|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
call to action posted:Give me a break, the push for prosecuting Wall Street crooks and bank/mortgage reform was at least as hard as the push for an EPA, at least to my reading of the primary sources of the time. Obama didn't do and Clinton wouldn't either. Yeah, but Nixon also had the luxury of a considerably less-politically-tribal country. What was possible then is not possible now unfortunately.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Hello Massachusetts buddy. I agree the dem party of Massachusetts are useless, with some dems floating amendments to the bill ranging from contradictory (six plants but only two ounces of flower per household), to pure "what the gently caress" such as raising the legal age to 25 for cannabis products. If you want to get involved in fixing the BadDem situation in MA I've been working hard at it and it's always nice to have more goons on board. We're currently trying to destroy the state party establishment which is chock full of unelected BadDems that can't be removed without literally amending the party charter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/19/15351888/panera-bread-ossoffquote:Top Democratic strategist Brian Fallon thinks Ossoff’s strong showing is a sign of the kind of Republican House seat that the party has the best chance to flip. Hillary Clinton’s press secretary during the presidential campaign, Fallon even coined a term for the strategy, arguing that Democrats’ path to the House “runs through the Panera Breads of America” in districts like Ossoff’s:  There is no power-sharing with centrists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/19/15351888/panera-bread-ossoff how can we increase our share of votes? let's target the 1%!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it's a good position too I don't know much about Corbyn, or U.K. politics. It is curious that when centrists talk poo poo about a leftist party leader, that's unconscionable backstabbing. But when leftists talk poo poo about a centrist party leader, don't you dare suggest they owe the party their votes or try to stifle their dissent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/19/15351888/panera-bread-ossoff So you don't want people to vote for Ossof? I literally don't understand how you could possibly be upset by the idea that they want R's that didn't vote for trump to vote for a D candidate. That's how you win R+ Districts....
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Hello Massachusetts buddy. I agree the dem party of Massachusetts are useless, with some dems floating amendments to the bill ranging from contradictory (six plants but only two ounces of flower per household), to pure "what the gently caress" such as raising the legal age to 25 for cannabis products. I'm pretty sure there's some science behind this, even if it doesn't fit into our normal scheme of adulthood rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/19/15351888/panera-bread-ossoff It's like you want to the HFC of the left. Woops, two pages open at the same time. I am chagrined.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't know much about Corbyn, or U.K. politics. It is curious that when centrists talk poo poo about a leftist party leader, that's unconscionable backstabbing. But when leftists talk poo poo about a centrist party leader, don't you dare suggest they owe the party their votes or try to stifle their dissent. this is the thread about democrats. please post in the uk thread if you wanna argue about corbyn, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I'm pretty sure there's some science behind this lol this takes the cake for the weakest attempt at appealing to authority yet in this thread "surely there must have been science involved!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't know much about Corbyn, or U.K. politics. It is curious that when centrists talk poo poo about a leftist party leader, that's unconscionable backstabbing. But when leftists talk poo poo about a centrist party leader, don't you dare suggest they owe the party their votes or try to stifle their dissent. Serious question: have you considered defecting to the GOP? You'd do better as a moderating influence in that party that you would constantly trying to drag the Dems to the right and even more in thrall to the 1%.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Maybe there's a difference between a leftist candidate for the leadership winning on a wave of popular support, then being pilloried by establishment Blairites even to the detriment of their own drat party, and a Blairite winning the leadership as though it's their birthright and doing nothing for their constituency despite insisting they're owed the votes. please argue about corbyn in the uk thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I'm pretty sure there's some science behind this, even if it doesn't fit into our normal scheme of adulthood rights. The "science" would be that the human brain typically stops developing at around 25, so therefore marijuana must be particularly dangerous before you hit 25. But not alcohol, because lol this is such a stupid loving country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's like you want to the HFC of the left. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:So you don't want people to vote for Ossof? I literally don't understand how you could possibly be upset by the idea that they want R's that didn't vote for trump to vote for a D candidate. That's how you win R+ Districts.... This indicates the Democrats haven't learned much. And they appear to be abandoning a fifty-state strategy, without which they won't win the House, and will seriously harm their chances of defeating Trump in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's like you want to the HFC of the left. Yes, God forbid there be a group of Dems that pushes the party more in-line with its voter base. (and more in-line with what most American voters want)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Condiv posted:how can we increase our share of votes? let's target the 1%! Eliminating the 1% isn't about increasing votes, it's about the changing the mouthpieces dictating the direction of economic and social policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Condiv posted:this is the thread about democrats. please post in the uk thread if you wanna argue about corbyn, thanks. I am talking about the democrats. Corbyn wins leadership election. Some centrists poo poo the bed and tear into him, tanking his popularity. He was backstabbed. Clinton wins primary. Some leftists poo poo the bed and tear into her, hurting her popularity. Nothing to see here. Personally I think making GBS threads on your own party leaders is self-destructive whether from the left or the center but that's obviously not your position. Kilroy posted:Maybe there's a difference between a leftist candidate for the leadership winning on a wave of popular support, then being pilloried by establishment Blairites even to the detriment of their own drat party, and a Blairite winning the leadership as though it's their birthright and doing nothing for their constituency despite insisting they're owed the votes. I'm pretty sure the difference is that the Labor electorate that chose Corbyn is tiny compared to the Democrat electorate that chose Clinton. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's like you want to the HFC of the left. Yes, although that would just be a start. The objective would be to get liars like you to vote GOP. Also :lol Jefferson Clay comparing people staying home because CLinton was uninspiring to Labour leadership attempting to mount a coup on their leader for not being a filthy blairite. I mean if Sander's had say tried to have his supporters prevent the Presidential convention from going on this might be comparable. But he didn't in fact unlike those labour traitors who spend their days going on British Television calling COrbyn unfit and claiming that everyone who voted for him (Over a million) are Commie entryists Sanders went on the campaign trail for Hillary. MUch of the time to the places she chose to never go to. But a sociopath like CLay needs this to validate being a sociopath. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:He says it has effectively been a test bed for the blue state model of governance and has produced an outcome that serves as a microcosm of national Democratic governance and it's outcomes. That's interesting and yeah I think you did this reproduced else where where even Republicans can contest the state like New York that had cultivated New York City and left the rest of the state to rot and decay
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's like you want to the HFC of the left. "You know those people who have dragged the nation kicking and screaming towards their ideology for the last eight years despite being a tiny fraction of the political world? Who can hold any legislation in this country hostage to their demands?" "I bet you wish you had that kind of power, you disgusting lefties"
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
I mean, how the GOP interacts with its constituency is miles better than what the Democrats do. They're starting to reverse course on that I think after all the antagonistic town halls, but this is going to be to their detriment. Ghoulish policy goals aside, the Democrats would do well to copy parts of the GOP playbook for putting together a winning coalition and creating an enthusiastic base. So far what they're doing instead is "this is the candidate we want you to vote for, now go vote for them" which hasn't worked in the past and isn't going to start working just because Trump is President. They'll pick up seats off the back of his unpopularity, but they're not going to crush it like they should.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That is literally the most infuriating thing I've ever from the entire election. Honestly that book could have ended after its first chapter, in which the entire Clinton campaign tries and fails to come up with an answer to the basic question of "so why are you running at all".
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:22
|
|
"
|
JeffersonClay posted:Personally I think making GBS threads on your own party leaders is self-destructive whether from the left or the center but that's obviously not your position. Hillary Clinton was not a leader of the Democratic party. She was a hang-on do-nothing win-nothing loser. The only thing she led was her campaign staff into disaster.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:If you want to get involved in fixing the BadDem situation in MA I've been working hard at it and it's always nice to have more goons on board. We're currently trying to destroy the state party establishment which is chock full of unelected BadDems that can't be removed without literally amending the party charter. Yes I'd be willing to help however I can. I have some experience in municipal government, for whatever it is worth which isn't much considering the horror show it tends to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Hillary Clinton was not a leader of the Democratic party. She was a hang-on do-nothing win-nothing loser. The only thing she led was her campaign staff into disaster. She won the primary dude, are you still in denial? She's not the leader now but she sure was 6 months ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Clinton wins primary. Some leftists poo poo the bed and tear into her, hurting her popularity. Nothing to see here. That's idiotic and you know it. Sanders' criticisms of Clinton were mild at most, and Trump would have made those same criticisms himself anyway. He was beating the right-wing economic populist drum long before the primaries even started. JeffersonClay posted:She won the primary dude, are you still in denial? She's not the leader now but she sure was 6 months ago. He's using "leader" to mean "someone who actually leads," not "someone who winds up in the position that should be leading."
