|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:And also lol at "you liberals." I'm a firm believer that the choice of the future is socialism or barbarism. I supported Hillary as a status quo to hopefully buy time to create a mass movement for socialism before barbarism came, but a) I was wrong about her electability and b) I was wrong as to the timeframe of when the barbarism would hit; I didn't and don't see Bernie's campaign as either a) a mass movement or b) socialist. Pffft, you're just doing all this to avoid the forced labor camp we're going to put you in, but we have a long memory 
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
Yeah, it's a bit rich for WJ to come in and declare his new-found socialist tendencies after spending the entire run-up to the election yelling 'show me the map' to Sanderistas and talking about how progressives were harming the Clinton 'movement'. Anyway, I can't wait for Obama to come back and start mouthing platitudes. quote:Barack Obama’s extended post-presidential vacation is about to end. After spending weeks in French Polynesia — including time on the yacht of the movie mogul David Geffen along with Bruce Springsteen, Tom Hanks and Oprah Winfrey — Mr. Obama will return to Chicago on Monday for his first public event as a former president.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:'show me the map' this phrase gives me ptsd
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Anyway, I can't wait for Obama to come back and start mouthing platitudes. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the left would be wise to co-opt Obama. Turn him into the left-wing version of Reagan. "Obama was a cool dude, wasn't he? We're doing what he REALLY wanted to do, but the mean ol' Republicans and Blue Dogs kneecapped him!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:IIRC, there were some states that required you to be a registered Democrat for months before the actual vote. Where such rules were in place, that definitely skewed things further toward Clinton. My gf and I live in NY, which is one of these states. She's in a younger demo and wouldn't you know her registration vanished right before the primary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Obama wanted to be president rather than doing something with the presidency. He was totally wrong that Americans wanted bipartisanship, they want winners in their politics and here we are dealing with Donald "win big league" Trump. Seriously I think we should all urge Obama just to keep with the lavish vacations and champaigning with the rich on their yachts. He was largely a failure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Many Americans do want bipartisanship, but what they mean by bipartisanship is not what the Democrats tend to pursue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I've said it before and I'll say it again: the left would be wise to co-opt Obama. Turn him into the left-wing version of Reagan. I don't disagree, but Obama would have to go along with it, and so far he's put himself in opposition (cf Tom Perez).
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:No those are just the only people who would have voted Trump instead.  Uh, you spite-voted in the election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
My state went blue and always was going to. I said as much in the third party thread. If you live in a swing state that's a different story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:My state went blue and always was going to. I said as much in the third party thread. If you live in a swing state that's a different story. said a few thousand rust belt voters
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/755967178285907968
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
democrat.txtquote:I argue in my most recent book that the American political system in fact has too many checks and balances, and should be streamlined to permit more decisive government action. Although Trump’s arrival in the White House creates huge worries about potential abuses of power, I still believe that my earlier position is correct, and that the rise of an American strongman is actually a response to the earlier paralysis of the political system. More paralysis is not the answer, despite the widespread calls for “resistance” on the left. Francis Fukuyama (a.k.a. end of history man)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
Don't think of it as paralysis. Think of it as temporarily putting the government in a straitjacket for it's own good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:My state went blue and always was going to. I said as much in the third party thread. If you live in a swing state that's a different story. Ok good so we've established that if the DNC is perceived as acting undemocratically, there will be people who, out of spite, become indifferent to Trump winning and rationalize their behavior because "my one vote won't make a difference anyway"
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ok good so we've established that if the DNC is perceived as acting undemocratically, there will be people who, out of spite, become indifferent to Trump winning and rationalize their behavior because "my one vote won't make a difference anyway" To be fair, who you vote for President in a solid blue or red state really doesn't matter (where "solid" = virtually zero chance of becoming a swing state). Driving the popular vote numbers down without actually changing the results could be viewed as a reasonable way to protest the current situation without actually aiding folks like Trump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
