious gently caress-ups into some bullshit n-dimensional chess game is truly dangerous: it's not just that you don't learn anything, it's that even if you do learn a lesson it's harder to act on it because you just got done telling everyone there was no lesson and to let the experienced political masters handle it. The Democratic Party isn't going to change until it's all different people running it. Establishment Democrats would rather double-down on a failed strategy for the party, than admit an error, because the latter makes them more vulnerable to challenges within the party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Also the fact that if it is legitimately a good idea for the DNC to steer clear of these campaigns, then perhaps the DNC leadership should look into why they're apparently such an incompetent organization with such a piss-poor image that candidates who would otherwise need their help are telling them instead "nah, gently caress-all is a better deal coming from the likes of you". I'm sure the DNC establishment, like a lot of posters here, just write off the entire region as racist assholes and so that's why they can't dirty their hands with it. Whatever rationale it takes as long as the result is: never, ever change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
It begs the question that if the DNC says that any state level elections could be tarnished due to the candidate's connection to said DNC, why bother giving them my money and my votes? It is so loving weird seeing just one party pretty much openly admitting that they're poo poo, and that association is campaign poison. e:they've coasted off our garbage electoral system because they know that people like me who are continuously fed up with their dumb poo poo can't leave the party, because it's either these limp fucks or people who want to end the world PenguinKnight fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/328405-clinton-campaign-plagued-by-bickering Jesus Christ this article is infuriating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I loving can't wait for the Game Change book about her campaign, it must have been a dumpster fire internally. game change 2016 isn't coming out until prob end of the year but the book the article is excerpting from is out next week
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Typo posted:game change 2016 isn't coming out until prob end of the year but the book the article is excerpting from is out next week I have it preordered, I'll let you guys know if it delivers
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Jesus Christ this article is infuriating. quote:The blame belonged to her campaign team, she believed, for failing to hone her message, energize important constituencies and take care of business in getting voters to the polls. She is right. Obama's "ground game" was infinitely better. quote:It wasn’t just Sullivan in her crosshairs. She let everyone on her team have it that day. “We haven’t made our case,” she fumed. “We haven’t framed the choice. We haven’t done the politics.” Right again. quote:The underlying truth — the one that many didn’t want to admit to themselves — was the person ultimately responsible for these decisions, the one whose name was on the ticket, hadn’t corrected these problems, all of which had been brought to her attention before primary day. She’d stuck with the plan, and it had cost her. Campaign staff--clearly not a very good staff--playing the blame game, rephrased as prose. "Hillary made us feel bad!"  Hillary deserves blame for not firing them and doing a radical restructure when they let a one-issue candidate with no chance of victory hang around for months. They were generally taking entire constituencies for granted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:Hillary deserves blame for not firing them and doing a radical restructure when they let a one-issue candidate with no chance of victory hang around for months. They were generally taking entire constituencies for granted. This is true, although it kind of needs to be underlined how much it was in her power to do so. Hell, her freaking husband, the former (and only!) President Clinton, was saying weeks before the election, "Hey, guys? We, uh, need to...kind of step up the game in the Upper Midwest, like, yesterday." I can understand that Bill's credibility, such as it was, declined during the campaign from the already-low point it was at beforehand, but still. Dude knows how to be a populist better than Robby Mook or Jen Palmieri, come on. e: And while people like Axelrod were easy to dismiss as backseat drivers when they were saying, "Clinton might not have this thing in the bag," the fact remained: Axelrod's good at winning elections. Bill Clinton's good at winning elections. (when he's not speaking off-the-cuff and, like, high or super tired or whatever the gently caress happened) Barack Obama is good at winning elections. These are the people you should be listening to, in order to win an election. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