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:"You know those people who have dragged the nation kicking and screaming towards their ideology for the last eight years despite being a tiny fraction of the political world? Who can hold any legislation in this country hostage to their demands?" Unironically this. Leftists don't get a pass on it just because I agree with them on things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:She won the primary dude, are you still in denial? She's not the leader now but she sure was 6 months ago. Winning the presidential primary (by cheating!) doesn't make you king of the democrats, it means you sabotaged your own party to put Trump in office. Hard to really call that leadership.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Unironically this. Leftists don't get a pass on it just because I agree with them on things. What you're missing is that leftist policy prescriptions are much more popular among voters than centrist ones, to say nothing of rightist ones. That's the biggest problem that the HFC poses for the Republicans: no one besides their narrow constituencies actually like their ideas. NewForumSoftware posted:Winning the presidential primary (by cheating!) I agree with everything else you're saying, but don't do this, dude. It's complete horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Unironically this. Leftists don't get a pass on it just because I agree with them on things. Someone who genuinely believes seeking to accomplish your political goals is morally suspect. Well, it explains the Hillary support, at any rate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I agree with everything else you're saying, but don't do this, dude. It's complete horseshit. It's actually not, she broke the rules multiple times and got away with it. Might not have changed the result but she still cheated. If you want to look the other way because "it wasn't that bad" feel free, Trump thank you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's actually not, she broke the rules multiple times and got away with it. Might not have changed the result but she still cheated. You literally said she won it by cheating: NewForumSoftware posted:Winning the presidential primary (by cheating!) Saying dumb things like this makes the argument that we're all trying to make look dumb. e: You know how annoying it is when Clintonistas handwave away the shittiness of her campaign and candidacy by blaming Comey and the Russians? What you're doing is the pro-Sanders version of that. Clinton won among black and Latino voters overwhelmingly for more reasons than just "cheating," and leftists need to keep working on their pitch if they want to win those demographics in the future. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's idiotic and you know it. Sanders' criticisms of Clinton were mild at most, and Trump would have made those same criticisms himself anyway. He was beating the right-wing economic populist drum long before the primaries even started. The labor backstabbers weren't making any arguments against Corbyn that the Tories hadn't already made. Suggesting a candidate is in thrall to Wall Street and cannot be trusted is not a mild criticism. quote:He's using "leader" to mean "someone who actually leads," not "someone who winds up in the position that should be leading." Ok then he's willfully misunderstanding how I was using the term leader. Corbyn and Clinton were both the person their party chose to become chief executive if they won the election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You literally said she won it by cheating: She did. The results of the votes are irrelevant, she cheated, broke the rules, and the party did nothing. She won the primary, she cheated. Really as simple as that. If she didn't need to cheat, she probably wouldn't have (although given how stupid she is it's really hard to say) JeffersonClay posted:Ok then he's willfully misunderstanding how I was using the term leader. Corbyn and Clinton were both the person their party chose to become chief executive if they won the election. Cobryn and Clinton are in completely different situations and UK politics is not US politics. She was never the leader of the Democratic party and never will be. get over it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The labor backstabbers weren't making any arguments against Corbyn that the Tories hadn't already made. Suggesting a candidate is in thrall to Wall Street and cannot be trusted is not a mild criticism. It was a criticism that Clinton left herself incredibly open to, and you're deluded if you think Trump wouldn't have made the same criticisms of Clinton if Sanders hadn't. If you want the Democrats to win the presidency again, you need to stop playing the apologist for candidates who shoot themselves in the foot this blatantly. Otherwise, it's difficult to view you as arguing in anything other than bad faith. quote:Ok then he's willfully misunderstanding how I was using the term leader. It was a turn-of-phrase, intended to show you where Clinton failed as a leader. Apparently that went way over your head. NewForumSoftware posted:She did. The results of the votes are irrelevant, she cheated, broke the rules, and the party did nothing. When you say she "won by cheating," it implies that she would not have won, had she not cheated. This is simply not the case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It was a criticism that Clinton left herself incredibly open to, and you're deluded if you think Trump wouldn't have made the same criticisms of Clinton if Sanders hadn't. He called her "Crooked Hillary" constantly. E: VVV No one in here is a "tankie" you loving moron. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Saying dumb things like this makes the argument that we're all trying to make look dumb. The arguments being made here ARE dumb. There isn't discourse here that leads to anything other than tankies getting mad that they don't have full communism now. When you find yourself on the same side of an argument as people like NewForumSoftware, maybe you should stop and think if you are on the right side.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:The arguments being made here ARE dumb. There isn't discourse here that leads to anything other than tankies getting mad that they don't have full communism now. When you find yourself on the same side of an argument as people like NewForumSoftware, maybe you should stop and think if you are on the right side. i don't think i've actually seen someone in this thread advocate for full communism now
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:The arguments being made here ARE dumb. There isn't discourse here that leads to anything other than tankies getting mad that they don't have full communism now. When you find yourself on the same side of an argument as people like NewForumSoftware, maybe you should stop and think if you are on the right side. Yes, I want Full Communism now, not a Democrat who's actually willing to fight to make the country a better place for all of it's citizens. A tankie wouldn't have voted for Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:The arguments being made here ARE dumb. Do tell. What's incorrect/dumb about our assessment that a return to Democratic principles of left-wing economic populism will be a necessary component to a Democratic victory in 2018 and 2020? quote:When you find yourself on the same side of an argument as people like NewForumSoftware, maybe you should stop and think if you are on the right side. Glass houses, bro.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:44
|
|