Voting for third parties isn't voting. Majorian posted:I've said it before and I'll say it again: the left would be wise to co-opt Obama. Turn him into the left-wing version of Reagan. Agreed. People here really give too much of a poo poo about his agenda. Who loving cares? Nobody remembers Reagan's agenda, they just have warm fuzzy feelings whenever they think of him. We should do the dsame to Obama, especially since he's charismatic enough to pull it off. I sincerely doubt he'll tar his legacy by trying to set the record straight. Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:said a few thousand rust belt voters Rust belt states do not always go blue. VitalSigns posted:Ok good so we've established that if the DNC is perceived as acting undemocratically, there will be people who, out of spite, become indifferent to Trump winning and rationalize their behavior because "my one vote won't make a difference anyway" Uhh I didn't vote third party because the DNC wasn't democratic, I voted third party because my presidential vote is pointless and a popular vote mandate and third party votes are equally worthless, but one makes you feel good. Thanks electoral college
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I've said it before and I'll say it again: the left would be wise to co-opt Obama. Turn him into the left-wing version of Reagan. I can get behind this. Hell I half suspect Obama might do it in his book in order to keep up his reputation. Maybe he'll say something about singel payer or Mdicare for all as having been impossible "then". But that people now see the truth. Or some other BS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It was easy for Republicans considering Reagan hardly knew who he was by the time he left office. Obama is of sound mind and body. It's difficult to say, but I try not to read too much ideology into Obama backing Perez like he did. While it was a cynical move that I don't particularly like, I think the idea was to have somebody who he could exert more control over than Ellison. We'll see what happens, but you are definitely correct that he is of sound mind and body - and that means he's not going to want to be on the wrong side of history. Majorian fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Many Americans do want bipartisanship, but what they mean by bipartisanship is not what the Democrats tend to pursue. Many Americans want the other party to magically start supporting all your agenda with no strings attached. Is that what you mean?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Voting for third parties isn't voting. yeah that makes sense republican voters are more responsible than third-party "voters"
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 10:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's difficult to say, but I try not to read too much ideology into Obama backing Perez like he did. While it was a cynical move that I don't particularly like, I think the idea was to have somebody who he could exert more control over than Ellison. We'll see what happens, but you are definitely correct that he is of sound mind and body - and that means he's not going to want to be on the wrong side of history. Like I said it's a nice idea, but honestly I think the best leftists can hope for is power-sharing with the Obama coalition and shutting out the Clintons for good. The idea that Obama is going to truly ally himself with leftist Democrats is fantasy, but he probably won't burn the house down before cooperating with them like the Clintons will, either. Kilroy fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:To be fair, who you vote for President in a solid blue or red state really doesn't matter (where "solid" = virtually zero chance of becoming a swing state). Driving the popular vote numbers down without actually changing the results could be viewed as a reasonable way to protest the current situation without actually aiding folks like Trump. I don't think this is immoral or anything, I just don't see it as an effective protest. Like, a lot of these sort of high-minded rationales for voting third party/not voting at all are never acknowledged in any sort of nuanced way post-election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
fsif posted:Like, a lot of these sort of high-minded rationales for voting third party/not voting at all are never acknowledged in any sort of nuanced way post-election. What do you mean? You realize your vote for President only matters in some states, right? Are you familiar with the electoral college? What does it matter if someone from massachusetts voted Hillary Clinton or wrote in Big Bird.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Look at this libertarian who doesn't believe in collective action 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Voting for third parties isn't voting. What?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Helps to view politics as a team sport. Like the election is the Super Bowl, the Dolphins aren't in it, but the Republicans are the Patriots or something so gently caress it I hope the Falcons win (lol they collapsed just like Hillary, who is bad)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
fsif posted:I don't think this is immoral or anything, I just don't see it as an effective protest. Let's be really honest, the individual vote is never acknowledged no matter what you do. Vote third party, vote for your party, cross the aisle, don't vote. No one will ever get the message you're trying to send. Even when it's really obvious with a group of individuals voting a certain way like 'traditionally democrat working class areas that were ignored by hillary and harmed by third way policy went republican because trump pretended to care about them and talked about policies that would help them', people will fall all over themselves to say that isn't what really happened. So vote however you want. The only person it matters to is the person voting. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:What do you mean? You realize your vote for President only matters in some states, right? Are you familiar with the electoral college? I'm saying that the vote for "Big Bird" in a blue state isn't meaningful as a protest exercise. It's impossible to parse out what message non-participants are trying to communicate (especially since there is no one single reason a person would not vote/vote third party). Running up the score in the popular vote doesn't do much either, but at least it adds an air of illegitimacy to Trump's presidency, as purely symbolic as that is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