The article seems to indicate that Bill was a toxic influence though and was basically encouraging Hillary to place the blame anywhere but with herself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:She is right. Obama's "ground game" was infinitely better. Hillary was in charge. She had total freedom to pick her staff and sack them if she wanted to. The blame is entirely on her when she didn't take the necessary actions to improve her "ground game" or get her and her staff to make her case or any other fuckup of her campaign which, once again, she had full freedom to run as she pleased. She doesn't get to blame anybody else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:The article seems to indicate that Bill was a toxic influence though and was basically encouraging Hillary to place the blame anywhere but with herself. Cerebral Bore posted:Hillary was in charge. She had total freedom to pick her staff and sack them if she wanted to. The blame is entirely on her when she didn't take the necessary actions to improve her "ground game" or get her and her staff to make her case or any other fuckup of her campaign which, once again, she had full freedom to run as she pleased. She doesn't get to blame anybody else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Thinking about how bad the Democtatic party support network and apparatus has become really seems to contrast it with how the republicans were in the election. The republican primary looked so much more democratic and fair with over 10 different candidates, and even when trump started pulling ahead, the cries of horror from establishment republicans at least reinforced the idea that the people were voting for trump, and that the republican primary system was fair and democratic as the primary went on and establishment republicans wailed. The republicans supported their local candidates, and their party supported them better than the democrats. The democratic primary had all sorts of irregularities and shifty things going on in the primary, and the superdelagate system did not help either. Local democrats not getting support from the DNC did't help either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:She is right. Obama's "ground game" was infinitely better. She has always hired lovely people her entire career.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:She has always hired lovely people her entire career. Yeah but her dark curse is that she knows she did it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
i dunno, whoever she hired to murder vince foster did a decent (not perfect) job making it look like a suicide
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Innocent by reason of incompetence. But seriously is there any sort of even talk of backing Quince at the DNC what the gently caress is going on, my entire grassroots volunteer network is already pissed at them and threatening to walk off if the party is gonna double down on (what they see as) holding them in active contempt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Gonna be great when Ossoff misses a majority in that Georgia Congressional election this Tuesday that the Dems have been pouring money into and then loses by four in the runoff in July.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:The article seems to indicate that Bill was a toxic influence though and was basically encouraging Hillary to place the blame anywhere but with herself. *shrug* I don't care who the blamed; all they needed to do was put in a modicum of time into Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Trump wouldn't be president right now. e: I mean... quote:That back end was left to Bill, who lashed out with abandon. Eyes cast downward, stomachs turning — both from the scare tactics and from their own revulsion at being chastised for Hillary’s failures — Hillary’s talented and accomplished team of professionals and loyalists simply took it. There was no arguing with Bill Clinton. I'm not sure how much I agree with the bolded assessment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:They've kind of painted themselves into a corner with their idiotic rationale for not supporting Thompson. The first time they support a candidate in a red district the first question (and the second, and the third...) is going to be "isn't this contrary to your stated reason for not supporting Thompson?" and then the jig is up. This is a super good point. And it seems to have gone from the top down in the campaign. The bit at the end of the article: "why haven't you buried the emails!?" holy poo poo lol. Yeah, I'll get right on that, lemme just hop in my time machine to fix this little problem. They couldn't bury the email issue because she persistently refused to really take responsibility with everything short of outright denial. You violated the law, lady, you can't bury that. Not a huge law, and not something that the Trump lock her up talk in any way justified, but a law nonetheless. There are two reasons for those rules, security and accountability. The republicans beat her up on the security part. Maybe you could have shifted the conversation to the accountability part by taking some.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
The Clinton Campaign, in 6 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr7CKWxqhtw
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
The article reads like a hit piece designed to cover the campaign Management's asses. That doesn't excuse Hillary, who either hired incompetent staff or refused to listen to good staff, but the article seems like an exaggerated retelling of a story with some flourishes to make the staff look good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Klyith posted:They couldn't bury the email issue because she persistently refused to really take responsibility with everything short of outright denial. You violated the law, lady, you can't bury that. She actually didn't violate a law (a State Dept. "policy," but not a law), but by being as evasive and unclear in her response, she certainly made it seem like she had. But yeah, I agree otherwise. I mean, can you imagine how easy it would have been for her to say, "OOPS I hosed up, poo poo. Sorry, so sorry! Well, thank God no one got hurt or killed, and nothing else bad happened"? Say that from the get-go, then stonewall on it forever after: "Already apologized, go gently caress yourself."