fsif posted:Running up the score in the popular vote doesn't do much either, but at least it adds an air of illegitimacy to Trump's presidency, as purely symbolic as that is. Yeah I'm going to have to disagree and say they are both meaningless. a vote in california for hillary is about worth as much as jill stein getting .5% of the popular vote. (or gloria getting .01% or whatever she ended up getting) I don't really care about the legitimacy of the president bending over backwards to fellate the financial industry. Trump and Hillary still have way more in common than they disagree on. And I imagine Trump has way less ability to fight the legion of advisors and lifelong bureaucrats pushing him down the same path we're already on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
*a democrat, thinking harder than he's ever thought in his life* "elections are like... a football game"
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Helps to view politics as a team sport. What?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:What? In America we have a first-past-the-post system for voting. At this point it has essentially reached its end points, we only have two parties that really matter. Last election we saw an almost complete ruination of the green party and I expect the libertarians will follow suit in the next few elections. If you voted for this out of morality or whatever the gently caress, your vote didn't matter. If Greens didn't reach the amount of votes needed to get funding, your tiny little piss puddle of a party certainly won't. You might as well burned your ballet for all the good it did. Voting republican in a democrat state and vice versa on the other hand is a good way to show the opposing party that there is support for them there. poo poo, looking at the election results now, Kansas actually did that. Well well. Maybe there's hope for them yet. If your party cannot cohesively get together and get 5% of the popular vote, it's time to either give it up, or take a serious reconstruction of the party and the way you broadcast your message. You won't get funding, but at least it's a start. Or try to change the electoral system. At least NFS finally admits he voted third party to feel good about himself. That's more than what I get out of other third party voters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:At least NFS finally admits he voted third party to feel good about himself. That's more than what I get out of other third party voters. Finally admits? When have I ever denied it? I think the idea of a "mandate" by the popular vote to be equally worthless with a third party vote. Why not go with your conscience at that point has always been my argument. If federal elections were the only ones held I probably wouldn't even go. Voting locally matters way more Also it really doesn't matter what % of the popular vote they get either. the 8 millionth democratic vote in california matters equally as much as 1 green party vote, ie not at all
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Obama thinks the future is technocratic capitalism, and would rather see the US become more like China or Singapore than turn to democratic socialism. Sure, that's mostly what I meant. I don't particularly care what's in Obama's heart, as long as he's constructive in his role going forward, and lets the left at least pretend that they and he are on the same page. If his wing of the party wants to try to play a moderating role behind-the-scenes, that's fine - I'll take that above them just aligning themselves outright with the Clintons, Blue Dogs, etc. As you say, shutting out the Clinton loyalists in the DNC for good needs to be objective number 1. e: A very telling quote from Hillary btw - quote:You show people what you’re willing to fight for when you fight your friends. Very accurate, but probably not in the way that she thought when she initially said it. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Finally admits? When have I ever denied it? In the same post: quote:Why not go with your conscience at that point has always been my argument. You're not voting with your conscience, you're voting because it makes you feel good. If you did vote with your conscience you'd make a choice based on the voting system. Voting for third party with your conscience is disingenuous crap people tell themselves as an post-hoc justification.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/855835270704316416
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Okay, now we just need to see some follow-through.Majorian posted:Sure, that's mostly what I meant. I don't particularly care what's in Obama's heart, as long as he's constructive in his role going forward, and lets the left at least pretend that they and he are on the same page. If his wing of the party wants to try to play a moderating role behind-the-scenes, that's fine - I'll take that above them just aligning themselves outright with the Clintons, Blue Dogs, etc. As you say, shutting out the Clinton loyalists in the DNC for good needs to be objective number 1. Agree with the first bit, sorta don't have a horse in his race on the second bit. Really who gives a gently caress what Obama wants? So long as he's willing to be a symbol of what a president should be, it doesn't matter what his personal policies were. You think any Joe Sixpack Republican remembers that Reagan was for gun laws? We should do the same for Obama, he even played the part of the good president who respected the system and his opponents. He even paid for it in political power. We don't even need to create a narrative, it's basically true. Dude's charming, charismatic and genuinely loved the country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:You're not voting with your conscience, you're voting because it makes you feel good. What if these are the same thing? SSNeoman posted:If you did vote with your conscience you'd make a choice based on the voting system. I did. my vote is worthless, ergo I will not vote "strategically" because some people in other states have to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:33
|
|