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Majorian posted:She actually didn't violate a law (a State Dept. "policy," but not a law), but by being as evasive and unclear in her response, she certainly made it seem like she had. Ah, right. The investigations about breaking the law were all about possibly having classified stuff on the server, which was not the case. One thing I was never clear on: is the rule/policy in effect from Congress, or purely from internal state dept or executive orders in origin? Not that it matters any more, but I never knew the answer to that and so never 100% decided how I felt about the situation. Though personally, I strongly feel that gov't business should stay on gov't servers so that eventually things become a public record. Even if it takes 60 years in the current climate. quote:But yeah, I agree otherwise. I mean, can you imagine how easy it would have been for her to say, "OOPS I hosed up, poo poo. Sorry, so sorry! Well, thank God no one got hurt or killed, and nothing else bad happened"? Say that from the get-go, then stonewall on it forever after: "Already apologized, go gently caress yourself." In particular she drastically needed to change the tone of the conversations about the whole deal. She relied 100% on "I was cleared of X" when even the friendly media had to truthfully say that "she was in violation of Y". Causing massive confusion in the public about what was important and what she was or was not guilty of. To the extent that I just mis-spoke about law vs policy, though 6 months ago I think I knew it correctly. Klyith fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:*shrug* I don't care who the blamed; all they needed to do was put in a modicum of time into Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Trump wouldn't be president right now. The problem here is that the Clinton campaign put plenty of time, effort, and money into Pennsylvania (although they probably focused too much on Philadelphia and its environs rather than medium-sized cities like Scranton or Erie) and still lost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Majorian, it's okay, you can just hate them, you don't have to constantly white knight them by claiming this bullshit I used to "swim in those pools" so to speak (in this case referring specifically to "liberal wealthy business/financial professionals"), and in a way the fact that I realize they're not openly maliciously actually makes me feel more disgusted. They realize stuff like poverty is bad and genuinely want to end it, but there's no real emotional sense of urgency involved. It's easy for someone who isn't affected by issues like that to say "well, maybe it's not really necessary to increase taxes so much, if we let a bunch of Really Smart People study the issue maybe there's a more ~elegant~ solution to this problem." In a way I find "sort of caring about an issue but ultimately not being willing to make any real sacrifices to fix it" to be more off-putting than a rich person who actively wants to gently caress over the poor. A big reason that you see a lot of effort put towards social issues from younger wealthy people is that they usually personally know a bunch of minorities/women, so they have more direct empathy towards them (and it's also a nice side benefit that fixing their issues doesn't really require them to sacrifice anything). This is undoubtedly a good thing in and of itself, but I feel like it really demonstrates the disgusting tendency of humans to usually only care about the issues they're forced to directly encounter. Either way, Majorian doesn't seem to be "sympathizing" with these people so much as understanding that they aren't evil caricatures and their harmful views and actions are largely a product of their experiences and environment. This certainly doesn't excuse them, though. Majorian posted:Not a terrible idea. I've been reading Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal, and one of his big points is how too much emphasis on meritocracy has hurt the Dems. Rich people go to Ivy League schools, Ivy League schools pump out politicians, those politicians swim in the same schools as other Ivy League alums, rinse and repeat. Yeah, liberals in general seem to focus more on equal opportunity than equal outcome, which will ultimately accomplish nothing but shuffling around who lives in dire poverty. I mean, it's certainly better for people to have equal opportunity than for them to not, but it doesn't come close to solving the real problems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:The problem here is that the Clinton campaign put plenty of time, effort, and money into Pennsylvania (although they probably focused too much on Philadelphia and its environs rather than medium-sized cities like Scranton or Erie) and still lost. Welllll, you kind of put your finger on it there, though, didn't you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:24
|
|